|
Nostalgia
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 22 2009, 03:13 PM (682 Views)
|
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 12:29 AM
Post #26
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:27 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:20 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:06 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 22 2009, 11:50 PM
I can't bring Reagan back though........ :sad:
I never liked Reagan. They tried to replace the James Shields statue with a Reagan statue in the National Statuary Hall back in 2004. The Irish Senators raised hell, so it didn't happen. Good to see there's still some who remember. Reagan can never compete with truly great men. Reagan established the doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy. Clinton and the Bushes continued those destructive doctrines. I'm not sure where Obama stands. The lesson to learn is that greed will eventually collapse under its own weight, and such is this country. Why do you think I'm so socialist? The superrich of this nation are sickening, and for the most part exploit the rest of us. This is my extremist part talking, but I say kill the lot of them, take their estates and break them down into money, and spread it equally among the people. As much as the superrich make and own, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire population would become millionaires. The excess and greed in this nation is simply sickening. Extreme socialist rant over. Hmm. Energy shots must make me more socialist. Or is because I'm supposed to be writing a paper over the subject... Of course, don't think I actually condone killing people. I'm not so simple.
You are one crazy socialist bitch. For me, not liking Reagan is the equivalent of sucking the devil's dick. Reagan was the one who lowered the unemployment rate and brought back America into a superpower, especially after Jimmy Carter's socialist agenda ruined America.
That's pretty fucked up right there. There's plenty of reasons not to like Reagan. Myself, think about it, I have personal reasons. They tried to replace my Greatx4 Granddaddy's statue with his. Of course I'm not going to like him. Being Irish I can only have one reaction, get drunk and curse about it. :lol: Och, I am messed up tonight. Please enlighten me on these reasons. Would you really call tax cuts and lower unemployment destructive doctrines or policies? You need to get over your personal reasons and look at what he did for the American people.
Plus I wouldn't call James Shields someone who deserves it as much as Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields Besides, they replaced Thomas Starr King's statue with Reagan's.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 12:51 AM
Post #27
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:29 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:27 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:20 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:06 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 22 2009, 11:50 PM
I can't bring Reagan back though........ :sad:
I never liked Reagan. They tried to replace the James Shields statue with a Reagan statue in the National Statuary Hall back in 2004. The Irish Senators raised hell, so it didn't happen. Good to see there's still some who remember. Reagan can never compete with truly great men. Reagan established the doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy. Clinton and the Bushes continued those destructive doctrines. I'm not sure where Obama stands. The lesson to learn is that greed will eventually collapse under its own weight, and such is this country. Why do you think I'm so socialist? The superrich of this nation are sickening, and for the most part exploit the rest of us. This is my extremist part talking, but I say kill the lot of them, take their estates and break them down into money, and spread it equally among the people. As much as the superrich make and own, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire population would become millionaires. The excess and greed in this nation is simply sickening. Extreme socialist rant over. Hmm. Energy shots must make me more socialist. Or is because I'm supposed to be writing a paper over the subject... Of course, don't think I actually condone killing people. I'm not so simple.
You are one crazy socialist bitch. For me, not liking Reagan is the equivalent of sucking the devil's dick. Reagan was the one who lowered the unemployment rate and brought back America into a superpower, especially after Jimmy Carter's socialist agenda ruined America.
That's pretty fucked up right there. There's plenty of reasons not to like Reagan. Myself, think about it, I have personal reasons. They tried to replace my Greatx4 Granddaddy's statue with his. Of course I'm not going to like him. Being Irish I can only have one reaction, get drunk and curse about it. :lol: Och, I am messed up tonight.
Please enlighten me on these reasons. Would you really call tax cuts and lower unemployment destructive doctrines or policies? You need to get over your personal reasons and look at what he did for the American people. Plus I wouldn't call James Shields someone who deserves it as much as Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_ShieldsBesides, they replaced Thomas Starr King's statue with Reagan's. Did you even read the article you posted?
He was a General in two wars, the only person to defeat Stonewall Jackson, and the only person in history to be a US Senator for three different states.
That man is a damned hero.
James Shields also held slaves and freed them before the emancipation proclamation. They continued to work for him. We've met black Shields before, and their grandfathers told them of how kind the man was.
Reagan was just an actor who became President and continued destructive doctrines.
For the record, tax cuts are almost always destructive. Less taxes = less funding for government programs. That means less quality in your schools, healthcare, police, defense, etc.
His whole trickle down theory is absolutely sickening. Oh yes, let's let the wealthy have all the money. They'll be generous enough and it'll trickle down to the poor so they can have breadcrusts. Yay, everyone is happy.
Reagan was either a sick man or a delusional one. He lived a privileged life and saw the rest of us through a frosted window.
Yeah, Reagan is so much better.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 23 2009, 12:52 AM
Post #28
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
Sed, you're sick.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 12:53 AM
Post #29
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Tristan da Cunha
- Sep 23 2009, 12:52 AM
Sed, you're sick. I know. :lol:
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 01:04 AM
Post #30
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:51 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:29 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:27 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:20 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:06 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 22 2009, 11:50 PM
I can't bring Reagan back though........ :sad:
I never liked Reagan. They tried to replace the James Shields statue with a Reagan statue in the National Statuary Hall back in 2004. The Irish Senators raised hell, so it didn't happen. Good to see there's still some who remember. Reagan can never compete with truly great men. Reagan established the doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy. Clinton and the Bushes continued those destructive doctrines. I'm not sure where Obama stands. The lesson to learn is that greed will eventually collapse under its own weight, and such is this country. Why do you think I'm so socialist? The superrich of this nation are sickening, and for the most part exploit the rest of us. This is my extremist part talking, but I say kill the lot of them, take their estates and break them down into money, and spread it equally among the people. As much as the superrich make and own, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire population would become millionaires. The excess and greed in this nation is simply sickening. Extreme socialist rant over. Hmm. Energy shots must make me more socialist. Or is because I'm supposed to be writing a paper over the subject... Of course, don't think I actually condone killing people. I'm not so simple.
You are one crazy socialist bitch. For me, not liking Reagan is the equivalent of sucking the devil's dick. Reagan was the one who lowered the unemployment rate and brought back America into a superpower, especially after Jimmy Carter's socialist agenda ruined America.
That's pretty fucked up right there. There's plenty of reasons not to like Reagan. Myself, think about it, I have personal reasons. They tried to replace my Greatx4 Granddaddy's statue with his. Of course I'm not going to like him. Being Irish I can only have one reaction, get drunk and curse about it. :lol: Och, I am messed up tonight.
Please enlighten me on these reasons. Would you really call tax cuts and lower unemployment destructive doctrines or policies? You need to get over your personal reasons and look at what he did for the American people. Plus I wouldn't call James Shields someone who deserves it as much as Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_ShieldsBesides, they replaced Thomas Starr King's statue with Reagan's.
Did you even read the article you posted? He was a General in two wars, the only person to defeat Stonewall Jackson, and the only person in history to be a US Senator for three different states. That man is a damned hero. James Shields also held slaves and freed them before the emancipation proclamation. They continued to work for him. We've met black Shields before, and their grandfathers told them of how kind the man was. Reagan was just an actor who became President and continued destructive doctrines. For the record, tax cuts are almost always destructive. Less taxes = less funding for government programs. That means less quality in your schools, healthcare, police, defense, etc. His whole trickle down theory is absolutely sickening. Oh yes, let's let the wealthy have all the money. They'll be generous enough and it'll trickle down to the poor so they can have breadcrusts. Yay, everyone is happy. Reagan was either a sick man or a delusional one. He lived a privileged life and saw the rest of us through a frosted window. Yeah, Reagan is so much better. I guess you forgot to read the rest of that Wiki page. "The day after Kernstown, he was promoted to major general, but the promotion was withdrawn, reconsidered, and then finally rejected. His overall performance in the rest of the Valley Campaign was poor enough that he resigned his commission, and his departure was not resisted by the War Department." He was wounded several times in many different battles, which clearly shows his lack of military skill. If you have your men and you getting wounded in every battle, that says something there. He also freaked out and wanted to kill Abraham Lincoln because good ol' Abe poked some fun at him. Whoop-de-fucking-do that he served in three different states, it just meant he moved around a lot.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_for_three_states.htm : "Supporters of the defeated Breese petitioned the Senate to refuse to seat Shields on grounds that he had not been a U.S. citizen for the required nine years." Shields wasn't even supposed to become a Senator. It was only after he lost his re-election that he moved. He moved to another state, won there, but failed to get reelected, so he moved again.
Oh, here's something else about Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Jackson#Valley_Campaign): "The campaign started with a tactical defeat at Kernstown on March 23, 1862, when faulty intelligence led him to believe he was attacking a small detachment. But it became a strategic victory for the Confederacy, because his aggressiveness suggested that he possessed a much larger force, convincing President Abraham Lincoln to keep Banks' troops in the Valley and McDowell's 30,000-man corps near Fredericksburg, subtracting about 50,000 soldiers from McClellan's invasion force." Shield's tactical victory was only because of faulty intelligence, not Shield's military brilliance. Plus that "Tactical victory" only helped the Confederacy.
Face it, your Great great great great grandpappy was no great general or politician. Tell me this, how does any of this make him better than Ronald Reagan?
And you still haven't explained why these tax cuts were "doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy."
You must not really understand trickle down economics then. When the government cuts taxes, the people have more money that they rightfully earned. And those people are able to buy much more products from companies and etc. This makes business more successful, which them leads to expansion which leads to more jobs for the people.
Tell me how that is bad for the people.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 01:48 AM
Post #31
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 01:04 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:51 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:29 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:27 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:20 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:06 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 22 2009, 11:50 PM
I can't bring Reagan back though........ :sad:
I never liked Reagan. They tried to replace the James Shields statue with a Reagan statue in the National Statuary Hall back in 2004. The Irish Senators raised hell, so it didn't happen. Good to see there's still some who remember. Reagan can never compete with truly great men. Reagan established the doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy. Clinton and the Bushes continued those destructive doctrines. I'm not sure where Obama stands. The lesson to learn is that greed will eventually collapse under its own weight, and such is this country. Why do you think I'm so socialist? The superrich of this nation are sickening, and for the most part exploit the rest of us. This is my extremist part talking, but I say kill the lot of them, take their estates and break them down into money, and spread it equally among the people. As much as the superrich make and own, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire population would become millionaires. The excess and greed in this nation is simply sickening. Extreme socialist rant over. Hmm. Energy shots must make me more socialist. Or is because I'm supposed to be writing a paper over the subject... Of course, don't think I actually condone killing people. I'm not so simple.
You are one crazy socialist bitch. For me, not liking Reagan is the equivalent of sucking the devil's dick. Reagan was the one who lowered the unemployment rate and brought back America into a superpower, especially after Jimmy Carter's socialist agenda ruined America.
That's pretty fucked up right there. There's plenty of reasons not to like Reagan. Myself, think about it, I have personal reasons. They tried to replace my Greatx4 Granddaddy's statue with his. Of course I'm not going to like him. Being Irish I can only have one reaction, get drunk and curse about it. :lol: Och, I am messed up tonight.
Please enlighten me on these reasons. Would you really call tax cuts and lower unemployment destructive doctrines or policies? You need to get over your personal reasons and look at what he did for the American people. Plus I wouldn't call James Shields someone who deserves it as much as Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_ShieldsBesides, they replaced Thomas Starr King's statue with Reagan's.
Did you even read the article you posted? He was a General in two wars, the only person to defeat Stonewall Jackson, and the only person in history to be a US Senator for three different states. That man is a damned hero. James Shields also held slaves and freed them before the emancipation proclamation. They continued to work for him. We've met black Shields before, and their grandfathers told them of how kind the man was. Reagan was just an actor who became President and continued destructive doctrines. For the record, tax cuts are almost always destructive. Less taxes = less funding for government programs. That means less quality in your schools, healthcare, police, defense, etc. His whole trickle down theory is absolutely sickening. Oh yes, let's let the wealthy have all the money. They'll be generous enough and it'll trickle down to the poor so they can have breadcrusts. Yay, everyone is happy. Reagan was either a sick man or a delusional one. He lived a privileged life and saw the rest of us through a frosted window. Yeah, Reagan is so much better.
I guess you forgot to read the rest of that Wiki page. "The day after Kernstown, he was promoted to major general, but the promotion was withdrawn, reconsidered, and then finally rejected. His overall performance in the rest of the Valley Campaign was poor enough that he resigned his commission, and his departure was not resisted by the War Department." He was wounded several times in many different battles, which clearly shows his lack of military skill. If you have your men and you getting wounded in every battle, that says something there. He also freaked out and wanted to kill Abraham Lincoln because good ol' Abe poked some fun at him. Whoop-de-fucking-do that he served in three different states, it just meant he moved around a lot. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_for_three_states.htm : "Supporters of the defeated Breese petitioned the Senate to refuse to seat Shields on grounds that he had not been a U.S. citizen for the required nine years." Shields wasn't even supposed to become a Senator. It was only after he lost his re-election that he moved. He moved to another state, won there, but failed to get reelected, so he moved again. Oh, here's something else about Jackson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Jackson#Valley_Campaign): "The campaign started with a tactical defeat at Kernstown on March 23, 1862, when faulty intelligence led him to believe he was attacking a small detachment. But it became a strategic victory for the Confederacy, because his aggressiveness suggested that he possessed a much larger force, convincing President Abraham Lincoln to keep Banks' troops in the Valley and McDowell's 30,000-man corps near Fredericksburg, subtracting about 50,000 soldiers from McClellan's invasion force." Shield's tactical victory was only because of faulty intelligence, not Shield's military brilliance. Plus that "Tactical victory" only helped the Confederacy. Face it, your Great great great great grandpappy was no great general or politician. Tell me this, how does any of this make him better than Ronald Reagan? And you still haven't explained why these tax cuts were "doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy." You must not really understand trickle down economics then. When the government cuts taxes, the people have more money that they rightfully earned. And those people are able to buy much more products from companies and etc. This makes business more successful, which them leads to expansion which leads to more jobs for the people. Tell me how that is bad for the people. You're arguing on the basis of a wiki article and an article that doesn't even mention Shields. You're arguing against someone who has done research on the topic time and time again, and who's father wrote a thesis paper on Shields.
Jackson defeated Banks, not Shields. Banks was a bloody idiot who made several logistical and tactical mistakes, ignoring Shields requests for resupply and overriding Shields order to burn a bridge that allowed Confederate troops to cross and defeat Shields' men, who were exhausted and nearly out of ammo. Shields got blamed.
As far as the Shields' victory, how do you think Jackson got faulty intelligence? Shields sprang a trap upon Jackson, one that Jackson would learn from and never fall into again. I can't quote you what happened verbatim, but I suggest if you really want to know what really happened, do your research, rather than grabbing something from the nearest google search.
As far as Reagan, can't you tell I'm just arguing with my balls right now? If I wanted to put up a serious argument, I wouldn't be randomly slandering Reagan, I'd be quoting doctrines and breaking down their weaknesses. If you can't see what's wrong with Reaganomics, you need to do more research on both sides of the spectrum. Look up its pros and cons. Don't side with one side until you understand the whole picture.
Myself, I'm being an ass. I'm hopped up on energy drinks. Yes, I'm hypocritical. Please don't take it personally. I'm not in a logical mindset right now. I'm in a contradictory mindset. I'm sick like that. I'm not nearly the man ol' James Shields was, but I certainly aspire to be.
Remember, my greatest skill is the ability to alter my personality in whatever way I see fit. It's what makes me so unpredictable. The hard part is controlling it.
But for the most part, you will get a logical, centered, yet lively person. Tonight you got to see a hyper, contradictory person with a superiority complex. Aw, baby puppy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 01:51 AM
Post #32
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 01:48 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 01:04 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:51 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:29 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:27 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 12:20 AM
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 12:06 AM
- Atticus
- Sep 22 2009, 11:50 PM
I can't bring Reagan back though........ :sad:
I never liked Reagan. They tried to replace the James Shields statue with a Reagan statue in the National Statuary Hall back in 2004. The Irish Senators raised hell, so it didn't happen. Good to see there's still some who remember. Reagan can never compete with truly great men. Reagan established the doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy. Clinton and the Bushes continued those destructive doctrines. I'm not sure where Obama stands. The lesson to learn is that greed will eventually collapse under its own weight, and such is this country. Why do you think I'm so socialist? The superrich of this nation are sickening, and for the most part exploit the rest of us. This is my extremist part talking, but I say kill the lot of them, take their estates and break them down into money, and spread it equally among the people. As much as the superrich make and own, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire population would become millionaires. The excess and greed in this nation is simply sickening. Extreme socialist rant over. Hmm. Energy shots must make me more socialist. Or is because I'm supposed to be writing a paper over the subject... Of course, don't think I actually condone killing people. I'm not so simple.
You are one crazy socialist bitch. For me, not liking Reagan is the equivalent of sucking the devil's dick. Reagan was the one who lowered the unemployment rate and brought back America into a superpower, especially after Jimmy Carter's socialist agenda ruined America.
That's pretty fucked up right there. There's plenty of reasons not to like Reagan. Myself, think about it, I have personal reasons. They tried to replace my Greatx4 Granddaddy's statue with his. Of course I'm not going to like him. Being Irish I can only have one reaction, get drunk and curse about it. :lol: Och, I am messed up tonight.
Please enlighten me on these reasons. Would you really call tax cuts and lower unemployment destructive doctrines or policies? You need to get over your personal reasons and look at what he did for the American people. Plus I wouldn't call James Shields someone who deserves it as much as Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_ShieldsBesides, they replaced Thomas Starr King's statue with Reagan's.
Did you even read the article you posted? He was a General in two wars, the only person to defeat Stonewall Jackson, and the only person in history to be a US Senator for three different states. That man is a damned hero. James Shields also held slaves and freed them before the emancipation proclamation. They continued to work for him. We've met black Shields before, and their grandfathers told them of how kind the man was. Reagan was just an actor who became President and continued destructive doctrines. For the record, tax cuts are almost always destructive. Less taxes = less funding for government programs. That means less quality in your schools, healthcare, police, defense, etc. His whole trickle down theory is absolutely sickening. Oh yes, let's let the wealthy have all the money. They'll be generous enough and it'll trickle down to the poor so they can have breadcrusts. Yay, everyone is happy. Reagan was either a sick man or a delusional one. He lived a privileged life and saw the rest of us through a frosted window. Yeah, Reagan is so much better.
I guess you forgot to read the rest of that Wiki page. "The day after Kernstown, he was promoted to major general, but the promotion was withdrawn, reconsidered, and then finally rejected. His overall performance in the rest of the Valley Campaign was poor enough that he resigned his commission, and his departure was not resisted by the War Department." He was wounded several times in many different battles, which clearly shows his lack of military skill. If you have your men and you getting wounded in every battle, that says something there. He also freaked out and wanted to kill Abraham Lincoln because good ol' Abe poked some fun at him. Whoop-de-fucking-do that he served in three different states, it just meant he moved around a lot. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senator_for_three_states.htm : "Supporters of the defeated Breese petitioned the Senate to refuse to seat Shields on grounds that he had not been a U.S. citizen for the required nine years." Shields wasn't even supposed to become a Senator. It was only after he lost his re-election that he moved. He moved to another state, won there, but failed to get reelected, so he moved again. Oh, here's something else about Jackson ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Jackson#Valley_Campaign): "The campaign started with a tactical defeat at Kernstown on March 23, 1862, when faulty intelligence led him to believe he was attacking a small detachment. But it became a strategic victory for the Confederacy, because his aggressiveness suggested that he possessed a much larger force, convincing President Abraham Lincoln to keep Banks' troops in the Valley and McDowell's 30,000-man corps near Fredericksburg, subtracting about 50,000 soldiers from McClellan's invasion force." Shield's tactical victory was only because of faulty intelligence, not Shield's military brilliance. Plus that "Tactical victory" only helped the Confederacy. Face it, your Great great great great grandpappy was no great general or politician. Tell me this, how does any of this make him better than Ronald Reagan? And you still haven't explained why these tax cuts were "doctrines that led to this country's current wrecked economy." You must not really understand trickle down economics then. When the government cuts taxes, the people have more money that they rightfully earned. And those people are able to buy much more products from companies and etc. This makes business more successful, which them leads to expansion which leads to more jobs for the people. Tell me how that is bad for the people.
You're arguing on the basis of a wiki article and an article that doesn't even mention Shields. You're arguing against someone who has done research on the topic time and time again, and who's father wrote a thesis paper on Shields. Jackson defeated Banks, not Shields. Banks was a bloody idiot who made several logistical and tactical mistakes, ignoring Shields requests for resupply and overriding Shields order to burn a bridge that allowed Confederate troops to cross and defeat Shields' men, who were exhausted and nearly out of ammo. Shields got blamed. As far as the Shields' victory, how do you think Jackson got faulty intelligence? Shields sprang a trap upon Jackson, one that Jackson would learn from and never fall into again. I can't quote you what happened verbatim, but I suggest if you really want to know what really happened, do your research, rather than grabbing something from the nearest google search. As far as Reagan, can't you tell I'm just arguing with my balls right now? If I wanted to put up a serious argument, I wouldn't be randomly slandering Reagan, I'd be quoting doctrines and breaking down their weaknesses. If you can't see what's wrong with Reaganomics, you need to do more research on both sides of the spectrum. Look up its pros and cons. Don't side with one side until you understand the whole picture. Myself, I'm being an ass. I'm hopped up on energy drinks. Yes, I'm hypocritical. Please don't take it personally. I'm not in a logical mindset right now. I'm in a contradictory mindset. I'm sick like that. I'm not nearly the man ol' James Shields was, but I certainly aspire to be. Remember, my greatest skill is the ability to alter my personality in whatever way I see fit. It's what makes me so unpredictable. The hard part is controlling it. But for the most part, you will get a logical, centered, yet lively person. Tonight you got to see a hyper, contradictory person with a superiority complex. Aw, baby puppy. For the record, the article does mention him. Plus the fact that he resigned and the Military didn't care, even though they were at a time of war, shows he wasn't much of an important general to them.
Why the hell do you even bother to argue if you are going to be a hypocrite about it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 02:31 AM
Post #33
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Atticus
- Sep 23 2009, 01:51 AM
Why the hell do you even bother to argue if you are going to be a hypocrite about it. Meh, I wrote a lot and it would have been amusing, I'm sure, but I'd rather not talk about that.
Let me put it simple for you. Most of the time I'm an honorable man with nothing but the best in mind. However, there are times when I allow certain faults in my personality to get the better of me. It's my greatest flaw. There's actually not much hypocritical about my argument. I'm calling myself a hypocrite because I loathe the excess that the rich go to, yet I find myself doing the same thing.
I have a superiority complex built into me that I try to suppress. Every now and then it comes out. I was not controlling my argument; I was just arguing off the top of my head. Mainly, it's because I'm exhausted, and I don't have the time to research things other than what I should be researching (socialism). So, I'm sorry, Atticus. You have my most sincere apologies.
As for James Shields, I will argue most vehemently about him. He is one of the greats of my family and is indisputably a great man. You were doing the same thing as myself in insulting him, but I won't hold it against you. One has to fight fire with fire. But I would ask that you really do research more into him before so quickly slandering him. The truth is much deeper than those articles reveal. Remember in those times people were quite racist against the Irish.
Reagan...
I dislike Reagan because I have centrist viewpoints with socialist tendencies. His points and my points simply don't agree, and never will. I also have a dislike for Reagan because he seems to be given far too much credit, and is glorified. People act as if he was some sort of god. In what way was he really so great? How is he a hero? Did the man go forth and take bullets for us? Did the man really make the world better?
The way I look at it, twenty years after Andrew Jackson was out of office, people likely looked back and said, "That was a great man." Now over a hundred years later we look back and see he did much for the US interests, but he was responsible for the deaths a countless natives and seemed to have an utter disregard for the Constitution.
Looking back a hundred years from now, historians will have a clearer picture of the whole story. Not having lived in Reagan's times, they will have an unbiased opinion and will be able to analyze it better than we two ever could. They probably won't see him as nicely or as harshly as we. That said, they also won't think Bush was so bad.
Anyways, I'm just trying to get you to look at the matter from a different point-of-view. If you truly want to understand a subject, you must understand in full each side of the argument, looking at each side with as little bias as possible.
Normally, I usually stand in the center on issues. I'm sure if I analyzed Reagan more deeply, I would find he was not so bad, but I would also find he is not so great as many think.
That said, I probably should not seriously argue about something unless I make such analyses first. But, in considering this forum, most of it is arguments off the top of the head. I think we all like to think of ourselves as intellectuals here.
Life is a constant educative experience. What have I learned this time? Don't argue on nationstates when hopped up on energy drink. :lol:
|
|
|
| |
|
New Harumf
|
Sep 23 2009, 11:07 AM
Post #34
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
- Posts:
- 9,638
- Group:
- Forum Mods
- Member
- #177
- Joined:
- October 8, 2005
|
Must every thread reduce to the same "What does it have to do with Sed" argument? This is supposed to be about nostalgia.
I lived from the Truman administration to today - formative years under Ike. Suffered under Johnson. Got pissed at Nixon's tax rates. Cheered for Ronnie. Disgusted under Clinton. Pissed under Bush. Appalled under Obama.
What am I nostalgic about?
Kick-the-can on a warm summer evening. Thanksgiving night poker in my parent's basement. A fall walking tour of Michigan Ave. in Chicago. Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore. Everyone sitting out in front of their houses on a summer night, NOT in their back yards. Talking with my Dad. Having my dog run after me when I was late for school. Avalon Hill war games.
I'm not nostalgic about any particular time - I'm just nostalgic about a much slower, much more relaxed time when I seemed to be able to acomplish more with less and no project seemed to big to do.
Oh, and because I am sick, I am very nostalgic right now for Canada Dry ginger ale and cinnamon toast.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 11:14 AM
Post #35
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
Bring back the Roman Empire!
|
|
|
| |
|
Telosan
|
Sep 23 2009, 04:14 PM
Post #36
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
- Posts:
- 3,893
- Group:
- Map Makers
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- May 27, 2008
|
I really want to join the argument above. I figure it's better not to fan the flames.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 23 2009, 04:33 PM
Post #37
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
- Atticus
-
He was wounded several times in many different battles, which clearly shows his lack of military skill. If you have your men and you getting wounded in every battle, that says something there.
Atticus, you're pulling at straws here. Ronald Reagan was a great man, and James Shields may have been a mediocre commander, but if you're going out of your way to impugn and disrespect his bravery and war wounds then that just shows you're a coward. Many commanders in the Civil War led their men from the front, unlike today's generals who sit safely at a computer 2,000 miles away from the front line and push buttons on a control panel to launch missiles and airstrikes. It was typical for generals both victorious and defeated ones to sustain multiple injuries, like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who had horses shot out from under him and got hit with bullets on several occasions, and is regarded as one of the greatest northern commanders.
- Atticus
-
He also freaked out and wanted to kill Abraham Lincoln because good ol' Abe poked some fun at him.
That was Abe in his hippie phase in the 1840s.
|
|
|
| |
|
East Anarx
|
Sep 23 2009, 05:33 PM
Post #38
|
Anarchitect
- Posts:
- 4,788
- Group:
- Multi
- Member
- #210
- Joined:
- January 16, 2006
|
Ronald Reagan was a socialist.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 05:51 PM
Post #39
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Esternarx
- Sep 23 2009, 05:33 PM
Ronald Reagan was a socialist. That's just insulting to socialists. :lol:
Ronald Reagan tried to control the means of production?
|
|
|
| |
|
Telosan
|
Sep 23 2009, 06:02 PM
Post #40
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
- Posts:
- 3,893
- Group:
- Map Makers
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- May 27, 2008
|
- Tristan da Cunha
- Sep 23 2009, 04:33 PM
- Atticus
-
He was wounded several times in many different battles, which clearly shows his lack of military skill. If you have your men and you getting wounded in every battle, that says something there.
Atticus, you're pulling at straws here. Ronald Reagan was a great man, and James Shields may have been a mediocre commander, but if you're going out of your way to impugn and disrespect his bravery and war wounds then that just shows you're a coward. Many commanders in the Civil War led their men from the front, unlike today's generals who sit safely at a computer 2,000 miles away from the front line and push buttons on a control panel to launch missiles and airstrikes. It was typical for generals both victorious and defeated ones to sustain multiple injuries, like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who had horses shot out from under him and got hit with bullets on several occasions, and is regarded as one of the greatest northern commanders. - Atticus
-
He also freaked out and wanted to kill Abraham Lincoln because good ol' Abe poked some fun at him.
That was Abe in his hippie phase in the 1840s. Chamberlain is exactly who I was intending to mention. I think he was shot 11 times in his career and had 2 horses shot out from under him, though I think 4 horses were wounded.
|
|
|
| |
|
East Anarx
|
Sep 23 2009, 06:03 PM
Post #41
|
Anarchitect
- Posts:
- 4,788
- Group:
- Multi
- Member
- #210
- Joined:
- January 16, 2006
|
- Sedulius
- Sep 23 2009, 05:51 PM
- Esternarx
- Sep 23 2009, 05:33 PM
Ronald Reagan was a socialist.
That's just insulting to socialists. :lol: Ronald Reagan tried to control the means of production? He didn't have to try. The state already controlled the means of production in multiple industries when he took office. The military is the biggest socialist program in the US, and Reagan increased military spending by 40%. Worse than a socialist, he was specifically an authoritarian socialist who used free-market rhetoric while actually increasing the size of the government. Fuck Reagan.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 06:39 PM
Post #42
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tristan da Cunha
- Sep 23 2009, 04:33 PM
- Atticus
-
He was wounded several times in many different battles, which clearly shows his lack of military skill. If you have your men and you getting wounded in every battle, that says something there.
but if you're going out of your way to impugn and disrespect his bravery and war wounds then that just shows you're a coward. Many commanders in the Civil War led their men from the front, unlike today's generals who sit safely at a computer 2,000 miles away from the front line and push buttons on a control panel to launch missiles and airstrikes. It was typical for generals both victorious and defeated ones to sustain multiple injuries, like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who had horses shot out from under him and got hit with bullets on several occasions, and is regarded as one of the greatest northern commanders. Ok, i see your point, I was angry and kinda pissed off. I could argue my point right now with some ideas from people like Patton, but I don't think i should. Though I do have some very good arguments.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 08:21 PM
Post #43
|
|
Deleted User
|
Screw it, I'm going to argue my point.
The point is, I not trying to impugn or disrespect his bravery and war wounds. There is nothing wrong with bravery and such, but it isn't smart in the long run. I don't agree with our generals being far away from the action, but you must understand that technology is much more advanced, and the general doesn't need to be on the battlefield to understand the situation and correctly relay information to his troops. Imagine if Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was shot just a little bit higher on that first wound. Then he would have died and The Union would have lost a great general. Plus if he had died, his troops would have no one to lead them and would break from the lines after well coordinated attacks by the enemy. Imagine if every general rode into battle with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, pretty soon we would have a shortage of generals.
Patton was an example of someone who was able to mix these two together very well. He often drove out to battles and watched them, also times personally swimming across a river they were to cross the following day. He hated the fact that many had their HQ way to far away from the battlefield, but he also understood that the General need to be somewhat close, yet far away to asses the situation and make the necessary calls and relaying information. But if it was too close, then a stray shell or bomber could take out the HQ and the Commanders there.
You don't have to ride into battle and receive wounds to be a good general. Maybe that's why the Union lost twice as many Soldiers than the confederates. The confederates had better generals, while the Union had crappy ones, which often times lead to the deaths of many men. The Union won only because they had more soldiers, weapons, better industry, and more men. If the Confederates had the same number of troops, industry, and supplies, then they would have easily won.
I understand the honor and glory in leading your troops to battle, but sometimes it just isn't very smart. I'm not trying to impeded on anyone's honor.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 23 2009, 08:48 PM
Post #44
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
Technology is advanced today maybe, but it was relatively primitive back then. There were no radio communications, for example.
Generals back then had to be close to the action (though not necessarily at the bayonet charge per se). The Union lost more men because their generals (including Ulysses Grant in his final promotion) simply sent waves of infantry charges to overwhelm the Confederates with sheer numbers. The Union strategy did not require generals to be close to the action or have an intimate "feel" for battlefield conditions.
As many Confederate commanders were injured as Union ones.
Actually, all the famous Civil War commanders who were killed in battle were Confederates, not Federals. Albert Sidney Johnston and the great Jeb Stuart come to mind. A.S. Johnston was practically the highest ranking officer in the entire rebel army when he was killed in battle.
Patton is from a different time. Patton is from the WWII period, which makes him irrelevant to the current discussion. He enjoyed technological advantages like radio communications. In terms of technology, the Civil War was much closer to the Napoleonic Wars than it was to WWII. Even Emperor Napoleon was close enough to the action to be injured in battle. These were battlefield risks that future generals in WWI or WWII no longer had to take.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 08:58 PM
Post #45
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Tristan da Cunha
- Sep 23 2009, 08:48 PM
Technology is advanced today maybe, but it was relatively primitive back then. There were no radio communications, for example.
Generals back then had to be close to the action (though not necessarily at the bayonet charge per se). The Union lost more men because their generals (including Ulysses Grant in his final promotion) simply sent waves of infantry charges to overwhelm the Confederates with sheer numbers. The Union strategy did not require generals to be close to the action or have an intimate "feel" for battlefield conditions.
As many Confederate commanders were injured as Union ones.
Actually, all the famous Civil War commanders who were killed in battle were Confederates, not Federals. Albert Sidney Johnston and the great Jeb Stuart come to mind. A.S. Johnston was practically the highest ranking officer in the entire rebel army when he was killed in battle.
Patton is from a different time. Patton is from the WWII period, which makes him irrelevant to the current discussion. He enjoyed technological advantages like radio communications. In terms of technology, the Civil War was much closer to the Napoleonic Wars than it was to WWII. Even Emperor Napoleon was close enough to the action to be injured in battle. These were battlefield risks that future generals in WWI or WWII no longer had to take. :lol: feels like I'm trying to defend the Confederates, I keep going back to them.
You pretty much got me, damn you and your more extensive knowledge of history than I have. :D
Its so hard to argue with all you college students and such. I'm just a kid in high school who doesn't have time to look up this stuff, and whose teachers just teach us the bare minimums.
|
|
|
| |
|
Telosan
|
Sep 23 2009, 09:32 PM
Post #46
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
- Posts:
- 3,893
- Group:
- Map Makers
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- May 27, 2008
|
I'm younger than you. I'd be fully willing to hold a debate, maybe bring it down to an equal playing field.
Every teacher I've ever had has always taught the bare minimum. Never stepping away from the lesson plans they've been using for their past 60 years of teaching that they never stop bragging about. I do well in school because I already know 3/4th of what they try teaching. I've never studied for a test before in my life. I'm not quite sure how. I don't take notes. Yet I do better than those who work at it for weeks. 'Course I pay attention in class while everyone else texts each other and such.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 09:38 PM
Post #47
|
|
Deleted User
|
- Telosan
- Sep 23 2009, 09:32 PM
I'm younger than you. I'd be fully willing to hold a debate, maybe bring it down to an equal playing field.
Every teacher I've ever had has always taught the bare minimum. Never stepping away from the lesson plans they've been using for their past 60 years of teaching that they never stop bragging about. I do well in school because I already know 3/4th of what they try teaching. I've never studied for a test before in my life. I'm not quite sure how. I don't take notes. Yet I do better than those who work at it for weeks. 'Course I pay attention in class while everyone else texts each other and such. I know what you mean, and I love a good debate.
I hate how teachers teach like that. Especially in history. We don't even go over anything in detail. Everything is just the ideas of stuff, not what happened. It took us a day to cover the revolutionary war, because all we talked about was why loyalist didn't want to be in the war.
My entire life I've been able to skate past everything with good grades, but now that I'm in high school, I got hit kinda hard. I was so used to having everything so easy, but then along came ap classes and more advance math classes.Especially last year, where i did the worst I've ever done, but I'm pulling myself back.
|
|
|
| |
|
Menhad
|
Sep 23 2009, 09:40 PM
Post #48
|
ET2(IDW)
- Posts:
- 2,681
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- May 22, 2005
|
Listen I graduated with a 2.8
My freshmen I got 1.9
My 8th grade year I got a .166 gpa :lol:
In the military all they care about is your ASVAB score.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 23 2009, 10:15 PM
Post #49
|
|
Deleted User
|
- T.O.
- Sep 23 2009, 09:40 PM
Listen I graduated with a 2.8 My freshmen I got 1.9 My 8th grade year I got a .166 gpa :lol: In the military all they care about is your ASVAB score. Not if you want to get into West Point :sad:
|
|
|
| |
|
NRE
|
Sep 23 2009, 10:31 PM
Post #50
|
Map Tsar and Southern Gentleman
- Posts:
- 9,266
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #120
- Joined:
- April 21, 2005
|
- New Harumf
- Sep 23 2009, 11:07 AM
Must every thread reduce to the same "What does it have to do with Sed" argument? This is supposed to be about nostalgia.
I lived from the Truman administration to today - formative years under Ike. Suffered under Johnson. Got pissed at Nixon's tax rates. Cheered for Ronnie. Disgusted under Clinton. Pissed under Bush. Appalled under Obama.
What am I nostalgic about?
Kick-the-can on a warm summer evening. Thanksgiving night poker in my parent's basement. A fall walking tour of Michigan Ave. in Chicago. Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore. Everyone sitting out in front of their houses on a summer night, NOT in their back yards. Talking with my Dad. Having my dog run after me when I was late for school. Avalon Hill war games.
I'm not nostalgic about any particular time - I'm just nostalgic about a much slower, much more relaxed time when I seemed to be able to acomplish more with less and no project seemed to big to do.
Oh, and because I am sick, I am very nostalgic right now for Canada Dry ginger ale and cinnamon toast. What no memories of Carter? Who could forget Billy Beer?
Posted Image
I have to agree that I can't say for certain that I'm nostalgic for any particular point in time although I wouldn't mind going back to Mayberry if it were possible.. I'm just nostalgic in general, especially when that certain taste or smell hits you and before you know it you're somewhere else. Hot pockets, for an example, always seem to take me back to my childhood summers.
Music does it a lot for me too, though not necessarily a song from my time. 50s, 60s, 70s, 80, etc etc. I always find a song that also takes me back to some other point in my life.
But overall I try not to get too caught up in memories as I always wish I could do it all over again, change a few things but not much, and do it all with what I know now.
Edited by NRE, Sep 23 2009, 10:33 PM.
|
|
|
| |