Wlll southern Democrats Vote for Barack Obama

I think that the answer to that one can be found in the recent Senate race in Tennessee. Barak should ring up Harold Ford for a little chat.

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:
The two Party system the Democrats vs. the Republicans was born during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln created the Republican Party. He was Americas first Republican. Jefferson Davis the president of the South was a Democrat. The Democrats fought and died to keep Slavery going.


Wlll southern Democrats Vote for Barack Obama for president if he runs in 2008?

You need to go back and study your history. President Lincoln told the South that they could keep there slaves if they would stay with the union. The south seceeded anyway. Slavery was not as big issue as most liberals want you to think it was.

quote:

Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:
The two Party system the Democrats vs. the Republicans was born during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln created the Republican Party. He was Americas first Republican. Jefferson Davis the president of the South was a Democrat. The Democrats fought and died to keep Slavery going.


Wlll southern Democrats Vote for Barack Obama for president if he runs in 2008?

You need to go back and study your history. President Lincoln told the South that they could keep there slaves if they would stay with the union. The south seceeded anyway. Slavery was not as big issue as most liberals want you to think it was.

Really? I must have read the wrong book back in my school days, maybe you can tell me where i might find this info so i can get up to date. thank you for your reply and input on my post!

The first time the Emancipation Proclamation was up for a vote, it failed. This is without Southern votes since the South had already left. If the war was only about freeing the slaves, why didn't it pass the first time?

quote:

Originally posted by NashBama:
The first time the Emancipation Proclamation was up for a vote, it failed. This is without Southern votes since the South had already left. If the war was only about freeing the slaves, why didn't it pass the first time?

Why don't you give me your view on it? anyway do you think a black man will have support from the southern democrats?

I don't think we, meaning voting Americans, should make a racial issue out of our choice for chief executive. If you think Barak is the best person for the job vote accordingly. I don't think that the "south" is as racially and politically immature as some would think, they saw through Al Gores' rhetoric and ties to the eastern US establishment.
A totally diferent predjudice exhists, in my opinion, in the "south" towards Hillary, Barbara and Nancy however. The infamous southern male, read "Hey looka here" genre, still is more pervasive than the national outlook. Will the SOUTH vote along party lines? I fear that is possible.

Race is absolutely an issue, as is gender. By the time a candidate has risen to the level of White House contender, it's not a matter of who can do the job better, it's a matter of who believes what. That's why there are primaries. If the choice is between a white man who believes like you or a black man, who would you vote for? THAT is obviously the original question.

I swear, some of you forum people must just like to type. Your History Channel replies about a subject you probably slept through won't cut it. History is just as "spinnable" as the Bible, so study for yourself and stop giving mimetic answers.

Nothing a democrat, especially a liberal democrat, does really surprises me. If they seriously consider Hillary a viable candidate that warrants serious consideration then it doesn't surprise me one iota that they would consider someone raised in an Islamic household and influenced by the teachings of a malevolent religion for the highest office in the country. They are more willing to capitulate to aggressors than protect and preserve what their fathers have given them. Most democrats I know would vote for a chattering one armed monkey if it ran on the democratic ticket. Is it so hard to believe they would vote Barak Hussein Obama? Wasn't it a democrat that took the oath of office on a Quran?

Liberal- someone so open minded their brains fell out.

Vote Democrat its easier than thinking.

To PBA and his question on Lincoln and slavery:
You asked for evidence on Lincoln's attitudes towards slavery. In Wikipedia you can find the following statement in Lincoln's own words:

"Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861-62, Lincoln made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class. Abolitionists criticized Lincoln for his slowness, but on August 22, 1862, Lincoln explained:

“ I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.[25] ”

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22 and put in effect January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not under Union control."

In essence, he freed slaves in states where he had no authority to do so.

WIKIPEDIA?! Good lord! Will you quote comic books next? I agree that the CW's core issue was not slavery, but if you run to UNA and take a class that requires a paper and then cite Wikipedia, I think you'll be quite disappointed at the type of grade you'll receive.

quote:

Originally posted by one who posts:
Race is absolutely an issue, as is gender. By the time a candidate has risen to the level of White House contender, it's not a matter of who can do the job better, it's a matter of who believes what. That's why there are primaries. If the choice is between a white man who believes like you or a black man, who would you vote for? THAT is obviously the original question.

I swear, some of you forum people must just like to type. Your History Channel replies about a subject you probably slept through won't cut it. History is just as "spinnable" as the Bible, so study for yourself and stop giving mimetic answers.

Wow... I do actually agree "IN PART" about this comment...

The USA will not vote a African American into office,

We will not vote a female into office,

We will not vote Barak into office...

The General public is just not ready for such a radical change of power, and I, being female, agree. I guess being old fashioned, I believe a male should be up there in the White House...

And yes, racism would definitely play a role... at this point, our country is in such a fragile position that the public will put a Caucasean Male into office, because the SUDDEN CHANGE in OUR culture just isn't what we need as a country... that is my opinion on that subject... I know there are a few here who will disagree, and that is cool

But, I do NOT agree with your judgmental attitude, like you, all of a sudden have to join our Forum to "straighten us out"... Get over yourself, you are no smarter than anyone here... you just have YOUR opinions. Voice them, tell us about them, that is great... will love to hear your opinion..

But I can tell you this... people here will stop replying to you, or talking to you if you keep the BETTER THAN YOU attitude, because, I can tell you right now, You are NOT better than me, nor anyone else on here whose deserved opinions are valued.

quote:

Originally posted by one who posts:
WIKIPEDIA?! Good lord! Will you quote comic books next? I agree that the CW's core issue was not slavery, but if you run to UNA and take a class that requires a paper and then cite Wikipedia, I think you'll be quite disappointed at the type of grade you'll receive.

Pssst, most of us are already 'established' in life, we aren't gonna run right over to UNA with any paper, we are going to WORK.

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:
I think that the answer to that one can be found in the recent Senate race in Tennessee. Barak should ring up Harold Ford for a little chat.

COULD IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT FORD'S FAMILY, A POLITICALLY POWERFUL WEST TENN FAMILY, HAD JUST BEEN BUSTED BY THE FBI AND BEEN FORCED TO RESIGN FROM POLITICAL OFFICE?

You need to go back and study your history. President Lincoln told the South that they could keep there slaves if they would stay with the union. The south seceeded anyway. Slavery was not as big issue as most liberals want you to think it was.[/QUOTE]

Really? I must have read the wrong book back in my school days, maybe you can tell me where i might find this info so i can get up to date. thank you for your reply and input on my post![/QUOTE


It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn’t about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it become impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.

quote:

Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
You need to go back and study your history. President Lincoln told the South that they could keep there slaves if they would stay with the union. The south seceeded anyway. Slavery was not as big issue as most liberals want you to think it was.

Really? I must have read the wrong book back in my school days, maybe you can tell me where i might find this info so i can get up to date. thank you for your reply and input on my post![/QUOTE


It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn’t about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it become impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.[/QUOTE]
_____________________________________________
Wow! Thank you for a thoughtful and extensive post on this topic. You must have done a good bit of research on this. Could you cite and post your sources? Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Yo Brotha from anotha Motha:
You need to go back and study your history. President Lincoln told the South that they could keep there slaves if they would stay with the union. The south seceeded anyway. Slavery was not as big issue as most liberals want you to think it was.

Really? I must have read the wrong book back in my school days, maybe you can tell me where i might find this info so i can get up to date. thank you for your reply and input on my post![/QUOTE


It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn’t about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.

In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it become impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).

Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.[/QUOTE]


Whatever source you used forgot to mention that the North wanted the Southerners PORTS for their trading, taxing, and tariff's on the incoming/outgoing ships.

I am not taking this from any one article, it isn't a copy/paste, it is just something that was on the History Channel one day.

Sorry, got WAY off topic here, this is a post about Barack Obama, not the Civil War ... oooops.

Alright, One Who Posts, I have some information for you that might just take your smart*** down a notch. I did go to UNA, (speaking of comic books), I did take the Civil War and Reconstruction class not once but TWICE, under two different teachers with two very different viewpoints and interpretations of the events leading up to, during and after the War of Northern Aggression. I received very high A's both times and was commended on both papers that I wrote. I have also reenacted for several years with both artillery and infantry. I am familiar with many aspects of the War and the personalities involved. Lincoln made the quote and no amount of historical revision will change that simple fact. The only way the revision of history will work is if idiots don't take the time to dig into sources that are closest to the event themselves. Given the evidence, that would seem to be the case in this instance.

Next thing you'll be telling everyone is that you believe what you see on network news is really news and not commentary.

I agree that some Wikipedia information can be less than accurate. But, in this case it is dead on accurate. I was just looking for the quickest source on what I knew Lincoln said. If it is factual, I don't care where it comes from.

Words of Advice:
Before you knock a source find out if the fact is true or not. That is what matters the most.

Before you attempt to ridicule another you better insure you are qualified by something other than the veil of anonymity to do so. Otherwise you just look stupid and waste everyone's time.

I agree with the others about reading your History. But that isn't the point of this board.

I don't vote party lines.. Although I agree more with Democrat party than the Republican party. I think it unwise to vote for someone just because they belong to a certain part of the "spectrum of politics".... That's about as good as electing bugs bunny, in my opinion.

If you vote for someone because you think that they will do the best job, then you are voting the right way. That's how I intend to vote. I don't know very much about Mr. O'Bama, but if he runs, I will do my research accordingly and make an educated decision on what I feel would be best.

Race/gender/religion, it doesn't matter, and shouldn't really matter. In a perfect world, it wouldn't. But as for me, I look at Character overall, when I vote.

I however, Did not vote for Bush. xD

~Manda~

quote:

Originally posted by Carol None:
I'm afraid if Obama runs, he'll end up the vice presidential candidate, which will waste his talent and deprive him of the experience he needs 6-10 years from now, when he'll be better qualified to serve. Aside from Cheney, what VP ever did anything while in office? It's somewhat discouraging that fame seems to have already gone to his head.

Young AND smart, isn't that what this country needs???? I personally think HE would go for the Presidency and he would choose Hilllary as his running mate... What a combination!!!

I know for a FACT now (heard it all my life) that regular people CANNOT afford a Republican President. Bush sure hasn't proven that statement wrong at all!!!

Republicans are for BIG BUSINESS, and RICH people ONLY... Never on do they think or CARE about our crumbling middle class, and the poor can go to ....... Bottom line...

quote:

Originally posted by rotartiller:
Alright, One Who Posts, I have some information for you that might just take your smartass down a notch. I did go to UNA, (speaking of comic books), I did take the Civil War and Reconstruction class not once but TWICE, under two different teachers with two very different viewpoints and interpretations of the events leading up to, during and after the War of Northern Aggression. I received very high A's both times and was commended on both papers that I wrote. I have also reenacted for several years with both artillery and infantry. I am familiar with many aspects of the War and the personalities involved. Lincoln made the quote and no amount of historical revision will change that simple fact. The only way the revision of history will work is if idiots don't take the time to dig into sources that are closest to the event themselves. Given the evidence, that would seem to be the case in this instance.

Next thing you'll be telling everyone is that you believe what you see on network news is really news and not commentary.

I agree that some Wikipedia information can be less than accurate. But, in this case it is dead on accurate. I was just looking for the quickest source on what I knew Lincoln said. If it is factual, I don't care where it comes from.

Words of Advice:
Before you knock a source find out if the fact is true or not. That is what matters the most.

Before you attempt to ridicule another you better insure you are qualified by something other than the veil of anonymity to do so. Otherwise you just look stupid and waste everyone's time.

Friend, I can assure you that the veracity of the source can totally sabotoge the fact you've pulled from it. I'm quite familiar with your point and Lincoln's quote, and, in order to strengthen your point, one with which I agree, I suggested that you use a source of higher character. I know that UNA's History Dept. would appreciate that as well. If you'd like, I could call Dr.s Ward, Osborne, or Makowski (a few friends of mine who are professors in that dept.), to verify my suggestion for you. You just let me know.

quote:

Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:

quote:

Originally posted by Carol None:
I'm afraid if Obama runs, he'll end up the vice presidential candidate, which will waste his talent and deprive him of the experience he needs 6-10 years from now, when he'll be better qualified to serve. Aside from Cheney, what VP ever did anything while in office? It's somewhat discouraging that fame seems to have already gone to his head.

Young AND smart, isn't that what this country needs???? I personally think HE would the for the Presidency and he would choose Hilllary as his running mate... What a combination!!!

I know for a FACT now (heard it all my life) that regular people CANNOT afford a Republican President. Bush sure hasn't proven that statement wrong at all!!!

Republicans are for BIG BUSINESS, and RICH people ONLY... Never on do they think or CARE about our crumbling middle class, and the poor can go to ....... Bottom line...

AMEN, SISTER! Obama/Clinton '08! Let's reclaim our South for the Democrats!

quote:

Originally posted by one who posts:

quote:

Originally posted by rotartiller:
Alright, One Who Posts, I have some information for you that might just take your smartass down a notch. I did go to UNA, (speaking of comic books), I did take the Civil War and Reconstruction class not once but TWICE, under two different teachers with two very different viewpoints and interpretations of the events leading up to, during and after the War of Northern Aggression. I received very high A's both times and was commended on both papers that I wrote. I have also reenacted for several years with both artillery and infantry. I am familiar with many aspects of the War and the personalities involved. Lincoln made the quote and no amount of historical revision will change that simple fact. The only way the revision of history will work is if idiots don't take the time to dig into sources that are closest to the event themselves. Given the evidence, that would seem to be the case in this instance.

Next thing you'll be telling everyone is that you believe what you see on network news is really news and not commentary.

I agree that some Wikipedia information can be less than accurate. But, in this case it is dead on accurate. I was just looking for the quickest source on what I knew Lincoln said. If it is factual, I don't care where it comes from.

Words of Advice:
Before you knock a source find out if the fact is true or not. That is what matters the most.

Before you attempt to ridicule another you better insure you are qualified by something other than the veil of anonymity to do so. Otherwise you just look stupid and waste everyone's time.

Friend, I can assure you that the veracity of the source can totally sabotoge the fact you've pulled from it. I'm quite familiar with your point and Lincoln's quote, and, in order to strengthen your point, one with which I agree, I suggested that you use a source of higher character. I know that UNA's History Dept. would appreciate that as well. If you'd like, I could call Dr.s Ward, Osborne, or Makowski (a few friends of mine who are professors in that dept.), to verify my suggestion for you. You just let me know.

Man, that is ONE field trip I would LOVE!!!!

The fact that you are now stating that you are "quite familiar" with the quote when a few days ago you weren't, smells funny to me. I agree with you about validity of the sources....when you are writing a research paper or arguing a point on which there might exist only a few sources or if the point attempting to be made is a far reach at best. The quote I was making was a fact and time was a factor. Hence, wikipedia. I assure you....friend....that if I ever decide to write a research paper, or address a large body of history students or academicians....it will have valid and proper sources. Wikipedia is a good source for quick information and links to even more detailed and footnoted source information on the fly. Such as this one that explains Lincolns sentiments towards blacks and their place in white society that he made during his debate with Douglas:

http://www.bartleby.com/251/41.html

Oh! Lest we forget the footnote to my original statement about Lincoln's view on slavery's place in the Union here that one is:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Both of which are very good sources footnoted in .....uhhhh.....wikipedia.

I don't care what anyone says, Wikipedia is a good starting point to get to information that is verifiable and factual if you're in a hurry. Seems to me you are just jumping on the bandwagon of the medias latest target.


You go talk to all my old professors if you will....they will probably just be annoyed by the fact that you are bothering them with a trivial matter. They would on the other hand be pleased that a discussion of history was actually almost taking place outside their classroom. But, then they would be disappointed again at the digression of the discussion into a somewhat vehement and mostly meaningless diatribe on the tertiary source of a much taunted and verifiable quote whose author and existence is not in question. Oh well, I could go on all day but this is boring as hell.....and a waste of time. A fact is a fact no matter where you get it. That's how I'm gonna leave it.

quote:

Originally posted by rotartiller:
The fact that you are now stating that you are "quite familiar" with the quote when a few days ago you weren't, smells funny to me. I agree with you about validity of the sources....when you are writing a research paper or arguing a point on which there might exist only a few sources or if the point attempting to be made is a far reach at best. The quote I was making was a fact and time was a factor. Hence, wikipedia. I assure you....friend....that if I ever decide to write a research paper, or address a large body of history students or academicians....it will have valid and proper sources. Wikipedia is a good source for quick information and links to even more detailed and footnoted source information on the fly. Such as this one that explains Lincolns sentiments towards blacks and their place in white society that he made during his debate with Douglas:

http://www.bartleby.com/251/41.html

Oh! Lest we forget the footnote to my original statement about Lincoln's view on slavery's place in the Union here that one is:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Both of which are very good sources footnoted in .....uhhhh.....wikipedia.

I don't care what anyone says, Wikipedia is a good starting point to get to information that is verifiable and factual if you're in a hurry. Seems to me you are just jumping on the bandwagon of the medias latest target.


You go talk to all my old professors if you will....they will probably just be annoyed by the fact that you are bothering them with a trivial matter. They would on the other hand be pleased that a discussion of history was actually almost taking place outside their classroom. But, then they would be disappointed again at the digression of the discussion into a somewhat vehement and mostly meaningless diatribe on the tertiary source of a much taunted and verifiable quote whose author and existence is not in question. Oh well, I could go on all day but this is boring as hell.....and a waste of time. A fact is a fact no matter where you get it. That's how I'm gonna leave it.

Believe us, we're all thankful that you're leaving it. The mask of erudition you wear is fooling no one.

If you'll take time to re-read my statement, you'll find that there was nothing in it that spoke to my possession or impossession of knowledge about that quote. You should reevaluate what you're smelling.

Your "old" professors, as you've so respectfully called them, will be far more interested in the authority of a source than the fact, I assure you. They would be quite concerned that you view Wikipedia as a tertiary source, especially in light of the fact that tertiaries are citable. It is obvious that you don't know them very well because it is a topic of this nature which, at times, seems to interest them most.

(p.s. your ALO 'site is also quite questionable as it is merely tied to a group of volunteers as opposed to an institution of higher learning)

finis
ammitte

" Your "old" professors, as you've so respectfully called them, will be far more interested in the authority of a source than the fact, I assure you."

Now that's just rich. The "authority" more important than the "fact". Spoken like a true revisionist.

I have just noticed that it was actually PBA I was responding to and you just happened to jump in with your pithy line of reasoning. So, I offer you my sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding concerning your voluminous, almost omniscient, grasp on all things and thinking that it was you that made the comment regarding a historical misunderstanding. That being said, though, does not change the fact that you.....friend.....are an ***.

quote:

Originally posted by rotartiller:
" Your "old" professors, as you've so respectfully called them, will be far more interested in the authority of a source than the fact, I assure you."

Now that's just rich. The "authority" more important than the "fact". Spoken like a true revisionist.

I have just noticed that it was actually PBA I was responding to and you just happened to jump in with your pithy line of reasoning. So, I offer you my sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding concerning your voluminous, almost omniscient, grasp on all things and thinking that it was you that made the comment regarding a historical misunderstanding. That being said, though, does not change the fact that you.....friend.....are an ***.

Since you've posted in a forum, you've relinquished your right to an "A-B" conversation; a point I'm sure PBA will confirm.

And, my thesaurus-scouring friend, if I am, as you say, an "***," then I openly invite you to come kiss me.

Barak Hussein Obama, Lets see now.....A person with a Muslim terrorist name and he has only 2 years in the Senate and he is calling for America to withdraw and saying we should not even be in the middle east. Not to mention he looks as though he could be a middle eatsern terrorist.

No he wont get my vote!

Yes, I truly believe that Southern Democrats will vote for him. The mainstream media can still portray us as "Racist Hillbillies", and there are a few left no doubt, but we all know from living here day to day that is certainly not the case. He could very well be the change that so many people have been looking for in the political realm. I hope so anyway........

quote:

AMEN, SISTER! Obama/Clinton '08! Let's reclaim our South for the Democrats!

Here's a novel idea: vote-em-all out and reclaim America for Americans.

no

Kindred Spirit,
Never said the War was about slavery. Didn't even imply it. That war was fought for the same reason that most Wars are fought---Greed....and oh....differing interpretations of the Constitution. The outcome of the War basically castrated the 10th Amendment. Anyhow, industrialism was failing in the North and was being outstripped by the Agrarian culture of the South. I may be mistaken, but the year before the War started the South's contribution to the GNP (or its equivalent of the time) was around 85%. One of the, if not the, wealthiest states in the union was Mississippi. Before anybody crawls my ass about the validity of sources.....that was an opinion.

To get back to your comment about taking the class twice. I enjoy history, especially Southern history, and it was my understanding that the professor that taught the class taught it from a Southern perspective. Well, due to a little indescretion on his part, he was not able to teach that semester. Another guy came in his stead that was a northerner and had a chip on his shoulder about the Southern perspective on anything. Turns out it was an excellent class despite his initial anti-Southern perspective. He invited and fostered the contention and discord that differing perspectives bring. We became good acquaintances although I can't remember his name. It was years ago. He was a Nam Vet with 3 purple hearts. Walked with a limp. I then took the class under the normal professor and found it boring because there was really no room for disagreement because I agreed with what he taught 98% of the time.

To clarify: The War, in my opinion, was not about slavery. I suppose then, using your criteria, the grade may have been a little more than just "given". :- )

I had a good History teacher at UNA about 23 years ago. He was Dr. Ikerman. He taught that the South won. He claims that the South won the war because they seceeded form the North and they were not supposed to be able to. They did for 4 years.

Older guy? Ardent Dixiecrat?

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

AMEN, SISTER! Obama/Clinton '08! Let's reclaim our South for the Democrats!

Here's a novel idea: vote-em-all out and reclaim America for Americans.

I LIKE the way you think!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rotartiller:
Kindred Spirit,
Never said the War was about slavery. Didn't even imply it. That war was fought for the same reason that most Wars are fought---Greed....and oh....differing interpretations of the Constitution. The outcome of the War basically castrated the 10th Amendment. Anyhow, industrialism was failing in the North and was being outstripped by the Agrarian culture of the South. I may be mistaken, but the year before the War started the South's contribution to the GNP (or its equivalent of the time) was around 85%. One of the, if not the, wealthiest states in the union was Mississippi. Before anybody crawls my ass about the validity of sources.....that was an opinion.

To get back to your comment about taking the class twice. I enjoy history, especially Southern history, and it was my understanding that the professor that taught the class taught it from a Southern perspective. Well, due to a little indescretion on his part, he was not able to teach that semester. Another guy came in his stead that was a northerner and had a chip on his shoulder about the Southern perspective on anything. Turns out it was an excellent class despite his initial anti-Southern perspective. He invited and fostered the contention and discord that differing perspectives bring. We became good acquaintances although I can't remember his name. It was years ago. He was a Nam Vet with 3 purple hearts. Walked with a limp. I then took the class under the normal professor and found it boring because there was really no room for disagreement because I agreed with what he taught 98% of the time.

To clarify: The War, in my opinion, was not about slavery. I suppose then, using your criteria, the grade may have been a little more than just "given". :- )

Then you and I have the same love... HISTORY... but you know what? You are right, you are much much more UP on it than I am... Sorry!!! And I mean that sincerely

Who is this Obama? I am outside all day and enjoy espn as to the news.
His name alone sounds islamic. I would vote for an admitted queer before I'd vote for some anti Christ.

No....he has too much going against him:

1. He is namely from Cook County, Chicagograd, People's Republik of Illinois. Very anti-gun there due to Comrade Richard Daley and his machine.

2. His full name is Barack Hussein Obama...he is Muslim by birth, as his father in Kenyan and a Muslim. I read on an article a few minutes ago that he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia when he was before age 10. His bio officially doesn't start until he is age 10, when he moved back to Hawaii after his mother and her 2nd husband (Indonesian) split.

3. He has only been a U.S. senator for 2 years. He has done nothing....

4. Never served in the military. Not even the Guard....yeah, and they make fun of Bush about his Guard service...give me a break...

5. He is a liberal Democrat. That alone will insure he does not get my vote.

6. Dead people in Chicagograd will most certainly vote for him...they have a tradition of that up there.

7. The Klinton/Hildabeast war machine is already churning out the anti-Obama operatives....BTW, most of the points from 2-6 I listed above came from that very article about the Klinton/Hildabeast war machine worried about him. Hmmmmmmm....."You know, Tim, I just don't recall, Tim, ever spying on anyone, Tim...I just got back home from my listening tour, Tim, and I still can't find those billing records, Tim...You know, the vast right-wing conspiracy, Tim, has all these wierd things they say about me, Tim..." Hildabeast on Meet the Depressed with Tim Russert...denying her camp is spying on Osama Obama....

I remember recently hearing that a few years ago the neocons were thinking of McCain as their Plan B if Bush should be a washout. It just struck me that maybe they've been working on Lieberman, too.