The Glade 4.0

One reason Lincoln was **** and deserved the bullet put in his head... He violated the constitution by deploying the military on US soil against Americans.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

This does not violate the Constitution in any way. Posse Comitatus is a federal law, not part of the Constitution, wasn't a law until after the Civil War, and only prohibits such uses of the military without Congressional authorization anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Asking questions is NOT explaining yourself. Try actually stating your OWN convictions instead of trying to force everyone through the socratic method sometime.

Aizle:

Except, it's not the Socratic Method. I asked you if you understood the very specific discussion and language I was using, because, you know, there aren't really any synonyms for field specific language sometimes. And you're still taking insult at the fact that I'd ask you if you understood what I meant.

So, I still see no point in continuing this conversation.

_________________

I don't really participate in Hellfire, but I honestly don't know any negatives about the man. I'm in the exact trap that Khross describes.

Anyone care to educate me?

Khross, you didn't ask if I was understanding field specific language until a couple posts after your "insulting" statements. If they weren't meant that way, then I apologize for having a thin skin and no harm no foul.

The fact of the matter is that you haven't stated what your opinions on the matter are, only asked questions that lead one to believe you disagree vehemently with any of my statements. Further, you haven't answered why it is that while we are both supposedly subject to the pressures of our environs, you have somehow come to a different (and apparently "correct") understanding of Lincoln that I have.

So help me Khross. Help me understand what your position is. And do it without asking a question. Make a statement. I'm actually very much interested in your take on it. However, I am not particularly interested in answering a bunch of questions in order to guess at what your real stance is.

Aizle:

He can't. He attempted to ascertain your level of comprehension, and found it insufficient to the task. If you're not interested in answering a bunch of questions, you're probably not interested in doing the requisite research, either. And obviously you're also not interested in his take on it, because if you were you would have by now educated yourself sufficiently to answer the questions he has previously posed to you.

_________________

I'll educate you that a lot of the 'negatives' I consider pretty positive. It's a matter of perspective. My perspective is, if what he did was so bad, the south should have done a better job of not getting its *** kicked.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, I'll form my own opinions; I just want to know what's being referenced.

Pretty much everything Lincoln did in regard to the Civil War.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

These would be common points:
Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus; when the federal courts ordered Lincoln to stop suspending habeas corpus (Ex Parte Merryman, 1861) he ignored their orders (another violation of the constitution). Lincoln had many newspapers shut down, and reporters arrested, violating the freedom of the press. Lincoln ordered a federal judge (William Matthew Merrick) placed under house arrest in 1861 for issuing a contempt of court order against a general who was conscripting underage minors into his army. Lincoln allowed several of his Generals to commit war crimes against civilians and POWs without repurcussion. Lincoln arrested and deported ex-Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham, a leader of the northern anti-war faction and the Democratic candidate for Governor of Ohio. Lincoln believed that emancipation had to be accompanied by colonization (Confiscation Act of 1862) - deporting freed slaves back to Africa and to colonies in the Caribbean. Lincoln attempted several colonization efforts during the Civil War, during these efforts, many starved to death.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

My perspective is, this is pretty much the stupidest thing you've ever said. "If what men who beat their wives do is so wrong, then the women should have done a better job of not getting their asses kicked." **** stupid.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Nations aren't people. The same rules don't apply. I've made myself extremely clear on this.

There's also the absurdity of painting the South as an abused wife and the North as an abusive husband.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The only absurdity here is your conflating moral correctness with winning wars.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm not. I don't subscribe to your asstastic morality.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Where I'm getting hazy is here, where you said this:



And as to the rest of it, what my morality is, asstastic or otherwise, has nothing to do with your above statement.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Let me make this perfectly clear:

If the South, in deciding to make itself an independant nation, believed that there would be a war with the North (which it reasonably should have) then it had precisely one moral obligation: win the war. The only moral imperative a government has is to protect the interests of its citizens, which necessarily and before all other means of doing so, includes defending against outside attack and maintaining territorial integrity. That's the reason governments exist.

By failing to do so, the Confederacy failed in its moral imperative. The North, from its perspective that the South was an area in rebellion, succeeded in its moral imperative of defending its interests by maintaining its territorial integrity.

That's the way it works with all international conflicts. The rightness or wrongness of a nation's actions are determiend by whether they are in the interests of its citizens. This is why most conquests fail the test; once you destroy another nation and make it yours, the people there are now your citizens; you have to have a method for making them coequal with the ones you already had or you're not representing the interest of your citizens, only some of them.

The reason for what I said is simple: Since the South lost, it doesn't matter what it thought was moral or not. It's not running anything now. I don't have any problem with anything the North did. They won, and now Southern citizens (and even more importantly the descendants of slaves) are coequal citizens. From my personal perspective everything's fine, and while some of you may disagree I don't see anyone pressing the 'reset history' button any time soon.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, that's **** retarded. It's your responsibility to make your point and say something. If the person's "comprehension" is not adequate, they will ask for clarifications on what you wrote. It's obnoxious in the extreme to enter a thread and quiz someone without making a point. The narcissism behind the idea that everyone is so gung ho to hear what you have to say that they will follow this process is astounding.

So says the guy who just recently was shitting on about 5 of us for not "getting" his point. I believe it was the immigration reform thread, not sure though.

Nevertheless, your hypocrisy is showing.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

This is absolutely **** retarded.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Arathain:

While an admirable defense of ignorance, your assertion has some problems. First, that Khross neither made points nor (substantial) statements. Second, that a knowledge gap can be overcome without willful effort by the less knowledgeable party. Third, that questions themselves are incapable of making a point.

_________________

Bullshit, he dodged my real question, hiding behind big language and questions like he always does.

He hasn't made a statement of his position in this whole **** thread. Frankly, he should lay out his opinion and if I'm confused by something he said, I'll either ask for clarification or look it up.

Aizle:

I made my point. And I'm not hiding behind anything.

Who you are, what you are ... these things are not progressive. You are not in control of your identity. You are the product of your society, just as constituents are the product of their governments. Identity is regressive. I've said this a dozen times. You said you disagreed. I pointed out you're holding onto the first and most egregious sociopolitical more of the United States: that it's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And to top it all off, you took it as an insult.

So, then I asked you if you understood what I meant by social constructivism and phenomenology, and you got all up on your high horse. So, no, I'm not hiding behind ****.

Arathain:

I made my point and stated my opinion rather bluntly multiple times in this thread.

_________________

Whatever makes you feel better.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, Arathain's point is that Khross didn't make any points, so I don't quite see how that is a problem.

Also, while you are right that questions can't make a point by themselves, it is possible to use rhetorical questions as a device to illustrate a point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."