Re: POLITICS: Ron

[Guest guest]

,

> though it's also worth noting that the south shot first.

South Carolina was occupied by Federal Troops. They didn't invade the

North and start firing on folks. Further, the South Carolinians

notified the Federal Troops ****in advance*** they were going to fire

on Fort Sumter. As a result no one was injured. They then allowed the

Federal troops to leave peaceably.

Lincoln's response? To invade the ***entire*** South, and begin a war

that led to the unprecedented loss of American life, either before or

since, that tragic conflict.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

> rid of it in toto, but in the 1850's, just a few years before

> Lincoln's war, slavery was ended peaceably.

>

>

Which makes me wonder. What was it about the institution in the South,

that prevented that solution. Remember the Fire Eaters and the policy

of media suppression of the anti-slavery rhetoric in the South for

decades before the war.

Personally I think it has to do with kind of labor being performed,

plus the political power written in the constitution. With large

amounts/percents of slaves, whites were able to add to their own vote,

votes per 3/5 of slaves in their districts. Plus the kind of labor

performed in north and south. If there had been large industries in the

north exclusively labored by blacks, what then.

[Guest guest]

> South Carolina was occupied by Federal Troops. They didn't invade the

> North and start firing on folks. Further, the South Carolinians

> notified the Federal Troops ****in advance*** they were going to fire

> on Fort Sumter. As a result no one was injured. They then allowed the

> Federal troops to leave peaceably.

>

> Lincoln's response? To invade the ***entire*** South, and begin a war

> that led to the unprecedented loss of American life, either before or

> since, that tragic conflict.

>

>

Oh my goodness. Were you educated in the South?

[Guest guest]

we are not on the Gold Standard.

The forces at work that have changed those standards would not have

sit by and let things go their own way. It is about CONTROL.

Peace

Ed Kasper LAc. & family

www.HappyHerbalist.com

.......................................................

Re: POLITICS: Ron

Posted by: " Masterjohn " chrismasterjohn@... chrismasterjohnx

Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:36 pm (PST)

On 1/12/08, Happy Herbalist <eddy@...> wrote:

> All oil is now sold on the World Market. Even IF the U.S. had enough oil

and

> refineries for the entire US domestic demand the price would still be just

> as high and just as volatile - driven by world (not US) prices. The price

> of oil from Texas, Alaska, Okalahoma, Indiana, New Jersey, California,

> Louisiana Gulf, sells for the same price as the Oil from South America or

> the Middle East. If you drill more oil wells - WE - do not get cheaper

oil.

> Even IF Americans cut their use by 50% and the rest of the world increased

> their demand the price to Americans to heat their homes would be the same.

> Venezuela and Saudi oil profits go back to reduce the cost of oil to their

> people, while American oil companies get tax breaks.

As pointed out in the January 4 Wall Street Journal article, " Oil and

the dollar, " if we were on the gold standard, oil would currently be

trading at under $30 a barrel instead of $99 a barrel. The price of

oil has stayed the same in gold for 7 or 8 years, but has increased

only in paper money -- 200% in euros and 350% in dollars. The price

of oil in a hard commodity like gold has not been very volatile. The

price of oil is volatile because it is being measured in money whose

value is volatile and declining rapidly.

> Bush I in the First Gulf War cried out that the if Iraq took over Kuwait,

> Iraq would then control 30% of the world's oil supply and how dangerous a

> madman could demand $40-$50 a barrel. Japan (at the time) argued it would

> still be cheaper than going to war) now the price is $100 a barrel.

Ironic, since deficit spending on wars is one of the reasons for the

declining value of the dollar.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/13/08, Happy Herbalist <eddy@...> wrote:

> we are not on the Gold Standard.

> The forces at work that have changed those standards would not have

> sit by and let things go their own way. It is about CONTROL.

Right -- so we are in agreement?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/13/08, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> > South Carolina was occupied by Federal Troops. They didn't invade the

> > North and start firing on folks. Further, the South Carolinians

> > notified the Federal Troops ****in advance*** they were going to fire

> > on Fort Sumter. As a result no one was injured. They then allowed the

> > Federal troops to leave peaceably.

> >

> > Lincoln's response? To invade the ***entire*** South, and begin a war

> > that led to the unprecedented loss of American life, either before or

> > since, that tragic conflict.

> Oh my goodness. Were you educated in the South?

Do you have a more meaningful response? I haven't had the opportunity

to read a great deal from both sides of the debate here, but your

response strikes me as representing substantial bias. Surely there

are intelligent and competent historians in the South, and surely if

the South is capable of propagandistic presentations of the war, the

North is as well.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Do you have a more meaningful response? I haven't had the opportunity

> to read a great deal from both sides of the debate here, but your

> response strikes me as representing substantial bias. Surely there

> are intelligent and competent historians in the South, and surely if

> the South is capable of propagandistic presentations of the war, the

> North is as well.

>

> Chris

I was honestly curious. I haven't read of or met anyone else with the

perspective has presented. I literally have not been to that

region, and have read books only found in the mainstream I guess

(Midwest and Northwest) and assumed the South is where this point of

view can be found.

I thought about responding to each point but then I thought it might be

better to get myself basically educated on such a different point of

view. The most I've seen so far is Jefferson ' book online.

Connie

[Guest guest]

On 1/14/08, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> I was honestly curious. I haven't read of or met anyone else with the

> perspective has presented. I literally have not been to that

> region, and have read books only found in the mainstream I guess

> (Midwest and Northwest) and assumed the South is where this point of

> view can be found.

DiLorenzo is probably by far the most vociferous critic of

Lincoln with essentially that perspective. He's written _The Real

Lincoln_ and more recently _Lincoln Unmasked_. He writes out of

land.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 1/14/08, cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...

>> <mailto:cbrown2008%40> >

>> > wrote:

>> >

>>> >> I was honestly curious. I haven't read of or met anyone else with the

>>> >> perspective has presented. I literally have not been to that

>>> >> region, and have read books only found in the mainstream I guess

>>> >> (Midwest and Northwest) and assumed the South is where this point of

>>> >> view can be found.

>> >

>> > DiLorenzo is probably by far the most vociferous critic of

>> > Lincoln with essentially that perspective. He's written _The Real

>> > Lincoln_ and more recently _Lincoln Unmasked_. He writes out of

>> > land.

>> >

>> > Chris

There is a book by Lerone that got some press, but I haven¹t read

it..

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> > rid of it in toto, but in the 1850's, just a few years before

> > Lincoln's war, slavery was ended peaceably.

> >

> >

>

> Which makes me wonder. What was it about the institution in the South,

> that prevented that solution. Remember the Fire Eaters and the policy

> of media suppression of the anti-slavery rhetoric in the South for

> decades before the war.

What prevented the peaceful solution was the onslaught of war.

Southern slavery looked at from a broader worldwide perspective wasn't

all that unique, as even some of the Black Abolitionists in the North

noted. There is no reason to think it would not have eventually died

out in the South for the same reasons it was ultimately eliminated in

the North which was rooted in both economics and conscious. Had the

Deep South actually been recognized as a legitimate nation by England,

no doubt they would have come under enormous pressure to abolish

slavery completely, since international trade was at the heart of the

Southern economy, and Lincoln's tariffs really fueled a lot of

Southern anger. Remember, the South had already outlawed the

international slave trade, like England and the North as well. But

once the war started all bets were off.

At the end of the war there were two states where slavery was still

legal, Delaware and Kentucky. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th

amendment that it was completely abolished throughout the US, and of

the 9 states that did not ratify the amendment initially, 4 were in

the North. The very last state to do so was Mississippi, in 1995.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> > South Carolina was occupied by Federal Troops. They didn't invade the

> > North and start firing on folks. Further, the South Carolinians

> > notified the Federal Troops ****in advance*** they were going to fire

> > on Fort Sumter. As a result no one was injured. They then allowed the

> > Federal troops to leave peaceably.

> >

> > Lincoln's response? To invade the ***entire*** South, and begin a war

> > that led to the unprecedented loss of American life, either before or

> > since, that tragic conflict.

> >

> >

>

> Oh my goodness. Were you educated in the South?

I was born in the Pacific Northwest, started school in Michigan and

spent the last part of elementary school and all of my junior high and

high school years in land. Came back to the Pacific Northwest on

an athletic scholarship to attend college and for the most part have

been here ever since.

I was taught pretty much what was taught about Lincoln, and

didn't hear a contrary view until I was long gone from college.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Thanks . It will be refreshing to read the alternative history.

Just like my reaction to another view of Reconstruction... when all the

history is saying similar things it makes me go hmmm.

Connie

> I was taught pretty much what was taught about Lincoln, and

> didn't hear a contrary view until I was long gone from college.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> > Do you have a more meaningful response? I haven't had the opportunity

> > to read a great deal from both sides of the debate here, but your

> > response strikes me as representing substantial bias. Surely there

> > are intelligent and competent historians in the South, and surely if

> > the South is capable of propagandistic presentations of the war, the

> > North is as well.

> >

> > Chris

>

> I was honestly curious. I haven't read of or met anyone else with the

> perspective has presented. I literally have not been to that

> region, and have read books only found in the mainstream I guess

> (Midwest and Northwest) and assumed the South is where this point of

> view can be found.

>

> I thought about responding to each point but then I thought it might be

> better to get myself basically educated on such a different point of

> view. The most I've seen so far is Jefferson ' book online.

Keep in mind that one's view of Lincoln and one's view of the

Confederacy aren't necessarily tied together. The mainstrean folks

like to make it seem that anyone who criticizes Lincoln must

automatically be pro-confederacy or a " neo-confederate " but such is

not the case. It is possible to believe that Lincoln's actions were

unconsciable without being pro-confederacy. The CFA made a lot of

mistakes both economically and morally, but none that required the

snuffing out of 650,000 lives.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> I was honestly curious. I haven't read of or met anyone else with the

> perspective has presented. I literally have not been to that

> region, and have read books only found in the mainstream I guess

> (Midwest and Northwest) and assumed the South is where this point of

> view can be found.

By far the most vociferous critic of Lincoln is African-American

scholar and historian Lerone Bennet Jr., who spent over twenty years

researching his book, _Forced Into Glory, Abraham Lincoln's White

Dream_. A long time fixture at Ebony Magazine, by no stretch of the

imagination is Bennet a " neo-confederate. "

_The Real Lincoln_ and _Lincoln Unmasked_ by DiLorenzo are also

recent books that pull the veil back from the Lincoln as Hero Myth.

There are some other older books as well that shed a lot of light on

King Lincoln but are very hard to find. Suprisingly, you can find a

lot of interesting material even in the books written by Lincoln

supporters, although they spend a good deal of time trying to explain

away his statements and behaviour.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Thanks . It's nice to find references for books that are not

always available on the library and bookseller shelves.

I do remember being shocked the first time I read as an adult about

the habeus corpus and jailing of newspapers. As you say, buried in

there and glossed over as military necessity.

Connie

> By far the most vociferous critic of Lincoln is African-American

> scholar and historian Lerone Bennet Jr., who spent over twenty years

> researching his book, _Forced Into Glory, Abraham Lincoln's White

> Dream_. A long time fixture at Ebony Magazine, by no stretch of the

> imagination is Bennet a " neo-confederate. "

>

> _The Real Lincoln_ and _Lincoln Unmasked_ by DiLorenzo are

also

> recent books that pull the veil back from the Lincoln as Hero Myth.

>

> There are some other older books as well that shed a lot of light on

> King Lincoln but are very hard to find. Suprisingly, you can find a

> lot of interesting material even in the books written by Lincoln

> supporters, although they spend a good deal of time trying to

explain

> away his statements and behaviour.

>

>

> --

> " The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in

the

> end, make his way regardless of race. "

> - Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

>

[Guest guest]

Ron came in second in Nevada this Saturday, beating McCain by

about 200 votes, and also beating Huckabee, (who has now

dropped out) and Giuliani.

In Louisianna two days ago, the unofficial count has Ron at

second and McCain in first. However, the state party has been

tinkering to Ron 's detriment and the complete count isn't

released. For example, they used a Nov 1 voter registration list when

the deadline was Nov 30, turning RP supporters away. On Jan 10, the

original deadline for delegate pledging, RP had more delegates pledged

than any other candidate, so they extended the deadline for 2 days,

etc. Several hundred votes haven't been counted.

Giuliani's and Huckabee's campaigns are in financial trouble, while

Romney's self-financed campaign and Ron 's contributor-financed

campaign are in the best shape. Ron has won several recent straw

polls, including the only one to date in Huckabee's home of Arkansas,

and one in New Jersey where he got over 60% of the vote. It's looking

more and more like RP has a chance, maybe not a huge one, but a decent

one.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Actually it is about Dennis Kucinich but I didn't want to start a new thread :-)

Here is DeCoster blogging about him over at lewrockwell.com:

Re: The Man the Democrats Should Have Nominated

Posted by DeCoster at 09:30 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022513.html

" Indeed Lew, the boring Obama camp should have nominated the

electrifying, interesting, appealing Dennis Kucinich. This is a guy

who, in spite of his leftist, New Dealer bent, and his horrifying

plans for the economy (I write about that here:

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002721.html), I'd like to

see in the White House. Problem is, he would outshine Barack Obama and

his dull wife in every way, and he would draw attention away from the

man who wants to be sole King in the spotlight. His domestic agenda is

disastrous, but not much worse than the capers of Obama or Bush. His

foreign policy views are certainly exceptional, but mostly, he

understands the totalitarian nature of the modern Security State, and

he's all for abolishing every last piece of it, as is Ron .

Surely, his magnificent stage presence and " lunatic fringe " views

would have upstaged the dull and featureless Obama. Therefore, in the

end, the plastic-faced, lifeless, unappealing Joe Biden fits nicely

into the " be seen but not heard " reserve role, standing behind a man

who doesn't want his spotlight snatched away by an old-fashioned

orator whose unsettling deliverance could prove to be fatal to Obama's

master plan for acquiescence to the status quo. "

Kucinich at the Democratic convention:

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

Kucinich couldn't get elected because he has too much backbone to say

what he doesn't believe. I doubt a man of real integrity could be

electable any more.

Out of " Character " , by Smiles (1812 - 1905)

" It is not the vote of the man of the noblest character - the highest-

cultured and best-conditioned man - whose favor is now sought, so

much as that of the lowest man, the least-cultured and worst-

conditioned man, because his vote is usually that of the majority.

Even men of rank, wealth, and education are seen prostrating

themselves before the ignorant, whose votes are thus to be got. They

are ready to be unprincipled and unjust rather than unpopular. It is

so much easer for some men to stoop, to bow, and to flatter, than to

be manly, resolute, and manganimous; and to yield to prejudices than

run counter to them. It requires strength and courage to swim

against the sream, while any dead fish can float with it.

" This servile pandering to popularity has been rapidly on the

increase of late years, and its tendency has been to lower and

degrade the character of public men. Consciences have become more

elastic. There is now one opinion for the chamber, and another for

the platform. Prejudices are pandered to in public, which in private

are despised. Pretended conversions - which invariably jump with

party interests are more sudden; and even hypocrisy now appears to be

scarcely thought discreditable. "

" Popularity, as won in these days, is by no means a presumption in a

man's favor, but is quite as often a presumption against him. " No

man, " says the Russian proverb, " can rise to honour who is cursed

with a stiff backbone. " But the backbone of the popularity-hunter is

of gristle; and he has no difficulty in stooping and bending himself

in any direction to catch the breath of popular applause.

Men of sterling character have the courage to speak the truth, even

when unpopular. "

Just my opinion.

>

> Actually it is about Dennis Kucinich but I didn't want to start a

new thread :-)

>

> Here is DeCoster blogging about him over at lewrockwell.com:

>

> Re: The Man the Democrats Should Have Nominated

> Posted by DeCoster at 09:30 PM

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022513.html

>

> " Indeed Lew, the boring Obama camp should have nominated the

> electrifying, interesting, appealing Dennis Kucinich. This is a guy

> who, in spite of his leftist, New Dealer bent, and his horrifying

> plans for the economy (I write about that here:

> http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002721.html), I'd like to

> see in the White House. Problem is, he would outshine Barack Obama

and

> his dull wife in every way, and he would draw attention away from

the

> man who wants to be sole King in the spotlight. His domestic agenda

is

> disastrous, but not much worse than the capers of Obama or Bush. His

> foreign policy views are certainly exceptional, but mostly, he

> understands the totalitarian nature of the modern Security State,

and

> he's all for abolishing every last piece of it, as is Ron .

> Surely, his magnificent stage presence and " lunatic fringe " views

> would have upstaged the dull and featureless Obama. Therefore, in

the

> end, the plastic-faced, lifeless, unappealing Joe Biden fits nicely

> into the " be seen but not heard " reserve role, standing behind a man

> who doesn't want his spotlight snatched away by an old-fashioned

> orator whose unsettling deliverance could prove to be fatal to

Obama's

> master plan for acquiescence to the status quo. "

>

> Kucinich at the Democratic convention:

>

>

>

>

>

> --

> Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and

rainy.

> For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

> conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

> about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

>

> " If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your

job " -

> Dave Von Kleist

>

[Guest guest]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:47 AM, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Kucinich couldn't get elected because he has too much backbone to say

> what he doesn't believe. I doubt a man of real integrity could be

> electable any more.

>

> Out of " Character " , by Smiles (1812 - 1905)

>

I think the nice quote you posted has always been applicable to

politics, not that it has only recently become that way. That said,

what I posted had to do with the Democrats nominating Kucinich as VP,

not whether he is electable as president.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

It's a little reassuring that it's still the same (not getting

worse). I do wonder sometimes if things are worse or if I was just

THAT naiive before. Public education doesn't help, tho, because they

teach the ideal instead of the actual when it comes to politics, at

least they did way back when I was there!

> > Kucinich couldn't get elected because he has too much backbone to

say

> > what he doesn't believe. I doubt a man of real integrity could be

> > electable any more.

> >

> > Out of " Character " , by Smiles (1812 - 1905)

> >

>

> I think the nice quote you posted has always been applicable to

> politics, not that it has only recently become that way. That said,

> what I posted had to do with the Democrats nominating Kucinich as

VP,

> not whether he is electable as president.

>

>

> --

> Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and

rainy.

> For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

> conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

> about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

>

> " If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your

job " -

> Dave Von Kleist

>