big government

[Neutron]

Yet..

So you see it was in the interest of the british to encourage the south to secede ; because , presumably it would increase their trade with the south , without the protective tariff imposed by the north. At the same time they were financing the war effort in the north thru the City Of London bankers in a perfect Hegelian dialectic ( problem- reaction- solution ). They played both ends against the middle insuring their profit either way.

They never chose to recognize the South and treated the Southern Commerce raiders as pirates.

Sory, you're wrong. Do you have a DECENT RESPECTED source to back up your babble?

 

[Goodieluver]

They never chose to recognize the South and treated the Southern Commerce raiders as pirates.

Sory, you're wrong. Do you have a DECENT RESPECTED source to back up your babble?

They did have relations with the south, and sent aid to them during it. The reason they never recognized the south as a nation because when the emancipation proclamation was declared, it made the war about slavery, and England backed off because they did not want to be seen as a Father nation and at the time a superpower, endorsing slavery. There was an incident where a British mail steamer was taken by the union navy and two confederate ambassadors were on it. This action known as the trent affair nearly caused Britian to send 100,000 troops to the canadian border in response to feeling their honor was challenged by the ship being stopped and borded and because they wanted the confederate ambassadors released and they were released after the fear of britian massing forces and canada massing its militia's.

 

[Hungarian21]

wow, this thread is getting interesting...I've read 3 posts, and am already lost. XD

 

[august spies]

Save the self-pitying martyr act. People who believe in the violent overthrow of civilized society should be monitored. They are usually paranoid and delusional, and this sometimes makes them dangerous. They are also obnoxious and annoying, but that is more of a nuisance than anything else.

If you were being "oppressed," by the way, you would already be in prison or some sort of camp. The free speech you are currently enjoying is protected by the very government you profess to hate. You are a perfect example of someone who lacks a firm grip on reality, and thinks the world is out to get him. Don't worry: Most of your sort eventually grow out of it.

you dont understand what free speech is and your definition of "opression" is very narrow and not held by a vast majority of people. freedom is the ability to voice a political opinion contary to those in power without fear of retribution by the government. whether its them spying on you, or putting you in prison. that free speach, which is being taken away more and more, is not and has never been a result of government.

if you believe in the police you believe in violence, and if you believe in this government than you believe in violence on a massive scale. its not up to you to decide what "civilization" is. i think you are very uncivilized.

 

[jj82277]

the afformentioned article is much too long and trite for me to take it point by point,, but first and foremost, if there was no written record of the meeting then the exact terms of the confrence would be in debate, but i will respond

I'm inclined to agree with neutron about the article offered by plumor, i could sense in the words that it would eventually sink into a rant, but i didnt think that it would be like that. The loss of liberty caused by the civil war. I dont really feel all that less free because Florida wont risk its own distuction over fucking orange juice import taxes

I find it the miscourse of most people who offer such disperaging remarks about wars to focus more on the specific problem than the overall hostility surrounding a situation that causes military conflict. In what i have learned about the subject and just in my own personal gut feeling the war between the states was basically inevidable. ever since we put together our own government the big argument was states rights, versus national authority, lets not forget, the marijuana of revisionist history is the correct reporting that it could be considered that George Washington was not the first president of the united states, and that in fact the us started out under the articles of oh whats this thats right CONFEDERATION, the group of old drunken guys that wrote what we know as the consitution (im pretty sure that it was the sons of liberty, but history class was a long time ago for me boys) knew that drafting and proposing such a document could have sparked an armed conflict just for talking about it so the first thing they did when they sobered up was to arm themselves and prepare for the potential of gunplay at that point in time, lucky for them at the time they controlled the press so they got enough votes to get it passed yada yada yada, but the key pint is that the issue was never resolved, certain people still felt certain ways about certain things, and you know that tense look at family reunions, u know im not the only one who gets them thats what i imagine it to be like on the senate floor at that time. and when the south seceeded what government did they propose thats right confederation. dont loose the fact (and i know its hard with all this boring talk about tariffs) that back then you thought of yourself as a Floridian first, not as an American First. or a Virginian, or someone like that. so the perception of for average person in most cases of the federal government and the president was jsut as it was for the colonies and king george before the rev. war, a far off power telling them what to do, i knotice in the article provided that the secession attempts of new england, none happened after the war, why, because there were consequences. okay, slavery wasnt the main main thing, but in my oppinion it might not have been the greatest accomplishment of the armed military action of the late 1800's, now when you look around in america we are a truly united states, all the citizens for the most part think of themselves as Americans first. had there never been a military action to clean out all the bad blood we would not be the last remaining superpower on earth. a house divided can not fall, so on and so forth, but the thing in my oppinion that still classifies Abe as a great president is the fact that even reported above that he would not waiver on the unification of this nation long term and forever and under even an adopted flag of just cause.
and as to the commitment of the Linclon administration to end slavery on a genuine level, the tlaking points of a confrence that coulsd have saved countless american lives should not necessarily indicate anything to the contrary. the carrot of the south not having to bow down and abolish slavery by force and then the offer of 400 million (half a trillion in todays dollars) would have given the southern delegates the ability to sve face with their constituents and make the ucs not seem so much like a ucs, but i still think that half a trill is a pretty good commitment, and the end would have been met, politics is politics then or now right.

 

[Goodieluver]

you dont understand what free speech is and your definition of "opression" is very narrow and not held by a vast majority of people. freedom is the ability to voice a political opinion contary to those in power without fear of retribution by the government. whether its them spying on you, or putting you in prison. that free speach, which is being taken away more and more, is not and has never been a result of government.

if you believe in the police you believe in violence, and if you believe in this government than you believe in violence on a massive scale. its not up to you to decide what "civilization" is. i think you are very uncivilized.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and it never has been.

and since u believe in anarchy, what do you believe in? Also, should a "revolution" or uprising happen, wouldnt that lead to MASSIVE violence?

Order is needed and order is provided by the government. CIVILIZATION is too corrupt in itself to be expected to look after themselves.

 

[TheChameleon]

I think we should all live in small hippy communities with happy get togethers at times. When two boys in "highschool" have an issue, let 'em put on gloves and get it over with. Bar fights shouldn't be somethin' to call the cops for... let society deal with itself. Guns in themselves have started to be used in massive scales, but remember the days when A war with words could easily be ended with A few fists to the jaw? Jeez... I miss the 1950s... (I'm hella only 20 years old, too)

 

[asutickler1]

you dont understand what free speech is and your definition of "opression" is very narrow and not held by a vast majority of people. freedom is the ability to voice a political opinion contary to those in power without fear of retribution by the government. whether its them spying on you, or putting you in prison. that free speach, which is being taken away more and more, is not and has never been a result of government.

if you believe in the police you believe in violence, and if you believe in this government than you believe in violence on a massive scale. its not up to you to decide what "civilization" is. i think you are very uncivilized.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Voicing a political opinion is one thing. Joining some sort of violence-prone group is quite another. Many anarchist groups are no different from the Klan, EarthFirst, or other violent nut-groups. Free speech isn't a result of the government? Think about this the next time you're out at some asinine protest with your little anarchist buddies: The government is what keeps passers-by from beating you up if they disagree with your opinion.

Your whole "if you believe in the police you believe in violence" spiel is an utter crock. Civilized society requires a means of enforcing decent conduct amongst its citizens. There is no such thing as sustainable anarchy: Even if you could dissolve the world's governments, eventually people would band together for mutual protection, and eventually a form of governance would evolve all over again.

You think I'm uncivilized? You want to plunge the world into a lawless, might-makes-right dark age. Dick Cheney looks like a saint compared to someone with your nihilistic political views...

 

[plumr2003]

They never chose to recognize the South and treated the Southern Commerce raiders as pirates.

Sory, you're wrong. Do you have a DECENT RESPECTED source to back up your babble?

I don't understand how it is you never heard of this . It's not revisionist history it was taught as curriculum. Were you educated in the UK, if so why don't you go back.

 

[Wade1]

Free speech isn't a result of the government? Think about this the next time you're out at some asinine protest with your little anarchist buddies: The government is what keeps passers-by from beating you up if they disagree with your opinion.

True, but that doesn 't have anything to do with legal protection of freedom of speech, right? It has to do with legal prohibition of assault.

The First Amendment doesn't protect your freedom of speech from being infringed upon by passersby; it protects your freedom of speech from being infringed upon by the government.

Just sayin'...

 

[jj82277]

oh okay that explains a lot, the UK gotcha

 

[TheChameleon]

Woah... I think this is turning into A mild-flame war on some ends...

 

[plumr2003]

oh okay that explains a lot, the UK gotcha

Was this for response for me. If so let me know what you mean by it I left my crystal ball in the other room.

 

[jj82277]

feeble attmepts at hannitain comedy, my best friend is from the UK, i was just trying to be funny

 

[Betchass1]

wow, this thread is getting interesting...I've read 3 posts, and am already lost. XD

Yeah, it's beyond interesting. It's interesting almost to the point of being uninteresting.

 

[august spies]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Voicing a political opinion is one thing. Joining some sort of violence-prone group is quite another. Many anarchist groups are no different from the Klan, EarthFirst, or other violent nut-groups. Free speech isn't a result of the government? Think about this the next time you're out at some asinine protest with your little anarchist buddies: The government is what keeps passers-by from beating you up if they disagree with your opinion.

Your whole "if you believe in the police you believe in violence" spiel is an utter crock. Civilized society requires a means of enforcing decent conduct amongst its citizens. There is no such thing as sustainable anarchy: Even if you could dissolve the world's governments, eventually people would band together for mutual protection, and eventually a form of governance would evolve all over again.

You think I'm uncivilized? You want to plunge the world into a lawless, might-makes-right dark age. Dick Cheney looks like a saint compared to someone with your nihilistic political views...

first off where have a world with no laws and it is ruled by might makes right.

my "if you believe in the police you belive in violence" pointt is not is not a crock, its true. violence is violence. when people have protests it is the governments that beat them, not other citizens, especially at the global level.

2ndly, you have no understanding of anarchism as a political theory what so ever. it is the want of a society where people band together for mutual gain, through democratization of the political and economic powers. it is against might makes right and the tryanny of government.

it is also leftist in nature hence it is nothing whatsoever like paramilitary organizations such as the klan. it is anti racist and always has been. if you knew your history you would know it was an anti racist movement at a time when racism in this country was at its highest. thats why anarchist like groups (like the union the stripper is in) used to be attacked by the klan.

 

[Goodieluver]

first off where have a world with no laws and it is ruled by might makes right.

my "if you believe in the police you belive in violence" pointt is not is not a crock, its true. violence is violence. when people have protests it is the governments that beat them, not other citizens, especially at the global level.

2ndly, you have no understanding of anarchism as a political theory what so ever. it is the want of a society where people band together for mutual gain, through democratization of the political and economic powers. it is against might makes right and the tryanny of government.

it is also leftist in nature hence it is nothing whatsoever like paramilitary organizations such as the klan. it is anti racist and always has been. if you knew your history you would know it was an anti racist movement at a time when racism in this country was at its highest. thats why anarchist like groups (like the union the stripper is in) used to be attacked by the klan.

Um, when the clan or other racist or extreme left or right wing group marches, its usually the government PROTECTING their right to protest and its the citizens who are restrained from murdering these people

2nd on anarchy, tyranny of government, what makes you so sure that these people banning together would not result in a tyranny as well? Hell, the first great city states of the world formed as a band of people and grew into a town, then city, then empire(see:rome). By people banding together you consolidate a political belief\idea. Hence how anarchy is a vicious circle which is self defeating.

 

[Betchass1]

It to be a good starting point. But write a paper and use info obtained off the net and a decent professor will throw it out.

You can find stuff with it, but not do any serious research with it.

Some professors definitely don't like the internet, but that doesn't mean they know anything about it.
It is not hard to cross-check, to determine the feasibility of things online. It's far easier than it is to fact-check anything on TV. The internet is also far harder for anyone to control. But you can't tell me the websites of the Department of Justice, NASA, the math faculty at MIT, and the Mayo Clinic are all completely worthless sources. You can also find a plethora of doctoral dissertations and academic papers that are more useful than many books. Not to mention the huge amount of literature that is being made available online.
For my own field of study, musical tuning, print books are hard to find and all limited in viewpoint. They are definitely not scientific. I also don't know any library in my state that has all of them. However, the community of experts online knows something about everything, and is willing to share it with anyone willing to put in the time. The internet is just more demanding. No serious scholar would dismiss it.

 

[asutickler1]

first off where have a world with no laws and it is ruled by might makes right.

I'm sure. What world do YOU live in?

my "if you believe in the police you belive in violence" pointt is not is not a crock, its true. violence is violence. when people have protests it is the governments that beat them, not other citizens, especially at the global level.

Yeah... When they turn into violent, rock-tossing mobs. Personally, if some protest was blocking traffic or something, I'd LOVE to see the police break it up. The American government only forcibly break up protests that violate the law in some fashion. Most of the protests put on by anarchist groups and their ilk HAVE to break the law, because they have so few members that its tough to get noticed.

2ndly, you have no understanding of anarchism as a political theory what so ever. it is the want of a society where people band together for mutual gain, through democratization of the political and economic powers. it is against might makes right and the tryanny of government.

You apparently have no understanding of human nature whatsoever. Do you honestly think people are going to just band together and do what's best for everyone? No. The majority of people in this world look out for themselves first. (Why do you think Communism wasn't a raging success?) Without some sort of control mechanism, people will do what they feel is best without regards to the wants and needs of others... Even if it means killing, stealing, or etc. Only the very strongest will benefit from a lawless environment... Which is why it is always only a matter of time until someone establishes control all over again.

it is also leftist in nature hence it is nothing whatsoever like paramilitary organizations such as the klan. it is anti racist and always has been. if you knew your history you would know it was an anti racist movement at a time when racism in this country was at its highest. thats why anarchist like groups (like the union the stripper is in) used to be attacked by the klan.

Your understanding of political theory is somewhat lacking. Anarchists may not be racists, but they are extremists, just like the members of the Klan. Their tactics, methods, and "everyone's out to get us" mentality is distinctly similar to the Klan. When you get right down to it, the crackpots on the extreme left and the crackpots on the extreme right are more similar to each other than they are to the mainstream.

 

[plumr2003]

Does this give any one else cause for concern 😛atriot Act Abuse
James Moore, the co-author of the bestseller "Bush's Brain," about the relationship between the president and Karl Rove, has been placed on Homeland Security's "no fly" list and is now prohibited from flying on commercial aircraft in the US, or from leaving the country via aircraft.

This list is supposed to be used to restrict the movement of people under investigation for possible links to terrorism. Individuals placed on it have no recourse, may not be told why they have been put on it, and may not sue for having been put on it.

Its abuse for political reasons weakens what should be an important part of our country's defense against terrorism, and, as this abuse is apparently widespread, is likely to lead to congress significantly revising the act when it comes up for review in a few weeks.

During 2005, the "no fly" list grew from 35,000 names to 80,000 names. How many of these people are terror-connected and how many, like Mr. Moore, have simply annoyed officials, cannot, under the terms of the present act, be known.

:

 

[jj82277]

wow, and no new buildings knocked down, i think its a smashing success, thanks for the info plumr. I think this is just another smashing example of why this administration has lead the way in being proactive about preventing terrorist acts in this country. we are not the greatest country because we are perfect, we are thegreatest country because there is none better.

 

[plumr2003]

We have to be careful here jj82277 while loyalty to a govt. is admirable it can be misused by the powers that be as has been evidenced by most of the past administrations. Freedoms given up are almost impossible to regain and this country always prided itself ( rightfully so ) on the rights granted to it's citizens. Thats why everyone from more stalinest govts. want to come here. If Bush is so worried by terrorist infiltration why did he criticize the Minutemen Border Patrol carried out by true patriots worried about our country's border. Why did he cut the Border Patrols budget in 2004. It doesn't add up.

 

[Wade1]

we are not the greatest country because we are perfect, we are thegreatest country because there is none better.

I would argue that it's incumbent upon us not to jeopardize that greatness by deciding that the ends justify the means.

 

[Betchass1]

wow, and no new buildings knocked down, i think its a smashing success, thanks for the info plumr. I think this is just another smashing example of why this administration has lead the way in being proactive about preventing terrorist acts in this country. we are not the greatest country because we are perfect, we are thegreatest country because there is none better.

You can never make terrorism impossible. This administration's reasoning is to drive as many people as possible to want to become terrorists, so we can throw more money into trying to hunt them.
The big evil mastermind himself came right out and told everyone he was trying to get the US to bankrupt itself seeking him out. He did it successfully with the USSR. Bush and Kerry both responded by not addressing a word he said.

 

[Goodieluver]

You can never make terrorism impossible. This administration's reasoning is to drive as many people as possible to want to become terrorists, so we can throw more money into trying to hunt them.
The big evil mastermind himself came right out and told everyone he was trying to get the US to bankrupt itself seeking him out. He did it successfully with the USSR. Bush and Kerry both responded by not addressing a word he said.

Just to argue, US wont go bankrupt to hunt down Osama\Al Queda, USSR was in shambles, hence why it was even fighting rebels in that region and some of its other now sattelite countries. Also, as far as know, they are not reciving any bankrolling from a major nation. Back then we aided the rebels to fight the soviets. Terrorism is more of a danger in europe and asia rather than here, i thank god we dont have the level of suicide bombers like the palestinians have(Hamas)