VOTE DEMOCRAT IT IS EASIER THAN THINKING

[Robert]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

For about a year, I had decided that I was going to vote democrat no matter what. But now, after seeing how Hillary has sunk so low and how Obama is nothing but a conformist preacher whom belongs in a church rather than the white house. First Hillary Clinton calls for boycotting the open ceremony of the Olympic games just to appease the people, primarily the retarded liberal hippies, even though she full well knows the history of China and Tibet and the current slandering of China by the Western mass media. And now, Obama decides that he better get on the bandwagon for some political points too! Well, fuck you Obama. Your true colors have shown.

McCain 08. No one else seems to be giving a damn about Iraq and Iran, but are devoting all of their attention to Tibet even though they don't know anything about the situation and history.

Fuck you hippies. I'm going to save more of my own money and pay less taxes. Screw your education and screw your health care.

I think your vote gets DQ'd if you vote for both McCain and Obama, just a heads up.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Ron Paul is the only true Republican left. Old school conservatism is dead. By the way, Obama 08!

Vote for both and see which one they allow.

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Robert, looking at the conservative party from a historical perspective, have they done ANYTHING right? Most of the progressive advances have come from liberals. Women's suffrage, freedom of slaves, African American rights, etc...

Uh you might want to read your history. Lincoln and the party that freed the slaves was a republican. As a matter of fact that was the origin of the Republican party

Womens sufferage was first passed on a state basis in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado. All republican controlled at the time. I will give props to Woodrow Wilson, a democrat for urging the passing of the 19th amendment, which was then passed by a republican held congress.

As for African American rights, that I will give to both sides, although the most fierce opposition to it was from southern Democrats.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Dom182

Uh you might want to read your history. Lincoln and the party that freed the slaves was a republican. As a matter of fact that was the origin of the Republican party

Womens sufferage was first passed on a state basis in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado. All republican controlled at the time. I will give props to Woodrow Wilson, a democrat for urging the passing of the 19th amendment, which was then passed by a republican held congress.

As for African American rights, that I will give to both sides, although the most fierce opposition to it was from southern Democrats.

Please, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. He used to be a lawyer for slavemasters fighting for the slavemasters' right to beat, kill, and rape slaves. "Lincoln freed the slaves" is a gross oversimplification and a widespread acceptance due to propaganda. No president had the power to just abolish slavery by himself.

The civil war was not fought to free the slaves. It was fought because another government had been established in the South, a rebel government. How the Union want to punish them? By stripping them of all of their assets and property of course, and slaves were considered property. Lincoln was for a very strong centralized government, contrary to what true Republican values are. The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant act of propaganda that won foreign sympathy for the Union cause. It redefined the Civil War as a contest over slavery rather than secession, distracting attention from the basic question of whether a state could declare its independence of the Union.

The general public in the North wanted to free the slaves, not Republicans or Lincoln. Just like the general public of today DO NOT want to go to war in Iraq and Iran, yet the Republicans and Bush continues to use failed propaganda that we're going there to beat the terrorists in their land rather than on home soil and that we need to liberate the Iraqis and give them democracy.

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Please, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. He used to be a lawyer for slavemasters fighting for the slavemasters' right to beat, kill, and rape slaves. "Lincoln freed the slaves" is a gross oversimplification and a widespread acceptance due to propaganda. No president had the power to just abolish slavery by himself.

The civil war was not fought to free the slaves. It was fought because another government had been established in the South, a rebel government. How the Union want to punish them? By stripping them of all of their assets and property of course, and slaves were considered property. Lincoln was for a very strong centralized government, contrary to what true Republican values are. The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliant act of propaganda that won foreign sympathy for the Union cause. It redefined the Civil War as a contest over slavery rather than secession, distracting attention from the basic question of whether a state could declare its independence of the Union.

The general public in the North wanted to free the slaves, not Republicans or Lincoln. Just like the general public of today DO NOT want to go to war in Iraq and Iran, yet the Republicans and Bush continues to use failed propaganda that we're going there to beat the terrorists in their land rather than on home soil and that we need to liberate the Iraqis and give them democracy.

Nice revisionist history. Harry Turtledove could get some ideas from you. But wasn't your initial post that the Republicans tried to stop it.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Dom182

Nice revisionist history. Harry Turtledove could get some ideas from you. But wasn't your initial post that the Republicans tried to stop it.

Revisionist history? Yeah, I'm really sure Abraham Lincoln just cared so much about the slaves back then. I believe you're the one that is being naive and biased and not agreeing with that most expert academic historians have concluded on.

George W. Bush sees himself as an Abraham Lincoln figure. I bet if the plan for Iraq had been successful, and then Bush gets assassinated, I bet mainstream history would write down Bush as a hero too.

Real history is not what most people believe is to be true. (e.g., Majority of the western views on Tibet and China, majority of the Eastern views on China and the U.S.) Academic historians are our only way of putting the pieces together and really knowing what the closest to truth is.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Revisionist history? Yeah, I'm really sure Abraham Lincoln just cared so much about the slaves back then. I believe you're the one that is being naive and biased and not agreeing with that most expert academic historians have concluded on.

George W. Bush sees himself as an Abraham Lincoln figure. I bet if the plan for Iraq had been successful, and then Bush gets assassinated, I bet mainstream history would write down Bush as a hero too.

Real history is not what most people believe is to be true. (e.g., Majority of the western views on Tibet and China, majority of the Eastern views on China and the U.S.) Academic historians are our only way of putting the pieces together and really knowing what the closest to truth is.

What the fuck do you think the Civil War was about?

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Revisionist history? Yeah, I'm really sure Abraham Lincoln just cared so much about the slaves back then. I believe you're the one that is being naive and biased and not agreeing with that most expert academic historians have concluded on.

George W. Bush sees himself as an Abraham Lincoln figure. I bet if the plan for Iraq had been successful, and then Bush gets assassinated, I bet mainstream history would write down Bush as a hero too.

Real history is not what most people believe is to be true. (e.g., Majority of the western views on Tibet and China, majority of the Eastern views on China and the U.S.) Academic historians are our only way of putting the pieces together and really knowing what the closest to truth is.

What acedemic Historians. Would these be the current left wing revisionists who do not allow an actual history book in the classroom. Before you answer that understand I went to UCLA and had one of those. My Professor would not allow a history book in the class. He taught based on his opinion and our reading syllabus could have been the Micheal Moore Top 10 reads. We had a student who quoted from a book that was not on his list. Instead of debating him the prof kicked him out of the class. When that happened I and several others dropped the class. I and they are very lucky that UCLA has a huge history department and we could enroll in other classes. I felt myself exceptionally lucky to have enrolled in Holocaust Studies with Saul Friedlander.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Dom182

What acedemic Historians. Would these be the current left wing revisionists who do not allow an actual history book in the classroom. Before you answer that understand I went to UCLA and had one of those. My Professor would not allow a history book in the class. He taught based on his opinion and our reading syllabus could have been the Micheal Moore Top 10 reads. We had a student who quoted from a book that was not on his list. Instead of debating him the prof kicked him out of the class. When that happened I and several others dropped the class. I and they are very lucky that UCLA has a huge history department and we could enroll in other classes. I felt myself exceptionally lucky to have enrolled in Holocaust Studies with Saul Friedlander.

Wow, you have one bad experience with one history teacher. I don't know if you're exaggerating or not, but still, that's one experience. You've distorted the truth about foreign policy and international political affairs. Can you honestly trust most history books? Most Western history books portray the crusade as an act of defense, totally voided out the occupations of China, totally voided out the genocide of Native Americans, and also propagated that the civil war was fought for the freedom of slaves HAHAHA.

Come on guys... seriously... I thought you two were actually pretty smart, but if you seriously think the Union fought the civil war to free the slaves, then you're naive and dumb as a rock.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Robert

What the fuck do you think the Civil War was about?

For secession of the Union and to obliterate the confederacy of course. What the fuck do you think it was about? Freedom of slaves!? Haha, what a tool you are, Robert. Do you believe in 6 day creationism too?