SuperJerk

Considering that Carter was actively pursuing detente --- they would have never had to spend themselves into oblivion. Giving Gorby credit for the break-up of the USSR is like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression. I like the way you feel the need to drag Carter or Clinton into every argument. Giving Gorbachev PARTIAL credit for accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression. Especially when I can point to actual programs that accelerated the collapse, which you completely no-sold with your typical invincible ignorance. Rather that explaining why perestroika shouldn't be given part of the credit, you just make your typical ignorant remark about how there's no way that could be true. Congratulations on being a narrow-minded shithead.

Okay, what about the the tremendous American economic growth in the post-WWII era, when taxes were higher than they'd ever been before or have been since? Or during the 90's, after the Clinton tax hikes? I know you can come up with excuses for these, but higher taxes in these instances did not have a crippling effect on economic growth. Took the words out of my mouth. Someone obviously doesn't understand where their money comes from.

I'm not coming down one way or the other in this argument. However, I do firmly believe that the people who have been arguing so strongly for popular vote over electoral college these past few years wouldn't honestly be making that argument had Al Gore not won the popular vote in 2000. Speaking for myself, I've always been against it. Before the 2000 election, I knew a guy who went off on a rant about how stupid the electoral college. Then Bush won, and he suddenly favored it. Hypocrisy runs both ways.

Technically, the war wasn't fought over slavery. The war was fought over whether or not the South had a right to leave the union. The reason the South wanted to leave, however, was due to slavery and Lincoln's opposition to its expansion. Tarriffs and sectionalism were reasons too, but slavery factored into both sectionalism (resentment between North and South) and tarriffs (the South didn't want tarriffs because slavery had made agricultural production so cost effective). Thus slavery was the reason the South wanted to leave and thus the reason for the war. Sorry, your link didn't work for me Stephen. I'm going to try to find that book, though.

People asked him, and he said to ask her. In my opinion, he was showing restraint.

The implementation of perestroika enabled pro-capitalist and pro-democracy forces within the Soviet Union to strengthen. Gorbachev was the architect of perestroika, and thus is partially responsible for the Soviet system's collapse.

Then why do they put this xenophobic drivel on their website? The problem with their statement is that they equate having a large population of Meixcans with having a "tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures". Because, you know, Mexicans are just sooooo different than the rest of us. I support a strong border patrol for economic and security reasons, but I'm not of the opinion that increasing the Hispanic heritage of the American culture will lead to fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria.

Actually, Matt showed the good judgement to use the name "Adam Copeland", instead of Edge.

Was that a vote for me to go back to my old name?

I often edit in several lines to existing posts after I initially reply. Go back and read it now. I never heard of most of those guys, so my question now becomes do those historians actually support the view that slavery didn't cause the war, or are you just using the pieces of their work that can be used to support your claims?

The book you're thinking of is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". I hope this isn't you're only source. Thomas E. Woods, who does live in New York, is a right-wing hack who digs up old quote and authors out of context to "prove" his points. Few in the historical community takes him seriously. If you want more balanced and respected accounts of the causes of the Civil War, you're better off looking at writers like Stampp or Nevin. It was politically impossible to do at the time Lincoln became president, which was before the war. Only only became possible to do after the war. Wars are only fought when there is wealth (including large amounts of land) to be made, stolen or protected. If slaves were ever treated fair, they'd have been paid for their labor. While Lincoln was a white supremacist, but he did believe that slavery was wrong. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/li...ches/hodges.htm

Since when do federal employees man polling places? Do you realize you'd only have to win 11 states to win under the current Electoral College system? Any candidate could spent 100% of his time campaigning in and making promises to 11 states (California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas), and win. Under the current system, a candidate could get just 50.1% of the votes in those states, not get a single vote in another state, and still win. He wouldn’t even have to be on the ballot in 39 states, and he would still win. Also, there are other problems. For example, the number of Electoral College votes given to each State equals the number of Representatives and Senators that each State sends to Congress. Every state has at least 3 Electoral College votes, because each State gets two Senators and at least one Representative. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated State. In other words, states are not represented according to their population. Even worse, just because a candidate wins a state, there’s still a chance the votes might go to someone else. In some states, electors aren't even required to vote for the person who wins their state. The Electoral College's flaws outweigh its benefits.

Vince McMahon is feces.

This sucks.

Someone forgot to tell KKK that Ashcroft retired. And that his space craft exploded on its way back to his homeworld.

I'm starting to think we need to start a "OAO Famous People Who Just Died" thread.

The South may have had the legal right to own slaves, but not the moral right. Hence my use of quotaton marks when talking about rights. I'm sure you agree with this. That's just the opinion of disgruntled Southern historians of the past. Probably the same historians that wrote books about how the South was abused during the Reconstruction and how the slaves were happy to be slaves. There were a lot of published myths about the Civil War which weren't disproven until the last 40 years. I'm being lazy. I can get you some if you really want, but I don't have access to my history books at the moment. First of all, there was little public education in the South until after the war. Second, if you're arguing that the controversy over the morality of slavery was not the cause of the war, then I agree with you. It was the economics of slavery that led to the war. Everything else was just window dressing for the fact that the South felt their major economic advantage was in danger. There was a growing anti-slavery in the North. It was one of the reasons for the founding of the Republican Party. I don't think I ever said that Lincoln was always publicly pro-slavery. The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the fact he was in the anti-slavery party kind of disproves this. However, I think that he knew his hands were tied as president (because the Constitution allows it) so he wasn't planning on moving to outlaw it (which would be politically impossible). Throughout American history, states rights has been used as a shield whenever one side can't get its way in any other method. While the average southerner supported the concept, those in power can shift whenever its convenient. The Democratic Party went from being the states rights party around the Civil War until they got power back in the 1930s. They abandoned any pretext of supporting states rights during the 1960s. At that time, the remaining states rights Democrats (i.e. Southerners) quit the party and joined the Republicans. The Republicans became the states rights party during the New Deal and Civil Rights movement, and only just recently started to revert away from this. Now that they control all three branches of the federal government, their allegiance to states rights has nearly evaporated. Despite being a southern governor, Bush has done little to nothing to denote he believes in the 10th Amendment. The Democrats recently started embracing it after years of ignoring it. There are some who truly believe in the states rights principle, but for the people who are actually making the decisions, its just a means to an end.

That comment was based on projections made in 1997 that have since been revised. Because we're taking in so much more money now? I see your point.

The quotaton marks denoted my belief that they did not have the right to own slaves, in spite of what the Constitution says. I'm ignoring the bits that would suggest that Lincoln was responsible for the war because they are not true. Lincoln's responsible for the war in one way only: he wouldn't let the South leave. The South chose to leave. The South chose to attack Fort Sumner. That verson of events has no basis in historical fact. And I'm saying you're wrong. The majority of the people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery WAS the key issue in the war. Yeah, they wanted make sure they continued to have the right to won slaves. The South wanted slaves because it made them money. The North didn't want slavery because they had no use for it. Certain northern politicians saw slavery as an issue they could use to further their political careers by exploiting the growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Slavery, like gay marriage was in 2004, was a wedge issue used to further a political agenda that was exploited by politicians on both sides. The South favored states rights because it was their way of justifying slavery. That has nothing to do with why George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor supported states rights. People can ebleive the same things, but have different reasons for doing so, you know.

That comment was based on projections made in 1997 that have since been revised. I'm not saying there's not a problem with Social Security, but to use a 7 year old Clinton quote as proof of a future event is dubious reasoning.

Just because one person who claims to support an ideology is a liar/hypocrite doesn't mean that everyone who claims to support said ideology is a liar/hypocrite. No offense, but if your point was that this news somehow invalidates liberalism as an ideology, you're employing some very Coulter-esque logic. RobotJerk = fair and balanced.

Except they're arging for Constitutional protections for people who are not covered under the Constitution. Many people believe that the US government should follow its own rules whether it is dealing with actual US citizens or not.

credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-13

Hey, he's no big prize himself.

Hey, here's a whacky question: Can someone defend the idea that there should even be a Pope? Yeah, I know all about the Jesus giving keys of heaven to Peter...yada, yada, yada, but is there really any need for a Pope in the modern age? Maybe I'm showing my Protestant bias, but I'd be interested in reading some differing views on what necessary function a Pope plays in modern society.