User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 10:07:26 AM EDT
[#1]
Maya Angelou
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 11:26:09 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Spoken like someone ignorant of history. Hint: Read the Southern States declarations of secession. They all left specifically so they could continue to own men as property. Of course, the truth is ugly, which is why so many Southerners try to deflect to "States rights". The real tyrants of the war were the leaders of the Confederacy, which is supported by facts. "Lincoln was a tyrant!" is an opinion held by the south supported by the butthurt and sour grapes of the decendants of tyrants who lost a war over thier "right" to continue to own men as property. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? Nope. He was pretty awesome, but a lot of the southern folks believe he was a tyrant, because he wouldn't let the south leave the union to practice slavery, which was an abhorrent practice that is counter to our very constitutional founding.  ETA: The south continues to be butt-hurt about it to this day.  Spoken like a real boot licker. There was nothing "awesome" about lincoln. He tore this country apart, and it damn sure wasn't over slavery. The Civil War was about a federal takeover, not slavery, maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your ass and realize that. Only 5% of southerners owned slaves, around 1% of owners were black. Southerners fought because they knew what would come of a Federal entity. Enjoy that Income tax courtesy of your bud honest Abe. Spoken like someone ignorant of history. Hint: Read the Southern States declarations of secession. They all left specifically so they could continue to own men as property. Of course, the truth is ugly, which is why so many Southerners try to deflect to "States rights". The real tyrants of the war were the leaders of the Confederacy, which is supported by facts. "Lincoln was a tyrant!" is an opinion held by the south supported by the butthurt and sour grapes of the decendants of tyrants who lost a war over thier "right" to continue to own men as property. Lots of denial and revisionism by a handful of sons of the south. However, they are fun to watch during their tirades. Eyes bulge, veins pop, spittle flows.......and this is from someone who has lived south of the MD line for the past thirty-eight years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 12:32:49 PM EDT
[#3]
A hero can always turn out to have been a tyrant later.
How did a Austrian reach the pinnacle of power in his adopted country, destroy it, and in his last hours blame the very people who slavishly obeyed him? Adolph Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" in the 1930s... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 12:46:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maya Angelou Ain't that the truth. Old windbag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 1:10:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: She took in a lot of money to help the poor, sick and, dying, but did little more than warehouse them until they died. Some of her centers were kept empty. The medical care was non-existant and the money instead was used to convert people to Christianity, including baptizing the dying regardless of their religious beliefs, or given right to the Vatican. She personally refused to authorize the funds for purchasing medical equipment. Many of her care givers had no medical training and the their care consisted of cleaning the patients and kindness. They would house everyone together, so the people who could recover from their illnesses contracted the contagious and often fatal illness of the others. When asked if she teaches poor people to accept being poor she said "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." There were several other shady financial dealing, including donations from communist leaders, dictators that stole money from their people and business men who embezzled funds, she even testified for leniency for one of them when he was caught It would have been helpful if you had cited your source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 1:44:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Spoken like a real boot licker. There was nothing "awesome" about lincoln. He tore this country apart, and it damn sure wasn't over slavery. The Civil War was about a federal takeover, not slavery, maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your ass and realize that. Only 5% of southerners owned slaves, around 1% of owners were black. Southerners fought because they knew what would come of a Federal entity. Enjoy that Income tax courtesy of your bud honest Abe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? Nope. He was pretty awesome, but a lot of the southern folks believe he was a tyrant, because he wouldn't let the south leave the union to practice slavery, which was an abhorrent practice that is counter to our very constitutional founding.
ETA: The south continues to be butt-hurt about it to this day. Spoken like a real boot licker. There was nothing "awesome" about lincoln. He tore this country apart, and it damn sure wasn't over slavery. The Civil War was about a federal takeover, not slavery, maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your ass and realize that. Only 5% of southerners owned slaves, around 1% of owners were black. Southerners fought because they knew what would come of a Federal entity. Enjoy that Income tax courtesy of your bud honest Abe. Explain how Lincoln "tore this country apart" when most of the South seceded before he had taken office. The "5% of southerners owned slaves" claim has been proven wildly misrepresentative by historians for years. It is made by taking the whole population of the South (men, women, and children) and then counting only the legal slaveholders, ignoring the family members within the same household of the slaveowner. In other words, take a slaveholding family of five - father, mother, and three kids - all of whom are financially and emotionally invested in slavery. According to the "5%" claim, all five members of the family are used in the base number of "Southerners" but only the legal owner - ie. the father - is counted as a slave owner. Instead of 100% of that family being tied to slavery, the statistical manipulation being the 5% claim would say that only 20% of that family was tied to slavery. The better statistic regarding the importance slaveownership is to look at slaveowning households. Those numbers tell a much different picture, reaching over 30% in most of the Deep South. In Mississippi in 1860, 49% of white families owned slaves; and in South Carolina, 46% of families owned slaves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:53:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The delusional folks defending the Confederacy need to read the Cornerstone Speech by the Confederacy's VP. Guess what the Conerstone of the Confederacy was?.... SLAVERY! Enjoy: The Conerstone Speech Never saw that before. Interesting read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 3:32:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe his argument has merit. When I was getting my BA in History, many of my classes did not shy away from this topic or resort to childish accusations. The side of things he is arguing from has some evidence in his favor. History is a complex thing however. I believe that most of those who fought with conviction on the Northern side did believe in their heart it was a fight against slavery. Likewise I believe that most who fought with conviction on the Southern side believed something similar to what he posted. As to what those pushing the buttons and pulling the levers at the top thought? Well.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Civil War was about a federal takeover, not slavery, maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your ass and realize that. Only 5% of southerners owned slaves, around 1% of owners were black. Southerners fought because they knew what would come of a Federal entity. Enjoy that Income tax courtesy of your bud honest Abe. Your history sucks. History is written by the victor. The Union won and America was forever changed. You don't have to agree with what I said but if you'd care too say something other than "your history sucks" then i'm all ears. How about "you are emotionally invested in an agenda that fails to comport with the facts." I believe his argument has merit. When I was getting my BA in History, many of my classes did not shy away from this topic or resort to childish accusations. The side of things he is arguing from has some evidence in his favor. History is a complex thing however. I believe that most of those who fought with conviction on the Northern side did believe in their heart it was a fight against slavery. Likewise I believe that most who fought with conviction on the Southern side believed something similar to what he posted. As to what those pushing the buttons and pulling the levers at the top thought? Well.... Relativistic drivel. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 7:35:56 PM EDT
[#9]
Muhammad Ali.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:52:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Muhammad Ali. That's a very good one. Joe Frazier was actually a decent guy but Ali went way out of his way to publicly trash him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 8:03:26 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tesla, he was bat shit insane and the vast majority of his work is that of a raving mad man. A blind squirrel and a nut (pun intended) and all that. Had it not been for Tesla's more plausible ideas, you'd be multiplying your electric bill by 20. Edison MacArthur Lincoln Mandela FDR Carter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 9:02:38 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a very good one. Joe Frazier was actually a decent guy but Ali went way out of his way to publicly trash him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Muhammad Ali. That's a very good one. Joe Frazier was actually a decent guy but Ali went way out of his way to publicly trash him. Ali was a great fighter and a terrible human being. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 11:32:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Muhammad Ali. Excellent addition to the list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:39:32 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Churchill. Beside him sacrificing the passengers on the Lusitania he was a dangerous drunk. It's now come out that almost those famous old evening radio broadcasts you have heard of him was made by his impersonator, its not his voice at all that was recorded, but someone that sounded like him reading a speech written by the propagandists. This BTW was admitted by both the impersonator and is detailed in the British archives. Fact was old Winny was too drunk by 5PM to do any evening speeches. Many accounts of him going into war meetings shit faced falling down making all sorts slurred rambling comments. The top British Admiralty had attested to many such meetings. Not only that there was a documented incident where he called bomber command in such a state and ordered the chemical bombing of German cities. This at a time when the Germans possessed large stockpiles of nerve gas much more powerful than the Brits but was not willing to use it. This drunken fool would have changed that. Luckily bomber command knew he was drunk and ignored him. That and for the propganda "we can take it" drivel from him during the blitz, not one time was he anywhere near any bombing as he had prior knowledge as to when to run due to code cracking. Many times he would be notified when and where the bombers where coming at would not give anyone including his staff any knowledge to save them nor civilians, but made sure his driver got him the hell out of the incoming path, then he would show up the day after, like look I'm right here with you for photo ops. This was documented by many including his driver after the war. Fact is Churchill was a drunk, a war criminal and a coward. He also sold out his country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:51:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Churchill's embrace of Attlee has never stood well with me. I can understand the demands of wartime unity but after a certain point you have to ask yourself exactly what you're fighting for and be honest about what you're allying yourself with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He was not that great of a leader. I'd argue he was a great leader playing a losing hand. I don't think there was anyone capable truly stopping socialism in the UK once the British elite discovered the means to both embrace socialism and use to cement themselves into a permanent upper class. Churchill's embrace of Attlee has never stood well with me. I can understand the demands of wartime unity but after a certain point you have to ask yourself exactly what you're fighting for and be honest about what you're allying yourself with. Now that you mention it, Attlee always puzzled me too. I have a feeling he was forced upon him, in order to prevent Halifax from gaining sole control of Britain's destiny. Churchill destroyed everything he claimed he was trying to save. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:00:21 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on what history you believe. There had been considerable improvement in Anglo US relations after the Spanish-American War in 1898 when America followed through on it's promise to make sure Cuba remained independent, and thus reduced the risk of American interference in the British interests in the Caribbean. Prior to this the relationships had been distinctly cool. Even after this period and in the lead up to WWI, and while the relationship continued to improve, there were still those who held distinctly anti-British sentiments in the US. The move towards the US-Anglo alliance became more important and mutually beneficial as both faced the potential threat to global influence from the Russian and German autocracies. Even so, the US remained neutral in the early stages of the WW1, possibly to see Britain sucked into the war and weakened by the cost in order to satisfy those who were less favourable in their views of the Great Rapprochement. Even as friends there is always an element of one-upmanship at play. Not really. The Royal Navy felt at the turn of the century the most likely foe on the sea would be the Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:55:28 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. The Royal Navy felt at the turn of the century the most likely foe on the sea would be the Americans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Depends on what history you believe. There had been considerable improvement in Anglo US relations after the Spanish-American War in 1898 when America followed through on it's promise to make sure Cuba remained independent, and thus reduced the risk of American interference in the British interests in the Caribbean. Prior to this the relationships had been distinctly cool. Even after this period and in the lead up to WWI, and while the relationship continued to improve, there were still those who held distinctly anti-British sentiments in the US. The move towards the US-Anglo alliance became more important and mutually beneficial as both faced the potential threat to global influence from the Russian and German autocracies. Even so, the US remained neutral in the early stages of the WW1, possibly to see Britain sucked into the war and weakened by the cost in order to satisfy those who were less favourable in their views of the Great Rapprochement. Even as friends there is always an element of one-upmanship at play. Not really. The Royal Navy felt at the turn of the century the most likely foe on the sea would be the Americans. And we seemed to have some similar inclinations leading us to develop plans for a war against Britain, should it have ever come to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:00:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For sure. I don't think there is a leader anywhere who cannot be held accountable or criticised for some screw up that happened on their watch and with their input. Hindsight is always 20/20 and there are always additional actors in any scenario that can throw a curveball into any decisions made. There is a tendency to pick on individual events rather than look at the overall picture, and Churchill has long been a controversial figure for those who want to discredit him. In reality he was prolific as a leader and had a long and distinguished public facing career from a early age, and was one of the first to have his life scrutinised under a microscope as a modern leader, with lots of interpretations of that recorded information by people with various agendas. Fact remains that Churchill was one of the most effective and highly regarded leaders of our time. Nobody thinks he was perfect but he was far from a fool, or a villain.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Originally Pofilling Agent_Funky:
Originally Postedlash47:
Churchill. Beside him sacrificing the passengershe Lusitania he was a dangerous drunk. It's now come out that almost those famous old evening radio broadcasts you have heard of him was made by his impersonator, its not his voice at all that was recorded, but someone that sounded like him reading a speech written by the propagandists. This BTW was admitted by both the impersonator and is detailed in the British archives. Fact was old Winny was too drunk by 5PM to do any evening speeches. Many accounts of him going into war meetings shit faced falling down making all sorts slurred rambling comments. The top British Admiralty had attested to many such meetings. Not only that there was a documented incident where he called bomber command in such a state and ordered the chemical bombing of German cities. This at a time when the Germans possessed large stockpile of nerve gas much more powerful than the Brits had but was not willing to use it. This drunken fool would have changed that. Luckily bomber command knew he was drunk and ignored him. That and for the propganda "we can take it" drivel from him during the blitz, not one time was he anywhere near any bombing as he had prior knowledge as to when to run due to code cracking. Many times he would be notified when and where the bombers where coming at would not give anyone including his staff any knowledge to save them nor civilians, but made sure his driver got him the hell out of the incoming path, then he would show up the day after, like look I'm right here with you for photo ops. This was documented by many including his driver after the war. Fact is Churchill was a drunk, a war criminal and a coward. Did you make all that up yourself, or did you find it in one of the Churchill hate books? Churchill is well known to have liked a drink. Beyond that your post is drivel.
For sure. I don't think there is a leader anywhere who cannot be held accountable or criticised for some screw up that happened on their watch and with their input. Hindsight is always 20/20 and there are always additional actors in any scenario that can throw a curveball into any decisions made. There is a tendency to pick on individual events rather than look at the overall picture, and Churchill has long been a controversial figure for those who want to discredit him. In reality he was prolific as a leader and had a long and distinguished public facing career from a early age, and was one of the first to have his life scrutinised under a microscope as a modern leader, with lots of interpretations of that recorded information by people with various agendas. Fact remains that Churchill was one of the most effective and highly regarded leaders of our time. Nobody thinks he was perfect but he was far from a fool, or a villain.
Funky, I for a long time believed what I had been taught in school and saw on the telly about Churchill. Unfortunately, when you take a cold hard, impartial look at the facts, what history likes to paint Churchill as vs. what he really was are 2 very different things. Churchill did more than any other person in British history to destroy the Empire and Britain's standing in the world. Part of the media legend built up around him, was done to hide this very obvious fact. He saw the damage that the Great War inflicted on Britain's standing and power in the world, not to mention the unimaginable slaughter the war caused. WW2 was entirely avoidable, for Britain, but he chose to ruin his country instead of saving it. Please explain to me how it was in the interest of: a) The British Establishment b) The British Empire c) British Industry d) The British Economy e) The British people, how many young men lay forever in "Foreign Fields"? .......to destroy Britain's position in the world, lose the Empire, condemn the English economy being ruined and held hostage to American loans and Britain becoming a Socialist hell-hole was preferable to Britain, maintaining it's pre-war Global position. He was directly responsible for dragging America into both World Wars. Britain could have kept it's Empire, he instead decided to sell Britain out to become a vassal state of America. Ever since then American foreign policy has tried (unsuccessfully) to pick up the pieces left from the power vacuum created when America destroyed the European empires. I would love to believe the "legend" built up around Churchill, but to a person with a true understanding of what happened, (remember History is what is written) it just isn't plausible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:04:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funky, I for a long time believed what I had been taught in school and saw on the telly about Churchill. Unfortunately, when you take a cold hard, impartial look at the facts, what history likes to paint Churchill as vs. what he really was are 2 very different things. Churchill did more than any other person in British history to destroy the Empire and Britain's standing in the world. Part of the media legend built up around him, was done to hide this very obvious fact. He saw the damage that the Great War inflicted on Britain's standing and power in the world, not to mention the unimaginable slaughter the war caused. WW2 was entirely avoidable, for Britain, but he chose to ruin his country instead of saving it. Please explain to me how it was in the interest of: a) The British Establishment b) The British Empire c) British Industry d) The British Economy e) The British people, how many young men lay forever in "Foreign Fields"? .......to destroy Britain's position in the world, lose the Empire, condemn the English economy being ruined and held hostage to American loans and Britain becoming a Socialist hell-hole was preferable to Britain, maintaining it's pre-war Global position. He was directly responsible for dragging America into both World Wars. Britain could have kept it's Empire, he instead decided to sell Britain out to become a vassal state of America. Ever since then American foreign policy has tried (unsuccessfully) to pick up the pieces left from the power vacuum created when America destroyed the European empires. I would love to believe the "legend" built up around Churchill, but to a person with a true understanding of what happened, (remember History is what is written) it just isn't plausible. Nick, is your avatar Otto Skorzeny? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:24:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nick, is your avatar Otto Skorzeny? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Funky, I for a long time believed what I had been taught in school and saw on the telly about Churchill. Unfortunately, when you take a cold hard, impartial look at the facts, what history likes to paint Churchill as vs. what he really was are 2 very different things. Churchill did more than any other person in British history to destroy the Empire and Britain's standing in the world. Part of the media legend built up around him, was done to hide this very obvious fact. He saw the damage that the Great War inflicted on Britain's standing and power in the world, not to mention the unimaginable slaughter the war caused. WW2 was entirely avoidable, for Britain, but he chose to ruin his country instead of saving it. Please explain to me how it was in the interest of: a) The British Establishment b) The British Empire c) British Industry d) The British Economy e) The British people, how many young men lay forever in "Foreign Fields"? .......to destroy Britain's position in the world, lose the Empire, condemn the English economy being ruined and held hostage to American loans and Britain becoming a Socialist hell-hole was preferable to Britain, maintaining it's pre-war Global position. He was directly responsible for dragging America into both World Wars. Britain could have kept it's Empire, he instead decided to sell Britain out to become a vassal state of America. Ever since then American foreign policy has tried (unsuccessfully) to pick up the pieces left from the power vacuum created when America destroyed the European empires. I would love to believe the "legend" built up around Churchill, but to a person with a true understanding of what happened, (remember History is what is written) it just isn't plausible. Nick, is your avatar Otto Skorzeny? Nice try. Do you even Enoch Powell Bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2014 9:25:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nice try. Do you even Enoch Powell Bro? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Funky, I for a long time believed what I had been taught in school and saw on the telly about Churchill. Unfortunately, when you take a cold hard, impartial look at the facts, what history likes to paint Churchill as vs. what he really was are 2 very different things. Churchill did more than any other person in British history to destroy the Empire and Britain's standing in the world. Part of the media legend built up around him, was done to hide this very obvious fact. He saw the damage that the Great War inflicted on Britain's standing and power in the world, not to mention the unimaginable slaughter the war caused. WW2 was entirely avoidable, for Britain, but he chose to ruin his country instead of saving it. Please explain to me how it was in the interest of: a) The British Establishment b) The British Empire c) British Industry d) The British Economy e) The British people, how many young men lay forever in "Foreign Fields"? .......to destroy Britain's position in the world, lose the Empire, condemn the English economy being ruined and held hostage to American loans and Britain becoming a Socialist hell-hole was preferable to Britain, maintaining it's pre-war Global position. He was directly responsible for dragging America into both World Wars. Britain could have kept it's Empire, he instead decided to sell Britain out to become a vassal state of America. Ever since then American foreign policy has tried (unsuccessfully) to pick up the pieces left from the power vacuum created when America destroyed the European empires. I would love to believe the "legend" built up around Churchill, but to a person with a true understanding of what happened, (remember History is what is written) it just isn't plausible. Nick, is your avatar Otto Skorzeny? Nice try. Do you even Enoch Powell Bro? Nope. Skorzeny was the man, BTW. Not looking to bait you. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
