User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:45:13 AM EST
[#1]
Nelson Mandela
Obama Malcolm X Jessie Jackson Al Sharpton The list goes on... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:45:35 AM EST
[#2]
Andrew Jackson
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:46:21 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FDR. This what I came to post. There are many other legit ones mentioned here too IMO. Cheers! -JC |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:49:31 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nelson Mandela Jimmy Carter JFK The Prophet Mohammed John Lennon Edit: forgot to mention LBJ.. The war on poverty is going well sir, The middle class is getting their asses handed to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In response to this thread: Who is remembered by history as a fool or villian but got a bum rap? I had a lot of responses I wanted to make in that thread, but most of em fell under this category. My candidate would be McArthur. He was a lying, egomaniacal mommy's boy who was completely ineffective in the early stages of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, and effectively went rogue in Korea, provoking the Chinese. He operated a command isolated from the US Government in the Korean War, and frequently made political moves completely outside of his scope as a military commander. Biographies describe his sick fascination with his mother, and from an early age he was surrounded by sycophants and yes men. He created a world around himself where he could do no wrong, and every misstep he made he blamed on others. He had a pathological aversion to taking responsibility for his actions, which often ended up getting men killed. By the end of his career, he was so mentally off his rocker it was a shitshow getting him reigned in. Your candidates? Of course, this being GD, the first name I expect is Abraham Lincoln, but I swear to god I will pistol whip the first son of a bitch that turns this into a Civil War tard fest. Nelson Mandela Jimmy Carter JFK The Prophet Mohammed John Lennon Edit: forgot to mention LBJ.. The war on poverty is going well sir, The middle class is getting their asses handed to them. Clinton.... Great list.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:50:00 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most liners used to carry cargo, including military cargo. They were a major means of transporting goods and raw materials in bulk at the time. The other points made in the conspiracy theory don't stand up to scrutiny either. Churchill has been the target of many attempts to discredit him. It's worth checking things out before drawing any conclusions.  I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:55:39 AM EST
[#6]
Jimmy Hoffa.
Union folk say hero. I believe thug and bully to be more correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:58:19 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most liners used to carry cargo, including military cargo. They were a major means of transporting goods and raw materials in bulk at the time. The other points made in the conspiracy theory don't stand up to scrutiny either. Churchill has been the target of many attempts to discredit him. It's worth checking things out before drawing any conclusions. I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Speaking of the Lusitania... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:00:04 AM EST
[#8]
Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:03:54 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jesus How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. For those that are atheist or don't belive Christianity, Jesus is the most overrated person in all of history bar none, hands down. Obviously if you are Christian you disagree. ETA: I don't know if anyone would call Jesus a fool or villan, rather just not the person he is made out to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:05:28 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most liners used to carry cargo, including military cargo. They were a major means of transporting goods and raw materials in bulk at the time. The other points made in the conspiracy theory don't stand up to scrutiny either. Churchill has been the target of many attempts to discredit him. It's worth checking things out before drawing any conclusions. I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Wait, so you're saying that Churchill intentionally drug the US into WWI? 
Context is not everything. Perspective plays a pretty big part.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:33:26 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? A whole line of people will now come and tell you how Lincoln ended the Republic by usurping authority to the federal government that had not previously existed. But the FACT is, whoever was President during the Civil War would almost certainly have done the same thing if his intent was to hold the Union together and not allow secession. Lincoln also didn't do anything that the Confederacy wasn't already doing...other than freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, of course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:38:02 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, so you're saying that Churchill intentionally drug the US into WWI?
Context is not everything. Perspective plays a pretty big part.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most liners used to carry cargo, including military cargo. They were a major means of transporting goods and raw materials in bulk at the time. The other points made in the conspiracy theory don't stand up to scrutiny either. Churchill has been the target of many attempts to discredit him. It's worth checking things out before drawing any conclusions. I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Wait, so you're saying that Churchill intentionally drug the US into WWI?
Context is not everything. Perspective plays a pretty big part.
No, I'm not saying that
I'm saying he recognised that if the US decided to get off the fence as a neutral country it would serve British interests in several ways
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:39:54 AM EST
[#13]
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:44:22 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jesus eurotrolling |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:45:34 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ted Cruz Rand Paul They are not remembered in history yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:47:11 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are not remembered in history yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ted Cruz Rand Paul They are not remembered in history yet. I am from the future |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:47:25 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jesus How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. He thought he was the son of God, and it got him killed. That's pretty foolish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:48:41 AM EST
[#18]
Lincoln and FDR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:58:28 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Che Gueverra This These idiot kids wearing tshirts with his likeness have no idea who he was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:07:41 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I'm not saying that
I'm saying he recognised that if the US decided to get off the fence as a neutral country it would serve British interests in several ways Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Wait, so you're saying that Churchill intentionally drug the US into WWI?
Context is not everything. Perspective plays a pretty big part.
No, I'm not saying that
I'm saying he recognised that if the US decided to get off the fence as a neutral country it would serve British interests in several ways It's all good. Like I said, we aren't mad. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:09:05 AM EST
[#21]
FDR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:09:52 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nelson Mandela This is the first thing that came to mind. he was just clever enough to let other people take the blame for "necklace" murders |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:10:28 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thomas Edison. Another good example. Edison was great at stealing other people's work and ideas and marketing them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:19:23 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone that tries to talk up Mandela get a STFU from me. They don't know the history of that ape. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:21:13 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mother Teresa This reminds me, Christopher Hitchens is a good add to the list. Drunken boorish jackass (and a Trotskyite to boot) who's only 'admired' because he pandered to people's anti-religious bigotry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:23:07 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would be curious as to your reasoning behind choosing Churchill. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Abe Franklin Rosenfelt Churchill I would be curious as to your reasoning behind choosing Churchill. I agree with Churchill to a degree - more overrated than a fool - although I don't have time to explain it now. But choosing to share power with Clement Atlee was a bad move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:26:30 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Che Gueverra Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:26:43 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thomas Edison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:27:24 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nelson Mandela Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In response to this thread: Who is remembered by history as a fool or villian but got a bum rap? I had a lot of responses I wanted to make in that thread, but most of em fell under this category. My candidate would be McArthur. He was a lying, egomaniacal mommy's boy who was completely ineffective in the early stages of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, and effectively went rogue in Korea, provoking the Chinese. He operated a command isolated from the US Government in the Korean War, and frequently made political moves completely outside of his scope as a military commander. Biographies describe his sick fascination with his mother, and from an early age he was surrounded by sycophants and yes men. He created a world around himself where he could do no wrong, and every misstep he made he blamed on others. He had a pathological aversion to taking responsibility for his actions, which often ended up getting men killed. By the end of his career, he was so mentally off his rocker it was a shitshow getting him reigned in. Your candidates? Of course, this being GD, the first name I expect is Abraham Lincoln, but I swear to god I will pistol whip the first son of a bitch that turns this into a Civil War tard fest. Nelson Mandela Another good one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:27:49 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A whole line of people will now come and tell you how Lincoln ended the Republic by usurping authority to the federal government that had not previously existed. But the FACT is, whoever was President during the Civil War would almost certainly have done the same thing if his intent was to hold the Union together and not allow secession. Lincoln also didn't do anything that the Confederacy wasn't already doing...other than freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, of course. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? A whole line of people will now come and tell you how Lincoln ended the Republic by usurping authority to the federal government that had not previously existed. But the FACT is, whoever was President during the Civil War would almost certainly have done the same thing if his intent was to hold the Union together and not allow secession. Lincoln also didn't do anything that the Confederacy wasn't already doing...other than freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, of course. So how many slaves did Lincoln free in the Northern states?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:29:41 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He thought he was the son of God, and it got him killed. That's pretty foolish. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. He thought he was the son of God, and it got him killed. That's pretty foolish. Still being argued about 2000 years later after starting the most successful social movement in history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:30:34 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most liners used to carry cargo, including military cargo. They were a major means of transporting goods and raw materials in bulk at the time. The other points made in the conspiracy theory don't stand up to scrutiny either. Churchill has been the target of many attempts to discredit him. It's worth checking things out before drawing any conclusions. I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Your assertions of pre-War American actions are demonstrably incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:30:59 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still being argued about 2000 years later after starting the most successful social movement in history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. He thought he was the son of God, and it got him killed. That's pretty foolish. Still being argued about 2000 years later after starting the most successful social movement in history. Still doesn't make him a deity though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:32:00 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nailed it. Living right down the road from his winter estate he is held in high regard here. Teachers in this town taught that he was an amazing pioneer and inventor and celebrated him every year with a parade. No one decided to speak of his drama with Tesla and what a fucking kook he was. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thomas Edison. But someone else on here already said that Tesla was a kook. Edison was the wizard of melo park...right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:33:35 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:34:12 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how many slaves did Lincoln free in the Northern states?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? A whole line of people will now come and tell you how Lincoln ended the Republic by usurping authority to the federal government that had not previously existed. But the FACT is, whoever was President during the Civil War would almost certainly have done the same thing if his intent was to hold the Union together and not allow secession. Lincoln also didn't do anything that the Confederacy wasn't already doing...other than freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, of course. So how many slaves did Lincoln free in the Northern states?
Every single one he had legal authority to free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:35:42 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still doesn't make him a deity though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus How so? No bashing will be involved just curious. He thought he was the son of God, and it got him killed. That's pretty foolish. Still being argued about 2000 years later after starting the most successful social movement in history. Still doesn't make him a deity though. So what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:36:57 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He destroyed the concept of state rights and ushered in the large, centralized, overbearing government that we have today. None of which was required to abolish slavery. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? States Rights were destroyed by Progressivism, and the large federal government was a function of progressivism. So, I'd say you're missing about 35 years of American history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:37:14 AM EST
[#39]
Princess Diana.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:38:18 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Princess Diana. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The term I heard regarding her was "a slutty, talentless bulimic." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:41:39 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But someone else on here already said that Tesla was a kook. Edison was the wizard of melo park...right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thomas Edison. But someone else on here already said that Tesla was a kook. Edison was the wizard of melo park...right? I was told to omit any of that like the teacher was Holder reacting to someone doing a report on F&F. People got a serious hard on for Edison here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:10:51 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He destroyed the concept of state rights and ushered in the large, centralized, overbearing government that we have today. None of which was required to abolish slavery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? ] Guess I was warned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:14:45 AM EST
[#43]
There are many contenders but for Americans the absolute no brainer winner is Lincoln.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:28:41 AM EST
[#44]
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand...this just turned into a Civil War 'who's to blame thread', again.
But for my $0.02 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt (was vastly responsible for the concept of Government intervention into business practices) And many people in Russia still think that Stalin is a damned hero. I tend to blame that on the vodka, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:30:44 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your assertions of pre-War American actions are demonstrably incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most liners used to carry cargo, including military cargo. They were a major means of transporting goods and raw materials in bulk at the time. The other points made in the conspiracy theory don't stand up to scrutiny either. Churchill has been the target of many attempts to discredit him. It's worth checking things out before drawing any conclusions. I wasn't referring to the cargo, but the memos he wrote that are a matter of public record. "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany . . . . For our part we want the traffic — the more the better; and if some of it gets into trouble, better still." He wrote that. There were obviously other circumstances that led to the Lusitania sinking, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it was done on purpose, but there is no denying that it achieved his stated goal. Context is everything. The US was sat on the sidelines claiming neutrality and criticising the war while selling arms to the players. US shipping was already being attacked but the US did nothing about it because neutrality gave them the option of furthering their own agenda. The UK was buying or supplies and wanted the traffic, the inevitability of which would be grater risk to that traffic, Churchill quite rightly saw the potential implications in that were an attack of sufficient magnitude to take place against US shipping it would force the US to take sides. He was absolutely right. Churchill recognised the mechanisms by which the US neutrality and profiteering would be tested, and that the US had a stated intention of undermining the British Empire. It is a testament to his skill as a statesman in recognising the need to shut the US options down and go them off the fence that the comments in the memo lies. It does not implicate him in the sinking of the Lusitania. Claiming that Churchill contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania is nothing more than a wild grasping conspiracy theory founded on illogical assumption and poor research.
Your assertions of pre-War American actions are demonstrably incorrect. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:31:06 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So how many slaves did Lincoln free in the Northern states? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why Lincoln? Aside from a Southerner's perspectives, is there something I've missed? A whole line of people will now come and tell you how Lincoln ended the Republic by usurping authority to the federal government that had not previously existed. But the FACT is, whoever was President during the Civil War would almost certainly have done the same thing if his intent was to hold the Union together and not allow secession. Lincoln also didn't do anything that the Confederacy wasn't already doing...other than freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, of course. So how many slaves did Lincoln free in the Northern states? Is this hard?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:34:21 AM EST
[#47]
Obama
FDR Woodrow Wilson Custer |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:36:52 AM EST
[#48]
FDR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:38:07 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Che Gueverra |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:38:47 AM EST
[#50]
Lincoln
|
|
|
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.
