1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

President Abe (Us, not Japan)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by RedRalph, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Heh- The cobbler's kids never have shoes....

    I bought my house from an electrician... You should have seen the mess! :rolleyes:

    I guess thinking about it.... I really don't have a problem with building 'standards'. It's the mandatory enforcement that irks me.

    If the government didn't require him to build to code, you could have specified the 'standard' to which you wanted it built... If it wasn't built to that standard, you could sue for a simple breach of contract if it burned down your house....
     
  2. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    The Emancipation Proclamation said that all slaves in territories that rival the United States are now FREE. It is illegal to make laws for other countries. Which would put all countries against the US under the jurisdiction of the EP. Now if you do not consider the South as a seperate nation, then you should know it is illegal for the federal Government to Declare war on a state.

    Secession is was only made an illegal act after the war when the States attempted to rejoin and were forced to surrender their right to to secede. When The American Colonies broke away from England it was Secession. When the States switched to the Constitution, they Seceded from the former government under the Articles of Confederation. The New England states also threatened secession in the early 1800s, they eventually backed down. Read the opening paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence.

    I've actually tried to find that in local book stores and libraries but had been unsuccessful, closest I came were two books, "The Life of Johnny Reb" and "The Life of Billy Yank" which gives a light into the way the soldiers on those sides thought. The thing is, from what I've read, in most books Grant was drunk for months at a time, even in school books I read as a child this is the case, And I live in the North lol . So could his memory be trusted? lol
     
  3. chaz1356

    chaz1356 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    115
    whoa what happened here
     
  4. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    Your above points are not accurate. But I am not here to argue why you are wrong and why I am right. I strongly suggest you take the information you now believe to be accurate and force yourself to find a contrary view and compare your assumption against potentially new facts. I know an unbiased individual would at least be willing to consider both the proposal and the possibility his current view is incorrect.

    Both of these statements are incorrect. The two acts while they may appear the same to you are not the same. I wish you well on the additional information gathering which will be fun to confirm or dispute your points.

    History teaches us the best and worst traits of notable men are both over and understated.
     
  5. tmarcl

    tmarcl Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    382
    That's because at the time, we weren't technically a united nation. We were a confederation. The presidents of the Continental Congress also isn't mentioned because at the time we weren't a nation at all, we were still colonies. George Washington was the first President of the entity known today as the United States of America.

    Marc
     
  6. PericlesOfAthen

    PericlesOfAthen Consul

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    suburbs of Chicago, IL
    :lol:

    Good one Zienth!

    Hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing. I read threads on fanatics frequently and I've never seen one go so far off topic in so many directions. From Lincoln to who deserves credit for defeating the Nazi's to 2nd amendment to . . building codes! :lol:
     
  7. tmarcl

    tmarcl Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    382
    To protect our rights. Governments don't exist to rule us, they exist to serve us.

    Marc
     
  8. tmarcl

    tmarcl Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    382
    Do we limit it to just us? I was taught in school that it was called the Great Depression because it included Europe.

    Even if the US does refer to only ourselves when saying it, so what? For the US it was the worst depression we had experienced. It's not belittling other countries, it's describing our own.

    What is it with the attitude I see on this board of "How dare Americans have any pride in themselves whatsoever?" Yeah, some Americans are arrogant. Guess what? so are some Europeans. Get over it. Yeah, we're proud of some of our accomplishments. Guess what? so are Europeans. Get over it. Yeah, we tend to look at the world through our own lenses. Guess what? so do Europeans. Get over it.

    Marc
     
  9. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    The Confederate States were a separate entity, the Emancipation Proclamation imposed a law upon these states, which were not of The United States. It would be the Same as if Britain had imposed a proclamation on the United States, It's wrong and against International Laws to impose laws upon other nations. Even Worse that they didn't follow it themselves. Now if you Do not believe that the South was a separate entity then you must accept the fact that the Federal Government, CAN NOT declare war upon the states. However, States have always maintained the right of secession and therefore were separate entities.



    When the war ended the Southern States were bullied into rejoining and relinquishing their right to succession, the only state I believe to retain it's power of Secession was Texas. It's not a lie, or myth, it's a fact. Ask a Historian. As for the matter of secession from the British Empire and Secession from the American Empire being similar. They are. If Britain had one we'd be viewing the War for American Independence in the same light as the civil war. If the South would of Won, we would of viewed the War for Southern Independence in the same light as the American Revolution. The Acts are the same. The Government screwed with the colonies both economically, and socially, then The Government screwed with the States both economically, and socially. The Colonies Broke away and fought for their independence. The States broke away and fought for their independence. The Colonies won. The states Lost. Thats the only difference.


    That's very true, but on the history channel, they showed entries in journals where his own men weren't sure if he was dead or alive because he was drunk in his tent. But whether or not these were slanderous lies spread by his men to try to remove him from power is unknown.

    I've read as many books and article on the Civil War as I can find and afford(still need to get the Slave Narrative of "Ten Cent" Bill Yope lol last I checked it was like 100 bucks! lol - he was one of the first African Americans to be buried along side his friends in a Cemetery for Confederate Veterans)
    In most of the books, Both for and against the South, The Emancipation Proclamation is questioned as being legal as was the war and actions taken during the war. I've talked to teachers, professors, historians, ect,(in both sides of the country) many had said that if the EP wasn't Illegal then the war was, and vice versa, or both being illegal. Some just said they question the legality of the EP. I've done the research for years. As I said I Love this point in American History, I study what I can about it. It's a passion. You should see the dirty looks you get when you carry around books on the Confederacy, that you're reading that month, half of them got a big fat Confederate Battle Flag on the cover lol.
     
  10. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    I was Always taught that Europe had taken the hit too. I agree with the rest of your post :)


    Anyways, back to the Original Topic...

    I fidn Teddy Roosevelt a better President than Lincoln. Roosevelt did so much more and his legacy wasn't paved with the false belief that "he freed slaves" T.R.'s accomplishments far out weigh Lincolns. Idk I just Really connect with TR.
    My Top 10 Presidents would be..
    1. Teddy Roosevelt
    2. George Washington
    3. Thomas Jefferson
    4. Ronald Reagan
    5. Andrew Jackson
    6. Ronald Reagan
    7. William McKinley
    8. Grover Cleveland(lol Two nonconsecutive terms? I loved it lol)
    9. William Howard Taft
    10. This is a tossup between Truman and FDR
     
  11. GeneralMatt

    GeneralMatt Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,980
    Location:
    Canada
    Depends of course on the type of government. A government like the United States was created to serve the people (I do not know anymore).

    But don't take me for an expert (It would be so hard to tell from my posts huh. :rolleyes: :lol: ).

    But I do think that our North American governments have lost the balance between the things they should control and the things they shouldn't..

    And just to say, I am definitely a Protestant, Conservative, and pretty biased and not ashamed of it, just to put that out in the open. :crazyeye:
    And I would love to live in the 1850's during the Empire on which the sun never set..

    Oh yes, someone mentioned that the US Constitution or whatever proclaimed the slave trade to end in 1808, though the written in 1789 (I think they said). I actually would have liked to see them back that up. While I believe that slavery is wrong, even in 1808 the US had enough troubles of their own.
    But the Royal Navy added some punch to the Brit's decision.. I can understand though if people all over the world at the time may not have been happy with them though, I mean these days we don't like you Americans using your power for "good" reasons (That is arguable, but you do have to admit Mr Hussein was murdering innocents). I guess it is part of being the top dog..
     
  12. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    So, at least we can all agree, if it wasnt for the Red army, you americans would be speaking German by now ;) ;) ;)
     
  13. Dominico

    Dominico Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    387
    I would say in the grand scale of things, if it wasnt for the Uk and US, the Red army would have been steam rollered. (uk bombing German cities, US and UK suppling gear, UK beating Germanys best tank battalians and general in Africa, beating their airforce in battle of britain, the threat of invasion taking some troops, tanks and planes to the western theatre)

    If it wasnt for America Uk would have been starved out (US selling gear to UK for land and long term debts while staying "neutral")

    If it wasnt for UK America would have stayed out of the war and later in the fight would have had no base of operations (would have been the new cold war, all of Europe vs USA).

    If it wasnt for Germany US would not be world superpower!!

    It all interweaves but one nation has a pivitol role in it all.
     
  14. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Not really. But I have to admire your blind nationalism. If it wasnt for the Red Army, all Europe would have been taken by the Nazis (UK & Ireland included) and the US would have had no choice but to come to terms with a German superstate.
     
  15. tomaalimosh

    tomaalimosh Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Romania
    Actually... if it wasn't for Hitler's attacking USSR, the Red Army would have tried to enslave Europe alongside with Hitler.

    so the Stalin fans should quit praising him. He was an opportunist and a crybaby:
    Before Hitler attacking:
    - oh... Germany, our friend. The UK are weak and will be conquered by them, and any attempt to warn us about an attack from our good friends, the germans, is just a feeble attempt to destroy our great friendship

    - after: "oh... we, the defenders of Europe against the tyrany, demand assistance at once. Send us help"... and all the "second front NOW!!" comunist propaganda
     
  16. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Nonsense.
    As i said before, in WWII, the hold of German Navy over North Atlantic was not broken till the Soviets had already turned the tide against the Nazis. All it did was end the war quicker, since otherwise, it'd have taken longer for the Red Army to beat the Germans.

    Actually that was the US had the biggest say in Rommel's eventual defeat- he ran out of supplies.
    Anyway, the Africa campaign was a minor irritation to the Germans, so was most of the 'phony war'.
    All in all, the Red army deserves almost complete credit for beating the Nazi war machine.
    What Stalin did to Hitler's army in Operation Barbarossa was very similar to what Tsar Peter did to Charles XII in the Swedish invasion of Russia.
    The repeat of which was Napoleon's disastrous jaunt into Russia as well.
     
  17. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    I havent seen any praise of Stalin. I've seen praise of the Red Army. they are not the same thing
     
  18. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    No one is saying that Stalin was a great guy but he does deserve praise for one of the best rearguard actions ever seen in a war. Besides, the real credit goes to the Red Army for beating Nazi Germany,not Stalin.

    That wasn't communist propaganda- that was very much a sound war advice.
    You will find that the seeds of cold war were sown during WWII, when US-UK delayed opening the western front.
    It is commonly acknowledged in WWII history circles that Churchill was against immediate action to open the western front ( and he convinced Rosevelt of the same)- his logic was simple : The commies and the nazis are both our enemies, the longer we let them kill each other, the better it is for us.
    Which might've been true but not very prudent- Stalin easily figured out that US-UK will sit on its ar$e for atleast a year, let Russia do most of the fighting. All the while Germans were steamrolling thousands of kms deep into Soviet Union, US-UK did nothing in the west- just sat there, observed the action and conducted a couple of bombing runs (which were ultimately pretty ineffective,since Luftwaffe still had control over the skies of continental Europe until 1944). It is known as 'phony war' for a reason ya know.

    He simply discounted US-UK help and pressed on with his war effort anyways.
    Only when the Russians had turned the tide and getting to Berlin first was the issue, did the western front see massive push from the US-UK soldiers.
    And despite the German effort against USSR ( the German batallions on Western front were mostly transferred to east to fight the Red army), US-UK failed to get to Berlin first.

    But all in all, the Nazi empire was doomed from the start- they were vanquished by the Red Army and the Nazis did have a very fundamental discord with the Commies.
    People in the west forget that the Nazi propaganda and 'blame for WWI loss + depression' wasn't just directed towards Jews, it was also directed towards Gypsies, Slavs & the communists.
    The Nazi party in its early days ( when it was mostly based in Bavaria) was virulent in its hatred of the communists- not only did they carry out attacks against Communist offices in Bavaria, Hitler purged Germany of communism very thoroughly when he came to power in the early 1930s.
    So it was just a matter of time before the Nazi machine tried to move against the Red Army.
    People forget that before WWII actually started, the US government had very good relations with Nazi Germany. Not only were German-Americans(who still are the biggest ethnic group in the US population) quite close to the fatherland, US actually had several business holdings within Nazi empire.
    Hell, Prescott Bush( grandpa of current US president Bush) even had a coal mine that was run by slave labour, in conjunction with Nazi oversight in Poland- until he was threatened with charge under the 'trading with the enemy' clause in 1942/43.
     
  19. onedreamer

    onedreamer Dragon

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,580
    Location:
    Torino - Italia
    seriously, if you really thought for a moment that the commissar corps have anything to deal with it, you don't know russians and their national pride at all.

    On another note (since we're already so off topic can I ?), I wonder how can you (you = impersonal) call a person with an acronym. JFK, FDR... I don't know about you, but I would be quite pissed off if people would call me with my initials.
     
  20. johnny5000

    johnny5000 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    Funny thing about this was that the southern states were the ones whining about how New England secession was treason. I guess it's only okay when they do it so they can preserve their precious slaver.. excuse me, I mean, "states rights"
     

Share This Page