This argument that just because someone was elected he isn't a dictator is facetious at best, esp. when it was with virtually half the country clamoring for secession.
Now, I'm not saying Lincoln was a dictator. I am, however, saying that your above logic is flawed.
mamatried said:
Where in the world do you get this assumption that slaves would have "inevitably rebelled"? Just from an economic standpoint, slavery was not a sustainable enterprise, and countries other than the U.S. realized this quickly enough. Spain, England, France, Denmark, etc. all were able to end slavery peacefully, without the need for any civil wars, due to this underlying economic truth. The majority of these countries, in fact, peacefully abolished slavery much earlier than the U.S. did. Refer to the following timeline for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
So yes, the purpose of the Civil War didn't lie in freeing the slaves, but to destroy the secessionist movement (or, as you'd prefer to call it, to "preserve the Union"). Never mind that over 600,000 people (or the proportionate equivalent of 5-6 million people today) had to die.
In spite of what you'd like to believe, what remained is NOT the Union as it originally existed, because the Union was voluntarily formed. After the Civil War, this Union was proven to be no longer voluntary. The Civil War wasn't exactly an example of the US being the "beacon and defender of freedom" as you'd fondly like to spin it.
Where in the world did you get the idea that I said any of those things you say that I said?
I never said that dictators couldn't be elected. I said that dictators don't run for REELECTION in fair and open elections. Unless maybe you're one of those folks who really believe that 99.9% of the Iraqi people actually wanted Saddam Hussein as their leader.
Your argument about other countries abolishing slavery before we did makes my point. The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment ended slavery. Without the Civil War, there is no evidence that it would have ended anytime soon. There is tons of evidence that the slaves would have rebelled - they were starting to before the Civil War. Nat Turner was the most famous example, and had secession succeeded the northern states, particularly the freed slaves in those states, would certainly have agitated for, incited, and supported continued revolts in the south. (Had the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s not passed, it is almost certain that widespread racial violence and rebellion would ensued then, as well.)
And I never said that the Civil War was an example of the US being a "beacon and defender of freedom". My point was that the resulting union became just that, and it is chilling to think what the world would have become without the United States' economic, technological, and political leadership, particularly in the 20th century.
It seems you didn't get the point of my post with respect to this issue, so let me spell it out. Among the first things Lincoln supporters (or "Lincoln cultists" as some would have it) spew out of their collective mouths at the first sign of dissent is, "but he was REELECTED!" But again, given that half the country was basically in secession at that point, it makes the whole situation somewhat less than, say, "fair and open."
I don't get where you came up with this Iraqi analogy out of the blue, but then again, perhaps you're one of those people who believe that Iraq has actually had a "fair and open" election after the US invasion.
And again, it seems that you missed the part of my post where I clearly stated that I'm not saying Lincoln was a dictator. I don't think he was, at least not consciously, and moreover I don't particularly care about that one way or another. None of my main points in the previous post is contingent in any way upon the resolution of that meaningless question.
lol?
The reality of the situation, which most other countries realized well before the U.S., was that slavery was not economically sustainable. The majority of other countries around the world ended slavery peacefully due to this underlying reason, and it is ridiculous to say that the U.S. couldn't have found a way to do so as well - unless you think that there is some underlying sociological or intellectual disability the U.S. suffered from that made the U.S. inherently inferior to countries like France regarding this issue.
Only on paper, but go on.
The fact the the majority of the entire world abolished it without any wars well before the U.S. certainly constitutes evidence that it can be done. Now, if you're arguing that the U.S. could not follow in the footsteps of those other countries due to some circumstances that were unique to the U.S. only, then feel free to explicate. Otherwise, you'll just have to pardon me when I reject the logical conclusion of your contention that the U.S., and ONLY the U.S., could not have found a way to abolish slavery without killing the equivalent of 5-6 million Americans today.
And how does this make the U.S. situation any more unique than those of the other countries who ended slavery peacefully? Do you think that no other countries experienced ANY slave uprising ever? Are you seriously saying that having to put up with some possible slave uprisings would have been worse than killing off over 600,000 of your own people? For example, Denmark had experienced slave rebellions of its own, and still found a way to emancipate the slaves - in 1848 no less - without a civil war. So the U.S. was inferior to countries like Denmark in this regard, and in your mind there was just no chance it could have approached things a little bit differently?
And besides, slavery by its very nature is violence incarnate. Citing the possibility of violent slave uprising against the perpetuation of this violent practice as justification (or at the very least excuse) for the greatest violence of them all - the Civil War - is truly lol.
No comment.
No, it's not that at all. Until there's enough movement to the third-parties where it looks like they have a chance to win, nobody is going to vote for them. The person needs to be articulate and present himself well.
Ross Perot nearly stole the thunder from everybody in 1994 and he was a a whacko kookburger.. His agenda included Eliminating Government Spending/Lowering Taxes, Pro-Choice, Pro-War On Drugs, Pro-Gun Control, Protectionism, Pro-Whacko Environmentalist... The most important thing in his favor was, he had the money. If a cornucopia of positions like this can garner 19% of the vote, I have no doubt it's possible for another independent to swoop in.
Ron Paul has some good ideas but isn't articulate and he looks like the Heaven's Gate kook.
How much money did Ron Paul raise for his campaign in 2007 and early 2008?
I seem to recall seeing reports upwards of $20m?
Where did it all go?
Will he be donating the surplus to those who are viable third party candidates (for any level of state or federal)?
Or is that part of his "war chest" which will be kept for his family and heirs?
I seem to recall seeing reports upwards of $20m?
Where did it all go?
Will he be donating the surplus to those who are viable third party candidates (for any level of state or federal)?
Or is that part of his "war chest" which will be kept for his family and heirs?
^^^^^^ www.campaignforliberty.com
funds viable ron paul like republicans running for congress.....
also they did end up spending quite a bit of the money they took in
money input and output can be found at www.fec.gov if you please....
no politician can pocket the money but they can shift unspent money to other political campaigns
obviously ron paul is making secondary money off books and shit just like many other politicians do.....
funds viable ron paul like republicans running for congress.....
also they did end up spending quite a bit of the money they took in
money input and output can be found at www.fec.gov if you please....
no politician can pocket the money but they can shift unspent money to other political campaigns
obviously ron paul is making secondary money off books and shit just like many other politicians do.....
Last edited:
Give your third party candidate money, it's probably more important than your vote right now. With money, they can get their message out, and that's all you can hope for right now. They're not going to win and they're not going to get enough votes to qualify for federal money.
With respect to the two party system, it's what allows anything to get done at all. No matter how many parties you have, there will always be coalitions built. Some minority fringe party can have one of their policies implemented by selling their cooperation to a larger party that needs their support to form a majority, I'm not sure that's a better option. And too many parties will bring gridlock, which is good in many respects but not all.
Obviously, the status quo sucks. What we need to do is to restore honesty and dignity to politics. Vote out dishonest politicians, and implement term limits so people will tend to go to DC to do the peoples' work, and will be less concerned about their long term political careers.
Furthermore, we need to put the lying manipulative enabling press out of business. Demand honesty and objectivity from them, which will in turn force them to demand honesty and objectivity from politicians.
This opinionated piece is copyrighted by Willie99:lol:
Obviously, the status quo sucks. What we need to do is to restore honesty and dignity to politics. Vote out dishonest politicians, and implement term limits so people will tend to go to DC to do the peoples' work, and will be less concerned about their long term political careers.
Furthermore, we need to put the lying manipulative enabling press out of business. Demand honesty and objectivity from them, which will in turn force them to demand honesty and objectivity from politicians.
This opinionated piece is copyrighted by Willie99:lol:
Stop buying their product.
