Abe Lincoln is more of a let-down than Obama even - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13806180
QatzelOk wrote:Examples: American dollars, Euros, Yen

I've got money in my pocket right now but mysteriously it can't even buy me a fraction of total invisibility.

You have no evidence. Using the approach you've employed we could substitute "alien lizard replicants" for big banks and still be in the same situation. Actually no, because the space lizards would by their description at least explain how they are able to go unnoticed. Goldman Sachs on the other hand is a huge corporate entity with a significant media profile and many many employees. Somehow nothing ever leaks though.
#13806640
Goldman Sachs on the other hand is a huge corporate entity with a significant media profile and many many employees. Somehow nothing ever leaks though.

Your suggestion that Goldman Sachs is no closer to control of the world than space lizards is not very convincing, Smilin Dave.

It's obvious that this bank has enough money to pay for a lot of propaganda, bribes or whatever it needs to grow its power. That I can't provide "proof" that they do this is because if I had proof, they wouldn't be able to do it anymore.

They have enough money to cover up these actions as well.

Lack of proof of the logistics of a swindle is NOT proof that the swindle hasn't taken place.

Hey, do you have any proof that Obama gave all your tax dollars to the banksters? Or should I ask, what would it take to convince you that this has taken place? I mean, it was in all the newspapers, and yet no one believes it because The Emperor would never do something like that.
#13806717
QatzelOk wrote:It's obvious that this bank has enough money to pay for a lot of propaganda, bribes or whatever it needs to grow its power.

You have no evidence of bribes, and by their nature bribes are hard to cover up since they require an outside partie's involvement and for them to act in some way. Simply having money does not make one corrupt.

QatzelOk wrote:That I can't provide "proof" that they do this is because if I had proof, they wouldn't be able to do it anymore.

The mafia payed many bribes, everyone knew this, and yet they continue to exist and pay bribes.

QatzelOk wrote:Lack of proof of the logistics of a swindle is NOT proof that the swindle hasn't taken place.

It is not proof it has taken place either. It is simply an idea, not a fact as you seem to assert.

QatzelOk wrote:Hey, do you have any proof that Obama gave all your tax dollars to the banksters?

I'm not an American, so I don't think Obama has ever touched my taxes :lol:

Given there are alternative reasons to explain why presidents give money/other incentives to 'banksters' (eg. a wrong-headed attempt to prop up the economy), this still isn't evidence of bribery.
#13807071
Smilin Dave wrote:The mafia payed many bribes, everyone knew this, and yet they continue to exist and pay bribes.

The illegal mafia get caught. The legal mafia can't afford to get caught because it would damage the fake legitimacy they have constructed with sponsorship of media lies.

I'm not an American

I always thought you were American by the way you reason.
#13807191
QatzelOk wrote:I always thought you were American by the way you reason.

Clearly your powers of observation failed you miserably. Having shown your logical failings at great length, I'm done with this particular thread. I'm sure we can have this same boring argument again in a month or so when you get bored or whatever it is that triggers these outbursts of nonsense.
#14253914
dgun wrote:Our federal system frequently throws people off. Since the founding of our republic, there has been an ongoing conflict between those who prefer a strong central government versus those who prefer more local control.

No there hasn't. I would suggest that an examination of the record shows that no one really cares about the strength of the Federal government in general. So the classic example is the way the Confederacy reduced the rights of States to abolish slavery. But of course we've already seen this with fugitive slave laws. The Southerners gave no more of a hoot for States rights than the northerners. But we see this on virtually every issue. The anti gay marriage people didn't care about states rights when they were in a nationwide majority, but as they move into a minority expect all the usual states rights waffle to come out.

The American Constitution is naturally structured to create big government. Because the one power the Federal government doesn't have is to limit the power of the States to tax. Its different in the Britain. Particular in the 1980s it was the central Tory government that used the power of central government to limit local government revenue raising. If the American Federal government could limit the revenue raising of the states I'm sure you'd find American Conservatives would lose a lot of their enthusiasm for limiting the Federal governments power.
#14261449
Rich wrote:No there hasn't.


This is an old thread but ...

See:
Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate and the tremendous amount of case law on the subject. It also comes up constantly in American politics.

If the American Federal government could limit the revenue raising of the states I'm sure you'd find American Conservatives would lose a lot of their enthusiasm for limiting the Federal governments power.


Not really. Conservatives really don't care about low taxes in general. They only care about low taxes for themselves. Besides that, conservatives have a tremendous amount of power at the state level.

But you're point I think is that American conservatives are not necessarily for small government, and I agree 100%. And that the states rights argument is a red herring most of the time? Also, completely agree. In particular it was such in the Civil War.
#14263045
Using the American definition of the word, dgun wrote:Conservatives really don't care about low taxes in general. They only care about low taxes for themselves. Besides that, conservatives have a tremendous amount of power at the state level.

This is why I don't think these people should be called conservatives.

Selfishness isn't the same thing as conservatism at all.

Perhaps this strain of American Liberalism ought to rename itself "Selfishists."

Or would that be too transparent?
#14265103
QatzelOk wrote:"]I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people;

and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858
...

This quote suggests that the "emancipation" of black slaves after the Civil War was really about throwing cheap labor at Northern industrialists. You know, the ones who could afford to buy any war they wanted.

Rich Americans, killing their own kind for profit.



This thread shouldn't be here, but then no-one has bothered to make a 'modern' sub forum.

Anyway, the attitude of Lincoln changed dramatically from the date of the above quote and the weeks preceding the first draft of the Emancipation proclamation.
Initially, Lincoln was only interested in preserving the Union - when war broke out - and if Union meant the continuance of slavery then so be it. It was only through the war's progression and pressure from abolitionists like Douglass and radical Republicans (even some Democrats) that the president's modified his stance. The end of slavery became non-negotiable in any peace settlement, for Lincoln, from 1863 onward. He finally saw that emancipation was a prerequisite for effective reconstruction of the South. We can't speculate how reconstruction would have played out had Lincoln not been assassinated, but it is fair to say that it would have been different from how Johnson and the radicals oversaw reconstruction, although i still think it would have failed...eventually.
#14265718
ACV wrote:The end of slavery became non-negotiable in any peace settlement, for Lincoln, from 1863 onward. He finally saw that emancipation was a prerequisite for effective reconstruction of the South.

So, while he didn't personally think that blacks were totally equal and supported an apartheid system, Lincoln went along with "emancipation" as a way of destroying the South's economy and as a way of villainizing the South in order to drum up support for killing Southerners back home.

Also, let me offer you an improvement on your last sentence: He finally saw emancipation was a prerequisite for effective destruction of the South.

That's all the whole "free the slaves" thing was for him: a means to destroy a culture and appropriate cheap factory labor.

What a let-down. Even Obama isn't as superficially nice/deeply evil as this hateful man was.

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]