If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   GOP lawmaker wants Reagan to replace Grant on the US $50 bill, because Reagan is the greatest president ever and all Grant did was WIN THE FARKING CIVIL WAR   (foxnews.com) divider line 579
    More: Asinine, Real Clear Politics, civil wars, republicans, legends  
•       •       •

6765 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2010 at 4:18 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



579 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-03 01:54:56 PM
randomizetimer: I don't care, but I do want to point out Grant had a very corrupt administration.

He also did a ton of good. He was a very, very underrated president.
 
2010-03-03 01:58:15 PM
DamnYankees: randomizetimer: I don't care, but I do want to point out Grant had a very corrupt administration.

He also did a ton of good. He was a very, very underrated president.


Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.
 
2010-03-03 02:01:40 PM
Nabb1: Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Yeah, stupid Grant for fighting against the KKK and actually trying to stand up for the rights of black people in the South. What a loser.
 
2010-03-03 02:04:05 PM
sweetmelissa31: downstairs:
You do realize the North had slaves too?

Not at the time of the Civil War.


No, the Northern Industrialists just paid their employee a wage that they could not live on, so the immigrants made their young kids get jobs so the family could eat.
 
2010-03-03 02:04:41 PM
The North and the South had their sins.
 
2010-03-03 02:06:12 PM
veedeevadeevoodee

That food coupon is one of the funniest things I've seen out of your "collection." Bravo.
 
2010-03-03 02:11:18 PM
FlashHarry: lol. and "conservatives" accuse liberals of venerating obama.

THIS

They babble on and on about "the one" and unicorns, and whatever other Jib-Jab images distort their political nonsense. But 30 years after he was elected, they still want nothing more than to suck Reagan's cock.
 
2010-03-03 02:13:33 PM
DamnYankees: Nabb1: Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Yeah, stupid Grant for fighting against the KKK and actually trying to stand up for the rights of black people in the South. What a loser.


Wow. You really think I'm standing up for the KKK by that statement? Are you trying to be an idiot, or are you just ignorant of the history of Reconstruction in the South? Let's try this again - what Reconstruction brought, aside from actual military occupation of a number of Southern cities - were a lot of opportunistic Northerners who culled political appointments and abused their powers and engaged in all sorts of corruption. Or we can talk about the refusal of Congress to seat Senators and Representatives elected from Southern states in the years immediately following the war. But, yes, obviously I can see you I am a racist and am sticking up for the KKK by being critical of Reconstruction policies.
 
2010-03-03 02:16:05 PM
Nabb1: Wow. You really think I'm standing up for the KKK by that statement?

No. Of course not. But I think you glossed over the very good things Grant did do by merely saying Lincoln would have done better (which I don't necessarily disagree with).

Nabb1: DamnYankees: Nabb1: Reconstruction did more damage to the country than good, and he was responsible in large part for those policies (along with Andrew Johnson). Lincoln had, by most accounts, envisioned more of a reconciliation with the South rather than an occupation of it. He's rated right where he needs to be.

Yeah, stupid Grant for fighting against the KKK and actually trying to stand up for the rights of black people in the South. What a loser.

Wow. You really think I'm standing up for the KKK by that statement? Are you trying to be an idiot, or are you just ignorant of the history of Reconstruction in the South? Let's try this again - what Reconstruction brought, aside from actual military occupation of a number of Southern cities - were a lot of opportunistic Northerners who culled political appointments and abused their powers and engaged in all sorts of corruption. Or we can talk about the refusal of Congress to seat Senators and Representatives elected from Southern states in the years immediately following the war. But, yes, obviously I can see you I am a racist and am sticking up for the KKK by being critical of Reconstruction policies.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Even if its all true, it has pretty much nothing to do with what I said.
 
2010-03-03 02:17:08 PM
randomizetimer: I don't care, but I do want to point out Grant had a very corrupt administration.

I don't care, but I do want to point out that Reagan is roasting in the 9th circle of hell and that is one honor he earned.
 
2010-03-03 02:20:26 PM
Given his economic record, Reagan barely qualifies to be put on promissory notes.
 
2010-03-03 02:21:30 PM
DamnYankees: I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Even if its all true, it has pretty much nothing to do with what I said.

Well, it seemed as though you were implying that Reconstruction was mainly about fighting the KKK in response to my criticism. There was more to it than that (and actually, the KKK was an unfortunate and still regrettable and unjustified reaction to Reconstruction policies and frustrations with carpetbaggers and scalawags, which, when coupled with lingering racial resentment already in place, resulted in the creation of a vigilante organization that still embarrasses nice white folks everywhere to this day).
 
2010-03-03 02:21:35 PM
They should put Al Haig on it instead, just for lulz.
 
2010-03-03 02:24:26 PM
Nabb1: Well, it seemed as though you were implying that Reconstruction was mainly about fighting the KKK in response to my criticism. There was more to it than that (and actually, the KKK was an unfortunate and still regrettable and unjustified reaction to Reconstruction policies and frustrations with carpetbaggers and scalawags, which, when coupled with lingering racial resentment already in place, resulted in the creation of a vigilante organization that still embarrasses nice white folks everywhere to this day).

Of course there was more to it. But I think Grant has been railroaded in history, with people using his drunkenness and corruption (both obviously huge problems) as an excuse to merely overlook all the good stuff he did. Grant pushed and signed the most important civil rights bill in history in his term, but no one remembers it because the Supreme Court struck it down.

Grant-as-President did great things for black people in the South, and the white people hated him. Well, who has history been more influenced by? I think Grant did some excellent things and deserves to be much more highly regarded, warts and all.

If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.
 
2010-03-03 02:24:36 PM
TwoHead: randomizetimer: I don't care, but I do want to point out Grant had a very corrupt administration.

I don't care, but I do want to point out that Reagan is roasting in the 9th circle of hell and that is one honor he earned.


OK, I take that back. I forgot the 9th circle is icy rather than hot. I realize this disproves all my theories regarding Reagan and probably nullifies all climate change science to date.

mea culpa
 
2010-03-03 02:26:28 PM
Nabb1: Birthplace of jazz, delta blues, rock 'n' roll, some of America's most heralded writers, better food, warmer weather, more attractive women per capita than up north... Yeah, there's a lot to be bitter about.

Well fine. New Orleans can stay American. But God help you if Metairie or Kenner somehow try to sneak back in.
 
2010-03-03 02:26:50 PM
jwa007: downstairs: You do realize the North had slaves too?

And it took an amendment to the constitution to end slavery in the Northern states. Lincoln's proclamation only affected the states that had seceded from the union.


More specifically, AREAS NOT UNDER UNION CONTROL. So even slaves in TN, for example, were still slaves.
 
2010-03-03 02:27:45 PM
sweetmelissa31: downstairs:
You do realize the North had slaves too?

Not at the time of the Civil War.


The Union had slaves at the time of the Civil War.
 
2010-03-03 02:29:12 PM
vygramul: sweetmelissa31: downstairs:
You do realize the North had slaves too?

Not at the time of the Civil War.

The Union had slaves at the time of the Civil War.


This talking point is so ridiculous.

Only one state in the Union had slaves, which was Maryland, a state which was culturally southern and was expected by many (if not most) to secede. The core of the North had all abolished slavery by 1804.
 
2010-03-03 02:31:31 PM
vygramul: The Union had slaves at the time of the Civil War.

Okay, so apparently Maryland had slaves at the time of the Civil War, and I was wrong about that. My original point was that the culture of freed slaves influences the South, so it's not really relevant.
 
2010-03-03 02:33:07 PM
DamnYankees: If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.

Hey, now. Don't mess with Old Hickory. Dude had a three-thousand pound block of cheddar cheese in the foyer of the White House.

Aarontology: Nabb1: Birthplace of jazz, delta blues, rock 'n' roll, some of America's most heralded writers, better food, warmer weather, more attractive women per capita than up north... Yeah, there's a lot to be bitter about.

Well fine. New Orleans can stay American. But God help you if Metairie or Kenner somehow try to sneak back in.


I'm cool with that (though delta blues came from Mississippi and rock 'n' roll from Memphis).
 
2010-03-03 02:35:37 PM
DamnYankees: This talking point is so ridiculous.

Why ridiculous? It's a fact. When the Civil War started slavery was still legal and happening in Maryland which was part of the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing for slaves in Maryland, it was intended as part of ongoing war action and only applicable in states that had seceded, and, as vygramul pointed out, those areas in those states under Union Army control.

If it were not true, if slavery were not practiced in Maryland during the years of the civil war it might be ridiculous to point out it was still legal there. Lincoln, with a proclamation, did not free those slaves. The thirteenth amendment did that.

So, why ridiculous? You just like forgetting the bits of history you don't like? What's up?
 
2010-03-03 02:35:49 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

maybe replace alfred e neuman on the $1,329,063 bill, but even that is pushing it
 
2010-03-03 02:38:30 PM
Jesus Christ people, is this the Balkans now or something? The Civil War ended almost 150 years ago. And yet there are people who still get their farking feelings hurt over it.

Reagan, on the other hand. That's recent. And that man has no place on anyone's money, with the possible exception of the Iranians.
 
2010-03-03 02:39:48 PM
Dead for Tax Reasons: maybe replace alfred e neuman on the $1,329,063 bill, but even that is pushing it

Oh man, I thought that WAS Reagan on there. But now I look closer it is Alfred E. is it not. Damn. I need to see my optometrist...soon.
 
2010-03-03 02:43:40 PM
Nabb1: I'm cool with that (though delta blues came from Mississippi and rock 'n' roll from Memphis).

I suppose Memphis can stay on a provisional basis. As long as the BBQ keeps cooking, that is.
 
2010-03-03 02:44:42 PM
DamnYankees:

sweetmelissa31:


You two are missing the point. You can't say the war was about freeing the slaves when the slaves over which the Union had undisputed power were still kept in bondage.

Of course, people also can't argue the South wasn't fighting to keep slaves because the declarations of secession for most of the Southern states were dominated by rhetoric defending the institution.

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction that doesn't so much condemn the South as it does attempt to create a mythology of distance between the Union and Southern positions on the subject. In the 1850s, the vast majority of people in the North were merely attempting to prevent slavery's expansion westwards - not eliminate it from the South. Lincoln did not declare in 1860 he was heading down to free the slaves, but to bring states back into line. It's quite ironic to have the two sides adopt each others' position on the reason for the war. Yankees went from saying it was about illegal secession to slavery, and Southerners went from saying it was about slavery to states' rights.
 
2010-03-03 02:46:04 PM
vygramul: You two are missing the point. You can't say the war was about freeing the slaves when the slaves over which the Union had undisputed power were still kept in bondage.

Who in this thread said that the Civil War was only about freeing slaves?
 
2010-03-03 02:47:55 PM
I know a lady who actually refers to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression." I jokingly referred to it once as "The War of Southern Treason." I thought she was going to attack me.
 
2010-03-03 02:51:22 PM
vygramul:

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction



You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.
 
2010-03-03 02:51:44 PM
vygramul: DamnYankees:

sweetmelissa31:

You two are missing the point. You can't say the war was about freeing the slaves when the slaves over which the Union had undisputed power were still kept in bondage.

Of course, people also can't argue the South wasn't fighting to keep slaves because the declarations of secession for most of the Southern states were dominated by rhetoric defending the institution.

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction that doesn't so much condemn the South as it does attempt to create a mythology of distance between the Union and Southern positions on the subject. In the 1850s, the vast majority of people in the North were merely attempting to prevent slavery's expansion westwards - not eliminate it from the South. Lincoln did not declare in 1860 he was heading down to free the slaves, but to bring states back into line. It's quite ironic to have the two sides adopt each others' position on the reason for the war. Yankees went from saying it was about illegal secession to slavery, and Southerners went from saying it was about slavery to states' rights.


Here, here.

What amazes me is the idea of solidified North wanting to abolish slavery. Never happened. A lot of business owners were Unionists, they would do anything to keep the southern states in the union, including tolerating slavery. And also of note, a lot of those who wanted to abolish slavery held no love for the blacks they wanted to free. They saw them as savages and sub-humans, not on a par with the civilized white man. And this train of thought wasn't relegated to the lower classes. Men of science and learned college professors of that time held those views.
 
2010-03-03 02:53:13 PM
kmmontandon: vygramul:

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction


You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.


Um, he actually wrote that in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. Well, not in those exact terms.
 
2010-03-03 02:54:49 PM
kmmontandon: vygramul:

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction


You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.


It depends on how the person uses that phrase. The war was indeed "fought over slavery" for the points you mentioned. There were other issues that were invovled, but those mostly stemmed from slavery in one way or another.

However, the war was not fought to end slavery. Lincoln himself said that if he could get a way to bring the Union back together even if it meant keeping slavery, he would do it.
 
2010-03-03 02:58:48 PM
kmmontandon: vygramul:

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction


You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.


You might want to, you know, read where I said exactly that.

In the same post.
 
2010-03-03 02:58:51 PM
jwa007: Here, here.

What amazes me is the idea of solidified North wanting to abolish slavery.


Before congratulating yourselves, who in this thread argued that the only issue the Civil War was fought over was slavery? Who are you arguing with?
 
2010-03-03 02:59:51 PM
Nabb1: kmmontandon: vygramul:

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction


You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

Um, he actually wrote that in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. Well, not in those exact terms.



That's what I get for skimming through threads too quickly.
 
2010-03-03 03:01:38 PM
kmmontandon: That's what I get for skimming through threads too quickly.

I'd be lying if I didn't say I've made some comments I'd like to take back as a result of doing the same thing myself. Many times.
 
2010-03-03 03:01:56 PM
sweetmelissa31: vygramul: You two are missing the point. You can't say the war was about freeing the slaves when the slaves over which the Union had undisputed power were still kept in bondage.

Who in this thread said that the Civil War was only about freeing slaves?


I suppose no one used those terms, but once one makes a statement that leads to a moral judgment between the two sides, it perpetuates the myth of Union Righteousness.

I admit I am trundling down a tangent.
 
2010-03-03 03:02:38 PM
sweetmelissa31: Before congratulating yourselves, who in this thread argued that the only issue the Civil War was fought over was slavery? Who are you arguing with?

Congratulating? Myself? I'm just typing this stuff to show off what I know, I'm not arguing with anyone. However, I will admit, I did know at least one Northern state had slavery during the Civil War, something you were previously unaware of. So at least this presentation of facts is of benefit to someone. You should congratulate yourself for learning new stuff today.
 
2010-03-03 03:04:23 PM
kmmontandon: Nabb1: kmmontandon: vygramul:

"The war was fought over slavery," is at best a one-sided fiction


You might want to, you know, read a bit more. Some of the traitor state's declarations of secession specifically cited slavery as the issue, as well as the writings of both Northern and traitor leaderships.

Um, he actually wrote that in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. Well, not in those exact terms.


That's what I get for skimming through threads too quickly.


Bah. I'm guilty of that as well, and given how many people just argue the states' rights angle without even acknowledging that the clear paramount concern of those seceding was slavery, you can't be completely blamed for missing it. I probably shouldn't have snarked at you for it.
 
2010-03-03 03:12:54 PM
vygramul: Bah. I'm guilty of that as well, and given how many people just argue the states' rights angle without even acknowledging that the clear paramount concern of those seceding was slavery, you can't be completely blamed for missing it. I probably shouldn't have snarked at you for it.

You know who else was a proponent of "State's Rights" without clarity of paramount concern?
 
2010-03-03 03:17:11 PM
I'd also like to say that only putting Presidents (with the exception of Benjamin "Pimp Hands" Franklin) on money is kind of silly.
 
2010-03-03 03:17:44 PM
I Said: "I wish you libs would get over George W. Bush already"
"I wish you conservatives would get over Reagan already"

Seriously, it's getting really sad.


Reagan once bit my sister. I've tried to get the Catholic church to canonize her.
 
2010-03-03 03:18:07 PM
Reagan shouldn't even be on a stamp. He sucked.
 
2010-03-03 03:21:44 PM
TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Reagan shouldn't even be on a stamp. He sucked.

Yet other people love the idea as it gives them a chance to lick Reagan.
 
2010-03-03 03:22:49 PM
Aarontology: I'd also like to say that only putting Presidents (with the exception of Benjamin "Pimp Hands" Franklin) on money is kind of silly.

I think we need to expand it to pop icon figures. Can you imagine paying for a McDonald's Cheeseburger with a Ronald McDonald ($1) and a Paula Abdul ($5)?
 
2010-03-03 03:23:16 PM
Nabb1: DamnYankees: If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.

Hey, now. Don't mess with Old Hickory. Dude had a three-thousand pound block of cheddar cheese in the foyer of the White House.


Jackson, opposed to a US central bank, was reelected in 1833 and he pulled the government's funds out of the 2nd Bank of the United State. The Bank President, responded by contracting the money supply to pressure Jackson to renew the bank's charter forcing the country into a recession, which the bank blamed on Jackson's policies. The bank's charter was not renewed in 1836.

Jackson farking hated the bank, bankers, banking, and moneymen. There's no reason why his picture should be on the $20.

Plus he is generally regarded as an asshole.
 
2010-03-03 03:24:03 PM
Aarontology: I'd also like to say that only putting Presidents (with the exception of Benjamin "Pimp Hands" Franklin) on money is kind of silly.

There are two things wrong with your statement.
 
2010-03-03 03:25:39 PM
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Nabb1: DamnYankees: If we're gonna kick someone off a bill, get Jackson off our money and put TR on there.

Hey, now. Don't mess with Old Hickory. Dude had a three-thousand pound block of cheddar cheese in the foyer of the White House.

Jackson, opposed to a US central bank, was reelected in 1833 and he pulled the government's funds out of the 2nd Bank of the United State. The Bank President, responded by contracting the money supply to pressure Jackson to renew the bank's charter forcing the country into a recession, which the bank blamed on Jackson's policies. The bank's charter was not renewed in 1836.

Jackson farking hated the bank, bankers, banking, and moneymen. There's no reason why his picture should be on the $20.

Plus he is generally regarded as an asshole.


Sure, but you are overlooking the big block of cheese. Behold, the power of cheese.
 
2010-03-03 03:26:12 PM
I_Am_Weasel: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Reagan shouldn't even be on a stamp. He sucked.

Yet other people love the idea as it gives them a chance to lick Reagan.


Ewww. I don't even want to lick Rosa Parks. That's why I get the self-adhesives. Let Elvis lick himself.
 
Displayed 50 of 579 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report