150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    We shouldn't be enemies we should work together to solve our country's problems

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    We shouldn't be enemies we should work together to solve our country's problems



    Sister,

    150 years ago history turned on a single, bloody battle. Secession could still have succeeded if Robert E. Lee's second invasion had shattered Northern support for the war by smashing the Union army at Gettysburg.

    Gettysburg was most important for what it achieved... not for giving the president an occasion to deliver an address there.

    Studying history serves democracy by studying contingencies. 

    As Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president, said at Gettysburg, the war's ultimate purpose was to preserve the Union in order to prove democracy's viability. 

    Unless the Union was restored, there was no practical possibility of emancipation, since the overwhelming majority of American slaves would, in that case , end up living in a foreign country, and beyond the grasp of Lincoln's best anti-slave intentions.

     

    Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. So, Sister, you are so right. No, we should not be fighting one another less we repeat history.

    We should agree we want to preserve democracy. We should agree we want to work together to solve the problems in a country people have died to preserve..

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought


    In the pre-Civil war period, southern slave owners represented about 2% of the population. (Does that percentage ring a bell?) Slavery discouraged immigration to the South, where wages already were scraping the bottom. Slavery held down the wages of the white workers as they were in competition with slaves. This caused the South to rely heavily on farming while the North developed industry and manufacturing.

    These factors weighted heavily on the outcome of the Civil War. In the end, the South could not overcome the superior strength of the North in terms of supplying their troops with enough material to win the war.

    The Confederate soldier fought for a system that did not provide him and his family enough to live a life of dignity. The disparity was stark in the South, the slaveholders became rich and the common folks had very little to look forward to. Most Confederate soldiers gave life and blood to a cause that provided very little for them.

    150 years later, and the same questions arise. Why would these men gives their lives to a cause that seemed to be not in their best interests? We face the same question today. Why do voters still support ideas and agendas that are seemingly against their interests?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to UserName99's comment:


    In the pre-Civil war period, southern slave owners represented about 2% of the population. (Does that percentage ring a bell?) Slavery discouraged immigration to the South, where wages already were scraping the bottom. Slavery held down the wages of the white workers as they were in competition with slaves. This caused the South to rely heavily on farming while the North developed industry and manufacturing.

    These factors weighted heavily on the outcome of the Civil War. In the end, the South could not overcome the superior strength of the North in terms of supplying their troops with enough material to win the war.

    The Confederate soldier fought for a system that did not provide him and his family enough to live a life of dignity. The disparity was stark in the South, the slaveholders became rich and the common folks had very little to look forward to. Most Confederate soldiers gave life and blood to a cause that provided very little for them.

    150 years later, and the same questions arise. Why would these men gives their lives to a cause that seemed to be not in their best interests? We face the same question today. Why do voters still support ideas and agendas that are seemingly against their interests?

     



    You are looking at history from a shallow Marxist "class" perspective.
    Men are willing to sacrifice for love of country, love of their homeland. Confederate soldiers didnt necessarily support slavery, but they considered the war an invasion of their homeland. They fought on the wrong side of freedom and human dignity, but they were Americans and fought bravely for what they thought was a just cause..

    Your idea that the South was  a "greedy capitalist" limited government society, doesnt really fit.Quite the opposite. The South with its "paternalistic" slavery system was the epitome of communism. 

     Southerners did not stop with an open defense of slavery. They went on to attack northern society for its 'wage slavery' and 'exploitation of workers,' using arguments repeated by socialist critics of capitalism. The southern writer who developed these arguments most extensively was George Fitzhugh, a Virginia planter and lawyer.  Fitzhugh defended slavery as a practical form of socialism that provided contented slaves with paternalistic masters, thereby eliminating harsh conflicts between employers and allegedly free workers. 'A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave ... is far happier, because ... he is always sure of support.' ... 'The best governed countries, and which have prospered the most, have always been distinguished for the number and stringency of their laws,' he wrote; 'liberty is an evil which government is intended to correct.'"

    Fitzhugh sounds like today's leftists...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to UserName99's comment:


    In the pre-Civil war period, southern slave owners represented about 2% of the population. (Does that percentage ring a bell?) Slavery discouraged immigration to the South, where wages already were scraping the bottom. Slavery held down the wages of the white workers as they were in competition with slaves. This caused the South to rely heavily on farming while the North developed industry and manufacturing.

    These factors weighted heavily on the outcome of the Civil War. In the end, the South could not overcome the superior strength of the North in terms of supplying their troops with enough material to win the war.

    The Confederate soldier fought for a system that did not provide him and his family enough to live a life of dignity. The disparity was stark in the South, the slaveholders became rich and the common folks had very little to look forward to. Most Confederate soldiers gave life and blood to a cause that provided very little for them.

    150 years later, and the same questions arise. Why would these men gives their lives to a cause that seemed to be not in their best interests? We face the same question today. Why do voters still support ideas and agendas that are seemingly against their interests?

     



    UserName99,

    The single best book I have ever come across to explain the question you ask in the last paragraph of your post is written by Thomas Frank in 2005.

    It is called "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America".

    Below is an excerpt from a review of this book.

     

    The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up." But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in  What's the Matter with Kansas and tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party. 
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Frank is, among other things, the author of : "One Market Under God". "The Conquest of Cool" and "What's the Matter with America". This can be picked up for a song on amazon in paperback now. I have the hardcover edition. If you are a Kindle person, they have that too. Got it in 2010 when it was recommended to me during the mid-term elections working on a congressional campaign here in MA. That was against a Republican Tea Party candidate. I was having the same trouble figuring out how voters could think about voting so against their best interests. This book helped me a great deal then and beyond. Helped me in understanding local politics all the way up to national politics.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    CLC,

     

                                  " Fitzhugh sounds like today's leftists"

     

     Not to this progressive. And I doubt to many other progressives who read your premise, analysis and conclusion.  Just saying, CLC.                           

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    bigdog2,

     

    "Thank you sir may I have another."

     

    Really? Your post was soooo much better without the snark.

                                                                

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Marxism v. Ultra Nationalism: Which has wrought the worse harm?

     

    Marxism, not even close.

    In his book Red Holocaust, Steven Rosefielde argues that communism's internal contradictions "caused to be killed" approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more, and that this "Red Holocaust" – the peacetime mass killings and other related crimes against humanity perpetrated by Communist leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot—should be the centerpiece of any net assessment of communism. He states that the aforementioned leaders are "collectively guilty of holocaust-scale felonious homicides".

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    bigdog2,

     

    Thank you sir may I have another.

     

    Really? Your post was soooo much better without the snark.

                                                                

     




     

    The "snark" as you say, was in regards to the Dems that continue to vote in every election, the same way that hurts them and keeps them oppressed.  As in.......every election we will take another kick in the behind and offer thanks for it.

    You know, it`s a quote from a very well know movie.

    [/QUOTE]

    I do know it is a quote from a movie. Love when posters use movie references. It cuts to the chase and like a lot of baby boomers I am a HUGE movis fan.

    We disagree obviously on which party is more in the best interest of the 98% of the country. 

    But that is okay. Because we are disagreeing in a debate...not on a battlefield. Elections do matter. And sometimes I am not thrilled with the choices presented. I know a lot of people who told me they held their nose and voted for Gomez.

    I am sure a lot of people...the 27% who bothered to vote...held their nose and voted for Markey. These were not electric candidates nor campaigns.

    And, we get to do it statewide all over again in 17 months for the full 6 year term. Let us see what the GOP can bring to the table this time. 

    2016...we get to overthrow the government...again...without firing a single shot. Again, let us see what the GOP brings to the table as well as the Democrat party.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    "Why do voters still support ideas and agendas that are seemingly against their interests?"

     

    Gee............you mean like these "voters"? 

    1) Black Americans: Over the last few decades, no group has been more fiercely loyal to the Democrats than black Americans. Typically, the Democrats capture 90% of the black vote nationwide. However, it's worth asking what black Americans actually get out of that deal. Sure, if you're Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Touré, it's a pretty good gig, but how does the average black American benefit from voting for the Democrats? Affirmative Action? That program helps very few people and it also leads to many black Americans getting into a college that they wouldn't normally qualify for with their academic record. Some people might call that a plus, but as a practical matter, it causes an inordinate number of the brightest, most promising young black Americans to flunk out of college when they could have graduated had they gone to less challenging schools.

    In return for that dubious bit of "help," the Democrats fight voucher programs that could get black students out of failing schools, laugh at black Americans who are Christian, pro-life and believe in God's definition of marriage and they do nothing of consequence to tackle the crime and drug problems that makes life so unbearable for many black Americans. The worst places in our country for black Americans to live are inevitably run by Democrats who've long since given up on improving the lives of their constituents.

    Economically, black Americans are still suffering under the Democrats as well. The numbers are so bad that they're almost hard to believe. "In 2009, the average net worth for white households was $113,149 and $5,700 for black households” while the unemployment rate for black Americans is double the rate for whites. Black Americans deserve a lot better than that from the people who serve them in government.

    2) Single Women: Did you know that Mitt Romney actually won married women 53-47 over Obama? However, Obama won single women in a landslide and that's not unusual. Single women tend to go heavily for the Democrats. The sad thing about that is Democrats pull it off by baiting a trap. They promise free birth control and abortion. They offer up welfare, food stamps and other programs that are designed to shoulder the financial load that a husband would in normal circumstances. Then they proceed to denigrate, demean and slime any conservative woman who opposes those things in the most vicious, nasty and grotesque manner possible.

    Why?

    Because a single woman struggling to survive is likely to take any help she can get from the Democrats and will return the favor by voting for them. On the other hand, a woman who's successful, financially secure and married is much more likely to vote Republican. This is true across every race, religion and demographic group. This is why, for example, Democrats have engineered a system where in many cases, "the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.” They don't WANT single women to be independent and financially secure because that would make them more likely to vote Republican.

    No woman grows up wanting to stay permanently poor, single and dependent on the government for her survival, but for the Democrats to succeed, they need as many women as possible stuck in exactly that position.

    3) Unions: Even though the union membership is a little more split, the union bosses have thrown their lot in with the Democrat Party. This has paid some dividends for them because undeniably, the Democrats are bending over backwards to appease the unions. However, there is a heavy price to be paid for being totally tied to one political party.

    For one thing, union membership is death spiraling into oblivion. At one point, 34% of Americans were in a union, but now that number is down to "11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years."

    Furthermore, because of the staggering cost of some of the pension deals that unions have previously negotiated for their members, there are cities and states facing a choice between honoring their previous agreements with unions or going bankrupt. What that means is that like it or not, union members are about to start taking haircuts all across the country.

    Since unions have allied themselves entirely with the Democrats, Republicans have every incentive to hurt the unions when they can, thwart any rule changes that would allow unions to grow and to try to cut as deeply as possible from the unions in any sort of bankruptcy deals. Sure, siding with the Democrats might maximize any gains that unions have already made, but it also almost guarantees their coming descent into oblivion.

    4) Young Americans: One of the best things about being young is that feeling of invulnerability that comes with it. You hear about all the terrible things that happen to other people, but you'll be the one that gets by with it, right?

    Unfortunately, it's not working out like that for a lot of young Americans who made the mistake of trusting Barack Obama. It's bad enough that they have a jobless rate under Obama that's nearly double the national average, but he's running up the national credit card with an unsustainable level of debt that younger Americans are going to be asked to pay off.

    If you're under 25, by the time you hit your prime earning years, you're likely to face bleak long term economic prospects because of our massive debt load along with the crushing taxes that will be required to pay for it. Worse yet, the entitlement programs so many Americans rely on are now in terrible danger because of the reckless spending the Democrats are insisting on.

    “I don’t know why Republicans keep saying we have to cut spending to save these entitlements for our grandchildren. We have to cut spending to save these entitlement programs for 45 year-olds. On our current spending rate, 45 year-olds will not receive any Medicare.”

    Does that sound appealing? Struggling under a high tax burden to pay off debts that you didn't run up with much less of a safety net than the last few generations of Americans? That's what young Americans are heading towards and the saddest thing is, they're voting for it. It's not even a case where young Americans are going to be partying and then paying the price later. It's even worse because the Democrats are partying with their money and plan to stick them with the bill.

    5) Hispanic Americans Although there are a few exceptions, Hispanic Americans have voted for the Democrats by a roughly 3-to-1 margin over the past few decades. What have Hispanic Americans gotten in return for that? Democrats block school choice initiatives that would allow Hispanic Americans to send their kids to better schools. They also create massive amounts of red tape that make it much harder for Hispanic small business owners to become successful. In fact, if you're a Hispanic American who wants a piece of the American Dream, you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything that the Democrats do for you other than their one supposed "trump card" -- they're in favor of illegal immigration.

    The great irony of illegal immigration is that Hispanic Americans are economically hurt by illegal immigration much more than the average American because they're more likely to be going head-to-head in the same professions with people who often don't pay taxes, don't pay for health care and don't pay for car insurance. There are undoubtedly millions of Hispanic Americans who've followed every rule and done everything right who don't have jobs today because of illegal aliens. There are also millions of other Hispanic Americans who are taking home $3 or $4 less per hour than they otherwise would without illegal aliens driving down the cost of labor.

    Furthermore, for all the complaints about illegal immigration, the dirty little secret is that some sort of compromise that allows illegal aliens to stay in the country as guest workers, but not citizens, would probably be very passable in Congress. The real reason that isn't happening is because it would allow Hispanic Americans to see how badly they're being hurt by people who aren't in the country legally. When you want to work, but can't feed your family because you don't have a job and you see a "guest worker" from a foreign country holding a position you desperately need, your attitude starts to change in a hurry. The Democrats understand that and secretly like the idea that illegal aliens make it harder on Hispanic Americans. After all, the more successful you become, the less you want the Democrats to do anything other than get out of your way.

     

     



     

     

    The "tsunami of takers theory" again jmel ?  Your failure to acknowledge reality is common among conservatives.....or at least those who claim to be conservatives without understanding the definition

    Here is the truth, and let it sink in real good:  The GOP lost and will continue to lose because they're misanthropes - they lack respect for common people and it shows in just about every thing they do.

    The Democratic Party and candidates, with all of their faults, win because they're likable, logical, and have consideration and respect for all 310 million Americans, be they white, black, brown, female, homosexual or worst of all....Republican.

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    Does it sadden you that you can`t read or comprehend anyhting?  Did you go to college? High School?  It must be very frustrating to see a thread, try and jump in, and then have to completely change the subject in a desperate attempt to try and add something......Sorry for you man. I can`t help it if you cannot read and your only hope is to move goal posts.

     

     

    The conservative airborne rants on...  

     




     

    If bigdog not only rants on, but rants on and on and on and on, THEN  he would  be the conservative WDYWN...

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:


    There`s more of this stuff than I can even get my hands on................

    Someday I`ll tell you how old (young) this girl is that wrote this:

    "-The Democrats support welfare policies that perpetuate the cycle of poverty for poor people: it makes it harder for them to get back up on their feet. Republicans want to break the cycle of poverty and reform the corrupt system.
    -The Democrats support increasing the minimum wage, which sounds good, but costs jobs. Companies can't afford to hire more workers and may have to lay off some due to the wage increase. Also, workers earning slightly more than minimum wage may take a pay cut to make up the difference. This means less economic growth and a bad job climate for poor Americans. Unskilled labor takes the biggest hit.
    -The Democrats support a loose monetary policy via the Federal Reserve. They support "Quantitative Easing"(aka printing tons of money) which drives up inflation. This means goods cost more because we have a weaker dollar, which affects poor people the most because they can buy even less with their low wages.
    -The Democrats refuse to let us explore for oil in the United States. This means fewer jobs and it increases energy prices. When energy prices go up, it crushes the economy and the cost of goods rise, hurting poor people.
    -The Democrats support "sin" taxes on gambling, tobacco, soda, candy bars, other sugary/fast food, and alcohol. Poor people are also the biggest consumers of these products, so it hits them disproportionately hard. It's another example of the Democrat nanny state telling people what to do.
    -The Democrats support job-killing regulations on businesses. This increases the cost for them to create a product, increasing prices. Again, hurting poor people the hardest.
    -The Democrats support massive government spending. All this spending crowds out private investment, costing jobs. It also means we could get our credit rating downgraded because of our skyrocketing debt(S&P just downgraded it to AA+, the OBAMA DOWNGRADE).
    -The Democrats oppose school choice, or allowing vouchers for children to attend private schools. The public school system in urban areas is in horrible shape. Vouchers can allow children to get a good education and break the cycle of poverty. It's so unfair that these kids have to be stuck in the public school monopoly that puts unions ahead of students. Poor people, whose kids attend the worst public schools, are hurt the hardest. "

    .......................and she`s smarter than you two put together.  BWAaaaaaaaaaaaa!




    Lemme guess..... she's "14"?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:


    There`s more of this stuff than I can even get my hands on................

    Someday I`ll tell you how old (young) this girl is that wrote this:

    "-The Democrats support welfare policies that perpetuate the cycle of poverty for poor people: it makes it harder for them to get back up on their feet. Republicans want to break the cycle of poverty and reform the corrupt system.
    -The Democrats support increasing the minimum wage, which sounds good, but costs jobs. Companies can't afford to hire more workers and may have to lay off some due to the wage increase. Also, workers earning slightly more than minimum wage may take a pay cut to make up the difference. This means less economic growth and a bad job climate for poor Americans. Unskilled labor takes the biggest hit.
    -The Democrats support a loose monetary policy via the Federal Reserve. They support "Quantitative Easing"(aka printing tons of money) which drives up inflation. This means goods cost more because we have a weaker dollar, which affects poor people the most because they can buy even less with their low wages.
    -The Democrats refuse to let us explore for oil in the United States. This means fewer jobs and it increases energy prices. When energy prices go up, it crushes the economy and the cost of goods rise, hurting poor people.
    -The Democrats support "sin" taxes on gambling, tobacco, soda, candy bars, other sugary/fast food, and alcohol. Poor people are also the biggest consumers of these products, so it hits them disproportionately hard. It's another example of the Democrat nanny state telling people what to do.
    -The Democrats support job-killing regulations on businesses. This increases the cost for them to create a product, increasing prices. Again, hurting poor people the hardest.
    -The Democrats support massive government spending. All this spending crowds out private investment, costing jobs. It also means we could get our credit rating downgraded because of our skyrocketing debt(S&P just downgraded it to AA+, the OBAMA DOWNGRADE).
    -The Democrats oppose school choice, or allowing vouchers for children to attend private schools. The public school system in urban areas is in horrible shape. Vouchers can allow children to get a good education and break the cycle of poverty. It's so unfair that these kids have to be stuck in the public school monopoly that puts unions ahead of students. Poor people, whose kids attend the worst public schools, are hurt the hardest. "

    .......................and she`s smarter than you two put together.  BWAaaaaaaaaaaaa!



    BTW, I'm a Nigerian princess in exile looking for someone to share in my massive wealth. If you're stupid enough to believe in something supposedly written by a "14" year old female about how she fears for America, I've got a deal for you. Simply send me $201,867.02 in cash along with a self adressed stamped envelope..........

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    I read what you posted. I called it swill. I showed you why it was swill.

    All the article puts forth is

    1. The fact some groups tend to vote democrat.

    2. Bad raw statistics about those groups.

    3. The fact that democrat policies exist that are aimed to help those groups.

     

     

    That proves that Democrat policies did not single-handledly fix everything for those groups.

    It does not prove that Democrat policies did not make things better for those groups.

    It does not prove that Democrat policies made things worse for those groups.

     

     

     

    Why are you even posting? It is clear that any disagreement with the rant you posted will be met with "you're a stupid liberal I'm right because shut up you're liberal."

    Maybe that flies amongst like-minded conservatives but if you want to win a debate you have to actually convince the people who disagree.

     

     




     

     

    We`ll try this again for the impaired (you and airborne the angry freak).  A poster, a Lib, that you always agree with stated very clearly that it was confusing to them why people (she meant Republicans) vote for people that hurt them time after time.  It was a DIRECT shot at anyone that votes Republican.  You can go back to the 1st page and read it for yourself.  She used NO facts, NO data, NO articles for consideration, nothing.  As we all know, you and angry freak would have ZERO objection to this because the post is an ideology you agree with.

    I responded to that post with research done by reliable sources showing 5 specific groups that consistently vote for Democrats and consistently their lives get WORSE.  Cause and Effect.  There are pages of data proving this about Blacks, Hispanics, youth, poor, and women. It`s in the actual post that YOU SAID YOU DIDN`t and WOULDN`t READ!

    I always kid about your extremely weak skill set but this is over the top even for you.

     



    bigdog2,

     

    As the "she" you must be referring to who posted on page one of this thread, that post was responding to a query by UserName99 and directly on point.

    The author of the book I cited, Thomas Frank, you posted you were familiar with his works.

    Are you also aware of his political transformation? For the record in short...

     

    Frank started his political journey as a College Republican,[1] but has come to be highly critical of conservatism, especially the presidency of George W. Bush. Frank summarized the thesis of his book The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule as "Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad." [2]

     

    Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who belive government is bad.  Which party does that most resemble? 

    That post was perfectly appropriate and on the money. As the saying goes, you cannot see the forest for the trees. That was the big picture. 

    Frank started out as a conservative Republican. The more he studied, the more he changed his mind on which party was better for his country. 

     

    .

    And btw, please tell me it is not so. In an earlier post you mentioned a meeting between ACC and Pink at a 99 restaurant. (Apparently it did not take place, thank goodness.) But, was such a silly thing actually  proposed? After all we are all adults commenting on a political forum...not guys who get drunk at a bar and call each other outside to settle their differences. Really. They are both too intelligent and educated for that kind of stuff. I hope you were just joking. In the long run, nobody here wishes anyone ill. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to Andiejen's comment:


     

    And btw, please tell me it is not so. In an earlier post you mentioned a meeting between ACC and Pink at a 99 restaurant. (Apparently it did not take place, thank goodness.) But, was such a silly thing actually  proposed? After all we are all adults commenting on a political forum...not guys who get drunk at a bar and call each other outside to settle their differences. Really. They are both too intelligent and educated for that kind of stuff. I hope you were just joking. In the long run, nobody here wishes anyone ill. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Here's a link Andie,

    It's interesting that Jmel/Tacobreath/Bigdog has had to create new accounts every so often much like Airborne/Acc.

    Also note the following "The meeting didn't happen but BOTH posted receipts purporting to show that they were both in the same restaurant at the same general time."

    Just something to keep in mind.............

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/wheres-airborne/80/6591154

    Enjoy!

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to bigdog2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to Andiejen's comment:


     

    And btw, please tell me it is not so. In an earlier post you mentioned a meeting between ACC and Pink at a 99 restaurant. (Apparently it did not take place, thank goodness.) But, was such a silly thing actually  proposed? After all we are all adults commenting on a political forum...not guys who get drunk at a bar and call each other outside to settle their differences. Really. They are both too intelligent and educated for that kind of stuff. I hope you were just joking. In the long run, nobody here wishes anyone ill. 

     




    Here's a link Andie,

     

    It's interesting that Jmel/Tacobreath/Bigdog has had to create new accounts every so often much like Airborne/Acc.

    Also note the following "The meeting didn't happen but BOTH posted receipts purporting to show that they were both in the same restaurant at the same general time."

    Just something to keep in mind.............

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/wheres-airborne/80/6591154

    Enjoy!

     

     




     

    "It's interesting that Jmel/Tacobreath/Bigdog has had to create new accounts every so often much like Airborne/Acc."

     

    Yes it is.  It`s also "interesting" that pinky, skeeter, greg, obstinate, cricket, moving target, truth hurts, and about 100 other people that are here and/or have been here have different names.  Again........you are such a good detective (eye-roll).  Maybe if you weren`t stalking folks and contributing to a debate or discussion you would know who is who and how often "handles" are changed due to creepy folks reporting people because they disagree.

    BTW, the link you posted is about 10% of what actaully happened and what is available. A pink-panther-private-investigator like you could have done a much better job. 

    Back to your stalking now like a good pup.

    [/QUOTE]


    And what does it matter that BOTH posted reciepts yet one ran away from the meeting they asked for?  The point is, one is a coward, one is a stand-up-man.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Logic isn't your strong point, is it?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    Without comment on all of the above, maybe, just maybe if those two had sat down and talked face to face they might have started a dialogue versus what often happens here in the forums.

    They might have found they could respect each other's views. Found they had more in common than they realize. The sort of things that bind people together.

    I have seen stranger turn arounds than that. 

    Or, not knowing who is bigger and stronger than whom, one of them might have beaten the crap out of the other. Police, hospital, court, charges, maybe mutual charges...none of which would have proved anything at this stage of life.

    I do appreciate all the input from both of you. I also think men and women are equal but wired differently. Most women would not think of challenging another for a meet and greet like this. Maybe we can all agree on that?

    Most women do not get physical. But a lot will get catty. Hence the term cat fight....something some men do seem to enjoy watching I have observed. So my gender just does it differently because we are wired differently. Just admitting my gender is not innocent...just different by and large.

                                                                

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to Andiejen's comment:


     

    And btw, please tell me it is not so. In an earlier post you mentioned a meeting between ACC and Pink at a 99 restaurant. (Apparently it did not take place, thank goodness.) But, was such a silly thing actually  proposed? After all we are all adults commenting on a political forum...not guys who get drunk at a bar and call each other outside to settle their differences. Really. They are both too intelligent and educated for that kind of stuff. I hope you were just joking. In the long run, nobody here wishes anyone ill. 

     




    Here's a link Andie,

     

    It's interesting that Jmel/Tacobreath/Bigdog has had to create new accounts every so often much like Airborne/Acc.

    Also note the following "The meeting didn't happen but BOTH posted receipts purporting to show that they were both in the same restaurant at the same general time."

    Just something to keep in mind.............

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/news/politics/general/wheres-airborne/80/6591154

    Enjoy!

     

     

     




     

     

    "It's interesting that Jmel/Tacobreath/Bigdog has had to create new accounts every so often much like Airborne/Acc."

     

    Yes it is.  It`s also "interesting" that pinky, skeeter, greg, obstinate, cricket, moving target, truth hurts, and about 100 other people that are here and/or have been here have different names.  Again........you are such a good detective (eye-roll).  Maybe if you weren`t stalking folks and contributing to a debate or discussion you would know who is who and how often "handles" are changed due to creepy folks reporting people because they disagree.

    BTW, the link you posted is about 10% of what actaully happened and what is available. A pink-panther-private-investigator like you could have done a much better job. 

    Back to your stalking now like a good pup.




     

    And what does it matter that BOTH posted reciepts yet one ran away from the meeting they asked for?  The point is, one is a coward, one is a stand-up-man.

     

     



    Logic isn't your strong point, is it?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Reading comprehension, spelling and grammar, and wanna-be private investigation, aren`t your strong points, are they?

    You`re a good stalker though.  Viewing everyone`s accounts lately?  Creeping around people`s private pages are you?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, the whole spelling and grammar thing again. Nice touch. Here's this.......
    "Maybe if you weren`t stalking folks and contributing to a debate or discussion you would know who is who...."

    Allow me to rewrite it for you. ""Maybe if you weren`t stalking folks and contributed to a debate or discussion you would know who is who....."

    But even so, neither of those sentences make any logical sense.

    BTW, is "actaully" actually spelled that way?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    What I'm really interested in is why his apostrophes are the only ones going the wrong direction.....  

     

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

     

    u`r

    e`s

    e`s

     

     

     

     


    ???

     



    I know, right?

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 150 years ago on July 1st the Battle of Gettysburg was fought

    GETTYSBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Battle of Gettysburg is underway for the second time in a week and tourists are converging in droves even if the outcome of the Civil War’s pivotal encounter has been known for 150 years.

    Soldiers back in 1863 never experienced conditions like the ones re-enactors had Thursday.

    Big city-like traffic snarled two-lane rural roads. Green grandstands used at the U.S. Open golf tournament last month outside Philadelphia lined the battlefield, packed with visitors. A narrator recounted the moves of Union and Confederates over two loudspeakers, as if doing play-by-play and color commentary for a football game.

    ‘‘All right, we've got early firing. What we call a skirmish unit,’’ the narrator said as crowds eagerly watched from the sidelines marked with red wire.

    This re-enactment was held by the Gettysburg Anniversary Committee, the group which has held such events for roughly two decades. This event appeared to draw bigger crowds on the July 4th holiday than the re-enactments held last weekend by the Blue-Gray Alliance, which has had several battle depictions for the 150th anniversary around the country.

     

                                                                

     

Share