I don't admire him. Hitler did good for Germany, am I to admire him?
Actually Rick made the point pretty well already. You do admit at least Hitler did things to benefit Germany, at least for a while. So you can see how one would separate one thing from another. As for Hitler in particular, he was doing things that were not condoned by the people of his time (except for those he himself had convinced). Someone like Jefferson on the other hand was largely a product of the culture at the time. One should look at what Jefferson or anyone else did within the scope of contributing what made sense at the time. I'm sure many of the people who did stand up against slavery in the 1800s were also probably quite sexist by today's standards. Does that diminish their contributions?
Imagine Lee, taking military academy education and field experience he gained, made possible from the sacrifice of the people who fought and diedto form this Union; pledging his allegiance to subserve forces tearing the fabric of this nation asunder.
Your point was that Lee was a megalomaniac. If he really was don't you think he would have taken command of the Union forces? As for being a traitor he was not. His state left and he had a choice to make. Back in the 1860's and before the state was considered more important than the federal government. Since the Constitution did not command that each state stay in the Union individuals had to make a choice. My view is the states had a right to secede. The right was overcome by force. Don't you think people have a right to get out of a bad marriage? That is what you had between the states and the feds at the time.
I was just kidding about the meglomaniac. I can't prove that, just as you can't with Clinton. Unless, in addition to being a, ahem, lawyer, you're also a psychiatrist.
'Bill - Fold' - (PFID:13d394) - 06:06pm Apr 20, 2002 PST (#52 of 52) Nothing But The Best Jethro, people like ME think you are a phoney, and a fucking liar, and by no stretch of the imagination are you even CLOSE to being a "Lawyer".
But, in any event, we sure love kickin your ass...!
You aren't capapble of kicking anybody's a**, fold. I think you are beneath contempt. I despise you. Please ignore me and I will gladly do the same for you.
If we ignore you, Andy, you'll only come back under another name like you've done thousands of times before. My favorite was the Chinese secret-agent, 'Xiang'. Very creative indeed.
If we ignore you, Andy, you'll only come back under another name like you've done thousands of times before.
First I have only posted on this board as jethro bodine. I did modify it for a short period but my name still contained jethro bodine. I do not get kicked off boards like you do Duane nor do I change my name. And I will ask one more time who is Andy?
In answer to Mary's question ("Have your heritage and cultural traditions ever been subjected to clown-like trivialization?") the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"
Mary should try being a Southern White Male. We seem to be the last acceptable stereotype. My ancestors were poor farmers, never owned slaves, joined up to fight when an invading army threatened their state in 1862, finally lost the farm to the same invading army during Reconstruction. Where are my Reparations?
Mary should try being a Southern White Male. We seem to be the last acceptable stereotype. My ancestors were poor farmers, never owned slaves, joined up to fight when an invading army threatened their state in 1862, finally lost the farm to the same invading army during Reconstruction.
There they are again, the war of "northern agression" kooks. Hello, anyone in there.
literally it was a war of "northern aggression." Lincoln could have let them go their way but he chose not to.
He could of but he didn't and THEY fired on Fort Sumter. They secceeded, not the Union. Now if you are fighting a war you don't simply just stand at your border and wait for them to show up. We tried that once in Vietnam, it didn't work. As long as your enemy has safe haven, a place to train, get support, build weaponry etc. You go after them where they are.
But o.k whatever, it was the war of "northern agression" O.K, sure. The claims of this moron asking for reparations are just as silly as anyone else asking for them.
He could of but he didn't and THEY fired on Fort Sumter. Because the north refused to leave where they were not wanted.They secceeded, not the Union. Now if you are fighting a war you don't simply just stand at your border and wait for them to show up. We tried that once in Vietnam, it didn't work. As long as your enemy has safe haven, a place to train, get support, build weaponry etc. You go after them where they are. So it was northern aggression? My guess is that if Lincoln had let the south go there would have been no blood shed.
But o.k whatever, it was the war of "northern agression" O.K, sure. The claims of this moron asking for reparations are just as silly as anyone else asking for them. That was his point.
He could of but he didn't and THEY fired on Fort Sumter.
Because the north refused to leave where they were not wanted.
Well then, that solves it, the south wanted us out and because we didn't they fired on us but it's still our fault. There are many things a nation/country/people might want but it doesn't make them the agressor. The Pal's want Israel out completely and to not exist, are the Isralie's the agressor since they won't leave ?
I am not going to debate it any more, we'll agree to disagree. Fine, the north started it all and was the agressor, o.k fine if you want to see it that way so be it. it's over and they lost
Well then, that solves it, the south wanted us out and because we didn't they fired on us but it's still our fault. I don't know how you get "our." Were you there? Essentially though you are correct. States had a right to secede as people have the right to get out of a bad marriage.There are many things a nation/country/people might want but it doesn't make them the agressor. The north wasn't the aggressor? How does the fact that most battles were in the south taken into account?The Pal's want Israel out completely and to not exist, are the Isralie's the agressor since they won't leave ? The palestinians and the Israleis aren't goverened by the US Constitution are they?
I am not going to debate it any more, we'll agree to disagree. Fine, the north started it all and was the agressor, o.k fine if you want to see it that way so be it. it's over and they lost The first intelligent thing you have said on the subject. Why don't you open that mind of yours and think about it?
You provided nothing that can be called proof. You can keep harping on your view but it is not supported by anything. All you have to do is look at the Constitution as it was prior to 1860 and the answer is clear. If you want more enlightenment you can read the Federalist Papers. States were never required to stay in the Union and their right to leave was protected by the 10th Amendment.
I am not going to debate it any more, we'll agree to disagree. Fine, the north started it all and was the agressor, o.k fine if you want to see it that way so be it. it's over and they lost
The first intelligent thing you have said on the subject. Why don't you open that mind of yours and think about it?
And insulting someone is apparently your idea of intelligence and an open mind, becuase if someone disagrees with you they must be dumb and close minded. How convienient for you and a good way for you to avoid debate with someone since you aren't capable of doing so. Gee I wonder why people get tired of talking to you? Then you sit and whine about how people are always attacking you unfairly, well what goes around comes around. And you're incapable of having an conversation without insulting someone when they disagree because you have nothing better to say. Nor do you deserve any respect. If you don't give any you don't get any, and that's why people page past your posts quicker than water at a 90 degree angle. I have never intentionally insulted you if I have disagreed with you. And if I have I would have certainly apologized if it was pointed out. But if I do from now on I could care less since you have zero decency and respect for anyone elses opinion. Perhaps you should go write speeches for Jesse since you seem to have the same style. Have a nice day.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states plotted amongst each other before they succeeded from the Union.
They "plotted" something they had the right to do. You can try to look at it from their side and see that they believed that the northern states were ignoring the constitution. They believed they were operating within the Cosntitutional framework and they had a strong argument that they were.
And insulting someone is apparently your idea of intelligence and an open mind, becuase if someone disagrees with you they must be dumb and close minded.
You have made no attempt to see the other side. You are defending what you were taught without giving a second thought that what you were taught was not completly accurate.
No I don't KNOW it. Treason implies that they were an enemy of the Constitution. They were not. The Constitution that they drafted was much like the one that the north ignored.
You have made no attempt to see the other side. You are defending what you were taught without giving a second thought that what you were taught was not completly accurate.
I haven't ? how would you know what I have or haven't read? I am defending what my opinion is and I've seen both sides of the argument and reached my own conclusion just as you have. How do you know that what you were taught was completely accurate ?
I also said we'd have to agree to disagree, sometimes people just aren't going to agree with eachother you accept it and you move on, that's life. Instead you insult me and denigrate me, that's great, thanks.
Amazing that someone thinks that saying someone is closed minded is a serious personal attack.
Nope, it's not, but this is.
The first intelligent thing you have said on the subject.
Try being called a liar.
Did I ever call you a liar? Nope, I didn't, EVER. In fact on many occasions I have defended you, but no more. And because I disagreed with your opinion you resort to that crap. Well I guess you "reap" what you sew.
I don't admire him. Hitler did good for Germany, am I to admire him?
Actually Rick made the point pretty well already. You do admit at least Hitler did things to benefit Germany, at least for a while. So you can see how one would separate one thing from another. As for Hitler in particular, he was doing things that were not condoned by the people of his time (except for those he himself had convinced). Someone like Jefferson on the other hand was largely a product of the culture at the time. One should look at what Jefferson or anyone else did within the scope of contributing what made sense at the time. I'm sure many of the people who did stand up against slavery in the 1800s were also probably quite sexist by today's standards. Does that diminish their contributions?
AW, have you ever been married?
No, and not likely to be either.
You're being silly, JT.
Ok, I admit it!
That sure ruined my fun quickly.
:-(
No, and not likely to be either.
I was just curious. Marriage to the wrong person is much like slavery.
Later guys. Have a good one.
Hitler is not the kind of person anyone wants to be lukewarm about.
"He some good stuff but then there's that matter of the Holacaust and waging war against his neighbors.That was out of line."
Amazing!
Clinton was a megalomanic, who did everything for his own twisted ends! Now back to the Civil War!!!!!
"Clinton was a megalomanic, who did everything for his own twisted ends!"
Why did you feel the need to throw that in, jethro?
Let's see how many people we can compare to Hitler.
Robert E. Lee was megalomaniac who did everything for his own twisted ends.
That's my story and I defy anyone to prove me wrong.
I think you need to prove Robert E. Lee was a megalomaniac becuase his actions don't seem to prove it.
President Abraham Lincoln offered him the field command of the Union forces, but Lee declined.
That proves he's a traitor to his president, his oath and his allegiance. Masquerading as a Virginia Gentleman.
No example of a hero, that's for sure.
Imagine Lee, taking military academy education and field experience he gained, made possible from the sacrifice of the people who fought and diedto form this Union; pledging his allegiance to subserve forces tearing the fabric of this nation asunder.
Treason, most foul!
Your point was that Lee was a megalomaniac. If he really was don't you think he would have taken command of the Union forces? As for being a traitor he was not. His state left and he had a choice to make. Back in the 1860's and before the state was considered more important than the federal government. Since the Constitution did not command that each state stay in the Union individuals had to make a choice. My view is the states had a right to secede. The right was overcome by force. Don't you think people have a right to get out of a bad marriage? That is what you had between the states and the feds at the time.
I was just kidding about the meglomaniac. I can't prove that, just as you can't with Clinton. Unless, in addition to being a, ahem, lawyer, you're also a psychiatrist.
I have never given any of you a reson to believe that I am a liar. So let me put it this way. I despise both Rick and fold.
No offense Jethro but, I don't think anyone here believes you're a lawyer.
On the other hand, I can't recall you ever lying either.
On the other hand, I don't recall you sharing a whole lot of information about yourself with the rest of us.
On the other hand, I don't blame you.
I don't really care if you're a lawyer or a janitor.
What I care about is people calling me a liar, especially people like fold.
'Bill - Fold' - (PFID:13d394) - 06:06pm Apr 20, 2002 PST (#52 of 52)
Nothing But The Best
Jethro, people like ME think you are a phoney, and a fucking liar, and by no stretch of the imagination are you even CLOSE to being a "Lawyer".
But, in any event, we sure love kickin your ass...!
You aren't capapble of kicking anybody's a**, fold. I think you are beneath contempt. I despise you. Please ignore me and I will gladly do the same for you.
If we ignore you, Andy, you'll only come back under another name like you've done thousands of times before. My favorite was the Chinese secret-agent, 'Xiang'. Very creative indeed.
I can feel the love in this thread.
If we ignore you, Andy, you'll only come back under another name like you've done thousands of times before.
First I have only posted on this board as jethro bodine. I did modify it for a short period but my name still contained jethro bodine. I do not get kicked off boards like you do Duane nor do I change my name. And I will ask one more time who is Andy?
Hitler saw the construction of autobahns primarily as a military advantage; however, it did create jobs.
Not that I'm PRO-HITLER or anything....just thought I'd point out maybe ONE good thing that came out of the Third Reich.
(which creeps me out to even point out)
if this old news has already been discussed, I apologize.
I'm rather hesitant to go into the Hitler angle as usually nothing good comes of it.
Harold H. writes:
In answer to Mary's question ("Have your heritage and cultural traditions ever been subjected to clown-like trivialization?") the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"
Mary should try being a Southern White Male. We seem to be the last acceptable stereotype. My ancestors were poor farmers, never owned slaves, joined up to fight when an invading army threatened their state in 1862, finally lost the farm to the same invading army during Reconstruction. Where are my Reparations?
Whaaaaaaaaaahhh!
There they are again, the war of "northern agression" kooks. Hello, anyone in there.
literally it was a war of "northern aggression." Lincoln could have let them go their way but he chose not to.
Anyone catch Ulysses S. Grant on Channel 2 last night? I saw parts of it and it was pretty interesting. The second half is on tonight.
One part I did see last night was how Grant had to go into the South to protect the blacks after the Civil war.
Jethro,
He could of but he didn't and THEY fired on Fort Sumter. They secceeded, not the Union. Now if you are fighting a war you don't simply just stand at your border and wait for them to show up. We tried that once in Vietnam, it didn't work. As long as your enemy has safe haven, a place to train, get support, build weaponry etc. You go after them where they are.
But o.k whatever, it was the war of "northern agression" O.K, sure. The claims of this moron asking for reparations are just as silly as anyone else asking for them.
He could of but he didn't and THEY fired on Fort Sumter. Because the north refused to leave where they were not wanted.They secceeded, not the Union. Now if you are fighting a war you don't simply just stand at your border and wait for them to show up. We tried that once in Vietnam, it didn't work. As long as your enemy has safe haven, a place to train, get support, build weaponry etc. You go after them where they are. So it was northern aggression? My guess is that if Lincoln had let the south go there would have been no blood shed.
But o.k whatever, it was the war of "northern agression" O.K, sure. The claims of this moron asking for reparations are just as silly as anyone else asking for them. That was his point.
He could of but he didn't and THEY fired on Fort Sumter.
Well then, that solves it, the south wanted us out and because we didn't they fired on us but it's still our fault. There are many things a nation/country/people might want but it doesn't make them the agressor. The Pal's want Israel out completely and to not exist, are the Isralie's the agressor since they won't leave ?
I am not going to debate it any more, we'll agree to disagree. Fine, the north started it all and was the agressor, o.k fine if you want to see it that way so be it. it's over and they lost
Well then, that solves it, the south wanted us out and because we didn't they fired on us but it's still our fault. I don't know how you get "our." Were you there? Essentially though you are correct. States had a right to secede as people have the right to get out of a bad marriage.There are many things a nation/country/people might want but it doesn't make them the agressor. The north wasn't the aggressor? How does the fact that most battles were in the south taken into account?The Pal's want Israel out completely and to not exist, are the Isralie's the agressor since they won't leave ? The palestinians and the Israleis aren't goverened by the US Constitution are they?
I am not going to debate it any more, we'll agree to disagree. Fine, the north started it all and was the agressor, o.k fine if you want to see it that way so be it. it's over and they lost The first intelligent thing you have said on the subject. Why don't you open that mind of yours and think about it?
Jethro, When are you just going to admit that the South was guilty of treason?
The suth was not guilty of treason. Lincoln was guilty of violating his oath to uphold the Constitution. The south had a right to leave.
The South did have a right to leave but, not the way they did.
What way was that? Their elected representatives voted to leave. What more do you want?
In the past I provided you with the Constitutional proof.
I'm not going over it again.
You provided nothing that can be called proof. You can keep harping on your view but it is not supported by anything. All you have to do is look at the Constitution as it was prior to 1860 and the answer is clear. If you want more enlightenment you can read the Federalist Papers. States were never required to stay in the Union and their right to leave was protected by the 10th Amendment.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states plotted amongst each other before they succeeded from the Union.
They didn't have the right to do that. I already proved that and am not going to look it up again.
I am not going to debate it any more, we'll agree to disagree. Fine, the north started it all and was the agressor, o.k fine if you want to see it that way so be it. it's over and they lost
And insulting someone is apparently your idea of intelligence and an open mind, becuase if someone disagrees with you they must be dumb and close minded. How convienient for you and a good way for you to avoid debate with someone since you aren't capable of doing so.
Gee I wonder why people get tired of talking to you? Then you sit and whine about how people are always attacking you unfairly, well what goes around comes around. And you're incapable of having an conversation without insulting someone when they disagree because you have nothing better to say. Nor do you deserve any respect. If you don't give any you don't get any, and that's why people page past your posts quicker than water at a 90 degree angle. I have never intentionally insulted you if I have disagreed with you. And if I have I would have certainly apologized if it was pointed out. But if I do from now on I could care less since you have zero decency and respect for anyone elses opinion.
Perhaps you should go write speeches for Jesse since you seem to have the same style. Have a nice day.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states plotted amongst each other before they succeeded from the Union.
They "plotted" something they had the right to do. You can try to look at it from their side and see that they believed that the northern states were ignoring the constitution. They believed they were operating within the Cosntitutional framework and they had a strong argument that they were.
And insulting someone is apparently your idea of intelligence and an open mind, becuase if someone disagrees with you they must be dumb and close minded.
You have made no attempt to see the other side. You are defending what you were taught without giving a second thought that what you were taught was not completly accurate.
How convienient for you and a good way for you to avoid debate with someone since you aren't capable of doing so. I am as capapble as you are.
Jethro, Make all the excuses you want. They are guilty of treason and we both know it.
Amazing that someone thinks that saying someone is closed minded is a serious personal attack. Try being called a liar.
No I don't KNOW it. Treason implies that they were an enemy of the Constitution. They were not. The Constitution that they drafted was much like the one that the north ignored.
I haven't ? how would you know what I have or haven't read? I am defending what my opinion is and I've seen both sides of the argument and reached my own conclusion just as you have. How do you know that what you were taught was completely accurate ?
I also said we'd have to agree to disagree, sometimes people just aren't going to agree with eachother you accept it and you move on, that's life. Instead you insult me and denigrate me, that's great, thanks.
Treason implies that they were an enemy of the Constitution. They were not.
That's exactly what they were. They ignored the Constitution and conspired amongst each other.
The Constitution that they drafted was much like the one that the north ignored.
It was the South that ignored it and did whatever they wanted. They chose to selectivley abide by the Constitution.
Nope, it's not, but this is.
Did I ever call you a liar? Nope, I didn't, EVER. In fact on many occasions I have defended you, but no more. And because I disagreed with your opinion you resort to that crap.
Well I guess you "reap" what you sew.
How do you know that what you were taught was completely accurate ?
it wasn't. that is why I don't hold the same view as you. I was taught what it is you are arguing.