Truer words never spoken
President Abe (Us, not Japan)
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Truer words never spoken
As a Brit, it surprises me how seriously Americans seem to take their presidents and reasonably short history while we seem to care very little about our monarchs, prime ministers and history. At least the people I know. Maybe it's just cause I'm young. I definitely wouldn't know anyone here who'd have a 'favourite king/queen'.
bovinespy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 310
I stand corrected. Forgot about ol' Hamilton. Thanks for the correction, but what about my point? Ben Franklin for CIV leader!
Old Ben was definitely a worthy Founding Father. What would you give him for traits? Personally, I'd give him Liz's combo (Phi/Fin).
Yzman
Deity
I disagree with this statement, while it may be technically true, the reason we only talk about him as the first president is because we consider the country that was formed after the constitution was written and ratified to be the country we live in today.
bovinespy
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 310
I think part of what you describe is due mainly to the fact that the US does have a much shorter history. They've only had 42* Presidents, and many of them were place-holders or incompetents, so the number of notable leaders Americans have to remember is only a fraction of what your average "Old Worlder" has to recall about the leadership of their country, which may stretch back millennia.
*I know that W is supposed to be #43, but Grover Cleveland was actually the 22nd and the 24th President, so there's only been 42 individual Presidents.
SlipperyJim
Prince
Meh. Why? Ben was never President, nor did he ever lead the country. He was a notable character to be sure, but not really a leader. He should be a Great Person of some kind, probably a Great Scientist.
Not all famous historical figures were leaders.
sansloi37
Chieftain
So the Continental Congress, John Hancock, the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation, etc. did not contribute to the country we live in today?
Jperkinson
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 100
It's kind of sad that most Americans have this much reverence for the man primarily responsible for stripping a vast amount of power from the people of this country. (with regard to Lincoln)..
Think you have a right to bare arms? Then why do you need permission via a firearm 'permit'?
Think you have a right to own property? Then why do you pay rent in the form of 'Property Tax'?
Think you own your own home? Why do you need permission to alter it via a 'building permit'?
Free people do not need permission from their government.
These are a result of the 14th amendment. Lincoln didn't free the slaves... he just enslaved everyone else.
Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves
Lincoln didn't save the union.... he crushed it's spirit
Think you have a right to bare arms? Then why do you need permission via a firearm 'permit'?
Think you have a right to own property? Then why do you pay rent in the form of 'Property Tax'?
Think you own your own home? Why do you need permission to alter it via a 'building permit'?
Free people do not need permission from their government.
These are a result of the 14th amendment. Lincoln didn't free the slaves... he just enslaved everyone else.
Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves
Lincoln didn't save the union.... he crushed it's spirit
Please re-read your history... Even you believe what you have written. The 14th Amendment was not even proposed until after Lincoln's death. If you wish to say he inspired it or lobbied it… you can make that or any claim you wish.
But since he was dead… a direct link is less than direct…. meaning.... The living have more responsibility than those that died before the amendment was passed
GeneralMatt
Emperor
While I agree somewhat with that statement, (I think governments are taking it too far today) we need governments to keep us sane. We as humans have not developed to the point (and we never will) were we do not need leaders.
And what else are governments for but to rule us? And to be free does not mean you can do whatever you want.. that would lead to anarchy. True freedom comes (I believe) when the government has found the balance between governing us for our own good, and going way too far and underestimating us as people (We have a lot of trouble with building inspectors and permits around here.
I do think Lincoln was a pretty good president, but personally I would take a guy like William Pit (Jr or Sr) or even Churchill before him.
And as for who won WWII, that is clear ain't it? It was Canada! Hahaha, really, without the any of the US, USSR, UK, even Canada, the war would pretty much have been lost, so it never really fell on the shoulders of 1 to beat Hitler.
It was similar to the Napoleonic wars, Britain alone, and eventually Napoleon/Hitler tick off enough others to get the "allies".
Jperkinson
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 100
14th was part of the 'reconstruction bundle'... irrelevant that he was dead when it passed... It was a direct result of his actions and decisions while alive.
I shouldn't need to carry an ID card, permit for my rifle, permit for my fire pit, permit for my plumbing, permit for my electrical work, permit for my shed.......
Paying taxes for a common defense is one thing.... the rest is just bureaucracy.
THIS government was set up to preserve the rights of the individual.
When today's government passes decisions such as Kelo v. City of New London.... you begin to wonder exactly how far we have strayed from that goal. Jefferson would have been calling to arms after that decision, but we all watched and did nothing.
How do you boil a frog?
No one here is advocating against a rule of law... However we have 'constitutional' rights... or we used to.
No one should have to govern you for your own good.
I'm surprised more people don't feel the same way here... given many of the political quotes in Civ 4.
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
I have always had the right to bare arms , I roll my sleeves up every day.
My right to bear arms is not infringed. I simply need a license to get one. Same as I do to use my other "death dealing machine in the wrong hands" - my automobile.
Property tax is not rent. property tax is there to provide the government the funds to supply their services. (Whether they do or not correctly is another matter entirely).
To alter a building via building permit is reasonable enough. After all this is a Democracy not anarchy. Nothing wrong with building codes, they are designed to keep buildings safe.
No he didn't but they were freed weren't they?
Not even worth discussing.
My friend the Constitution is a living breathing document, designed as such. You may or may not agree with all amendments, but that all all is the soul of a democratic society. You can disagree with your government and not be in fear of being dragged away to the gulags in the dead of night.
Lincoln may not have commenced the war for the right reasons.He may not have been liked overly. But right man right place right time = Universally recognised , hence "great"
That is just about the dumbest comment I've ever heard, I'd like to meet you irl to see what kind of person you are, by that post it seems to me that your someone with no physical ability or inner strength and want to believe people like you that cant hack it are the real power.. what a joke.
Soldiers/Marines don't win wars, they only fight them.. Does that seem like that comment should go in the stupid person hall of fame or what? Please tell me I'm not the only one here that thinks that was the dumbest comment I've heard in my entire life, and I've heard some pretty dumb crap.
So if all the soldiers decided that they weren't going to fight.. what would happen exactly, please educate me on how wars are won, what do you think a diplomat waves a magic wand and thats how wars are won? No, the Soldiers kill enough people that the other side breaks.
I also find it funny that everything you mentioned in that little list of yours involves and only was possible because of... Soldiers/Marines/Pilots
We got ourselves a winner here at the Civ Forums thats for sure.
I also love how the stupid people seem to come alive on internet forums, I've never heard anyone say such a dumb comment in my entire life in real life, I wonder why? Pathetic, if you said that infront of 90% of the American population you'd get your teeth kicked in, but not here, here you got balls.
I can also tell your not an American because you have absolutely no respect for the men and women that give there lives for other people, but thats prob because your country has never spilled blood for another people. No country in the history of mankind as spilled more blood for other countries and land with nothing in return then the United States, no country in history has given as much life of there own people just because it was the right thing to do.
You sit there and say the Soldiers/Marines don't win the wars, who does exactly? A President in a suit on a hill with a pen?
No kid, it's a Soldier in the blood and mud with a gun in his hand.
Where is Romania anyway? Good thing they let you type in your country otherwise you'd prob be located in "other".
Jperkinson
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 100
Funny.... but,
If you have to ask permission, it is not a right.
If I want to live in an unsafe building, how is that anyone else's problem except mine?
Were they? The civil rights movement really came to a head in the 1960's... 100 years after the civil war... You do realize that the civil rights movement might just have come about naturally, regardless of the outcome of the civil war?
The constitution is not living or breathing. It is a fixed set of words that gets amended from time to time. The second amendment says that I have a right to bear arms. Why do I need to ask permission? The 5th amendment states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" ... Someone should tell Susette Kelo!!! Pfizer is now public?
Lurking Liu
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 344
I don't see how you can argue from the Second Ammendment, which was written when a musket could hit its target about 5% of the time at a rate of 20 seconds per shot... Saying the Founding Fathers would unilaterally support gun proliferation today is an ignorant statement at best. The height of modern technology when the Bill of Rights was written was Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod. They could not conceive of a weapon that could fire more than five shots in a minute, let alone the rates of fire that some civilian weapons can achieve.
Regardless, no need to worry Mr Sansloi, the Articles of Confederation and Continental Congress are still taught in schools (or at least they were when I was in them, fewer than 10 years ago). We just tend to forget about the Articles because they were basically a false start. Frankly, I'm amazed they lasted as long as they did...
Redralph--As you can see, opinions are divided on Lincoln. About 80% of Americans think he's just the greatest thing since sliced bread, but think so unquestioningly without looking at the facts. It's dogma of the American Pantheon. However, the majority of the remaining 20% still thinks he was one of the greatest presidents. I don't think there's anyone who thinks he's the greatest, though... He did more than Washington to create the nation as it is today--note, the nation, not the country--but everything Washington did was without precident; It's one thing to do a great job, but it's another thing to do a great job without any past example to refer to. There are some people who very much disagree with what Lincoln did, usually people who prefer a small central government. Thing is... A small central government isn't really practical for a country nearly the size of Europe.
Regardless, no need to worry Mr Sansloi, the Articles of Confederation and Continental Congress are still taught in schools (or at least they were when I was in them, fewer than 10 years ago). We just tend to forget about the Articles because they were basically a false start. Frankly, I'm amazed they lasted as long as they did...
Redralph--As you can see, opinions are divided on Lincoln. About 80% of Americans think he's just the greatest thing since sliced bread, but think so unquestioningly without looking at the facts. It's dogma of the American Pantheon. However, the majority of the remaining 20% still thinks he was one of the greatest presidents. I don't think there's anyone who thinks he's the greatest, though... He did more than Washington to create the nation as it is today--note, the nation, not the country--but everything Washington did was without precident; It's one thing to do a great job, but it's another thing to do a great job without any past example to refer to. There are some people who very much disagree with what Lincoln did, usually people who prefer a small central government. Thing is... A small central government isn't really practical for a country nearly the size of Europe.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
At the end of the day, Hitler did more to LOSE the war than any of the allies did to WIN the war. Hitler chose to invade the USSR long before he was prepared-& paid the price. He got goaded into bombing Britain's cities-instead of maintaining pressure on the airfields-which allowed Britain to mount a strong defense & finally take control of the skies over Europe. Had neither of these things occured, we may all be speaking German today!
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker.
Lurking Liu
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 344
You clearly lie, for you have nearly 5,000 posts and claim to be a lurker!
/me hides his own postcount.
Seriously, though, you're right. Hitler was Germany's own worst enemy. Even if Barbarossa had succeeded (sidenote: It may have done so, despite the courage and determination of the Russians, if not for being distracted by Greece, thus delaying the eastern invasion. So, using the logic everyone else has used thus far, Metaxas won WWII for the Allies
) it would have cost him so much and spread him so thin that Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc would have finished the job... Not to underplay the efforts of the various local resistances or the Free French, of course...
/me hides his own postcount.
Seriously, though, you're right. Hitler was Germany's own worst enemy. Even if Barbarossa had succeeded (sidenote: It may have done so, despite the courage and determination of the Russians, if not for being distracted by Greece, thus delaying the eastern invasion. So, using the logic everyone else has used thus far, Metaxas won WWII for the Allies
) it would have cost him so much and spread him so thin that Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc would have finished the job... Not to underplay the efforts of the various local resistances or the Free French, of course...sansloi37
Chieftain
Lurking Liu - glad to hear it is still being taught!
As for the Soldiers vs. Statesmen debate, as a military veteran I believe that it is the State (government, leaders, what have you) that win or lose wars through their actions. The military exists to enforce the will of their nation, but without the myriad functions a war time government provides (internal & external support, morale, macro-strategic decisions, etc.) no army, no matter how great can win a war. In the past, when government leaders were the generals on the battlefield, there was not the separation there is today, but the facts seem to bear out that even a well-trained and equipped military can lose when they are failed by their own government.
As for the Soldiers vs. Statesmen debate, as a military veteran I believe that it is the State (government, leaders, what have you) that win or lose wars through their actions. The military exists to enforce the will of their nation, but without the myriad functions a war time government provides (internal & external support, morale, macro-strategic decisions, etc.) no army, no matter how great can win a war. In the past, when government leaders were the generals on the battlefield, there was not the separation there is today, but the facts seem to bear out that even a well-trained and equipped military can lose when they are failed by their own government.
CorneliusScipio
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 11
The right to bear arms is not simply the "everyone can have a gun" amendment. Are you honestly suggesting that we should be allowed to give guns to absolutely everyone? Children should get em? If the government prevents it, they're encroaching on your rights, correct? People should be able to own automatic weapons en masse without regulations? People fresh out of prison should be able to buy some nice machine guns and assault rifles from the local gun store? The right to bear arms does not precede the most important job of the government, to protect its people.
