BF2S Forums Honest Abe

usmarine wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ANd I hate the fact that the majority of military bases that I have been stationed or worked closely at have been named after traitors to our union.  Bragg, Benning, Hood, Jackson.  Sorry Turq,  Im set in stone on this issue.  This is a country I have and will most likely again risk my life for, I hate hearing about how people dont want to be a part of this idea of the United States

When I had a job down in Columbia, SC.  I was amazed to see the road leading to Ft. Jackson named "strom thurmond blvd."

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We are 1 nation, but we are 50 different personalities.  This is why social policy should be strictly determined on a state level.

we are more than 50 different personalities.  Ask the averag perspn southern california if they consider their lifestyles and beliefs similiar to the average northern californian.  East texan versus West Texan.  New York City vs Upstate.  If we start dividing among "personalities" these borders would have been over run by foreign militaries a long, long time ago.  Diversity makes strong nations stronger.  Thats why the CSA only last 4 years.   Too much into indidual "states rights"  and "im better than my neighbor" attitude.  Nothing like that ever lasts.  We tried the articles of confederation, didnt work.  Anyone who aims a weapon at the stars and stripes is an enemy of the constitution and deserves the most painful death.

Different times require different borders and different governments.  A flag is as arbitrary as a handkerchief if it no longer represents the needs of the majority.

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Different times require different borders and different governments.  A flag is as arbitrary as a handkerchief if it no longer represents the needs of the majority.

but when it represents the pain and suffering of a whole race of people.  Dont tell me you dont hold your stars and bars in reverence. Well, others see it as a symbol of degradation, rape and torture.

Just because I hate Lincoln doesn't mean I revere Jefferson Davis.  I personally would have preferred that Britain had come in to kick both sides' asses.  They were a far more advanced nation than either half of America was back then.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-02-12 21:59:43)

David.P wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I see the historical confederaacy in the same light as the iraqi insurgency.  Enemies of the Republic.

Enemies of the Empire, more appropriately described....

But the empire has snacks! Come on how bad could they if they have snacks? And not the cheap store brand but Oreo's! Real motherfucken Oreo's! Not Stop & Shop brand creme layered chocolate cookie wafer cakes! Nor Keyfood i forgot the fucken name cause it's been 3 years since i've stepped into 1. And whats this! Ritz Motherfucken Chips! Not the cracker but the actually fucken chips!(So thats where they all went) And Fuck me! Aged cheddar! Oh fuck yes! I'm in!

Fuck you rebels and your cheap ass store brand snacks!

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lol.. true. I don't know why these trends to rewrite history have become so popular. It's like the conspiracist who think they know something that most don't. The "great informers" are reduced to vague speculation and hidden agendas. When the truth doesn't fit the lie invent a new lie.

Here is an in depth lecture on Lincoln if you care to listen.
http://britac.studyserve.com/home/Lectu … ainerID=88

Lincoln was a great man. The evidence in his accomplishments dwarf any imaginative hidden agenda the fly by night scholars can put forth.

History is written by the victors, but occasionally, a few truths that the victors didn't want printed come out.

Nevertheless, I must reiterate.

The fundamental difference between you and I on this issue is that I place a far greater worth on regional autonomy than I do on national unity.  I believe every state should have the right to secede if the majority of citizens in that state wants to do so.

Is that not true democracy?

Lincoln stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

or just as foolish as having a tantrum when the guy you want for president doesnt win and you end up seceding.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

human history is shameful.  you could either complain about how fucked up the weather is, or you could go and grab an umbrella.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lol.. true. I don't know why these trends to rewrite history have become so popular. It's like the conspiracist who think they know something that most don't. The "great informers" are reduced to vague speculation and hidden agendas. When the truth doesn't fit the lie invent a new lie.

Here is an in depth lecture on Lincoln if you care to listen.
http://britac.studyserve.com/home/Lectu … ainerID=88

Lincoln was a great man. The evidence in his accomplishments dwarf any imaginative hidden agenda the fly by night scholars can put forth.

History is written by the victors, but occasionally, a few truths that the victors didn't want printed come out.

Nevertheless, I must reiterate.

The fundamental difference between you and I on this issue is that I place a far greater worth on regional autonomy than I do on national unity.  I believe every state should have the right to secede if the majority of citizens in that state wants to do so.

Is that not true democracy?

Of course their are dirty little secrets. You should watch "Assume the Position" if you ever get a chance.

States had already began leaving before Lincoln got into office. It wasn't just "succession", they took control of all Federal forts. Kentucky was neutral, and he South took control of it also. The southern states weren't really succeeding, they were rebelling. They lobbied other northern states to join them.

Lincoln stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property.

The biggest factor leading up to actual hostilities wasn't Lincoln (who had just been elected), it was the inability of congress to negotiate.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

History is written by the victors, but occasionally, a few truths that the victors didn't want printed come out.

Nevertheless, I must reiterate.

The fundamental difference between you and I on this issue is that I place a far greater worth on regional autonomy than I do on national unity.  I believe every state should have the right to secede if the majority of citizens in that state wants to do so.

Is that not true democracy?

Of course their are dirty little secrets. You should watch "Assume the Position" if you ever get a chance.

States had already began leaving before Lincoln got into office. It wasn't just "succession", they took control of all Federal forts. Kentucky was neutral, and he South took control of it also. The southern states weren't really succeeding, they were rebelling. They lobbied other northern states to join them.

Lincoln stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property.

The biggest factor leading up to actual hostilities wasn't Lincoln (who had just been elected), it was the inability of congress to negotiate.

Those are all good points...  but you didn't answer my last question...  If the majority of citizens in a state want to leave the union, then shouldn't that state be allowed to?