The civil war was about tariff's on southern exports not about slavery. Northern manufacturing interests didn't want to have to compete with French and English merchants. Lincoln's primary concern was to preserve the union; he didn't care about the slaves. Behind every conflict you have the humanitarian justification and the economic motivation.
SANTORUM'S SATAN WARNING Tue Feb 21 2012 09:27:20 ET
"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.
"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."
MORE
The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.
"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"
"He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions."
Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.
MORE
The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.
"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."
Why did the North have a manufacturing economy and the South an agrarian economy? Economically, the South was basically a colony of the North. There's a reason for that.
On February 22 2012 02:50 Jibba wrote: Why did the North have a manufacturing economy and the South an agrarian economy? Economically, the South was basically a colony of the North. There's a reason for that.
The North exploited the resources of the South within a market that was heavily slanted to the moneyed interests in the industrial states. I'm pretty sure that even those historians who view the Union and its cause favorably acknowledge that simple point.
On February 22 2012 02:50 Jibba wrote: Why did the North have a manufacturing economy and the South an agrarian economy? Economically, the South was basically a colony of the North. There's a reason for that.
The North exploited the resources of the South within a market that was heavily slanted to the moneyed interests in the industrial states. I'm pretty sure that even those historians who view the Union and its cause favorably acknowledge that simple point.
I already said that. That's not the reason the South's economies were slowing down and dependent on exporting raw materials instead of creating goods. Its development had been stunted for decades and there was an aristocracy and a specific labor system in place that prevented a lot of growth.
Let me put it this way: you can cite economics and states' rights as primary factors leading to the Civil War, rather than the moral argument against slavery, but slavery impedes industrialization, and the lack thereof caused those conditions. So it wasn't initially about slavery but it was, in large part, because of it.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
There's a debate again this week isn't there? I need my entertainment!
I'm hoping for an update on the jihadists in Cuba. It's such a shame Perry dropped out also, who is going to be the voice of reason arguing for the reinvasion of Iraq now?
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Is there any chance that this man defeats Obama if he gets the nomination? Please tell me there is none, and be honest.
Like I said earlier, at this point, they're all fighting for that 30% of the electorate who would vote against Obama regardless. What Santorum is doing now is basically shutting out that other 70% to guarantee that radical 30%.
On February 21 2012 02:26 DoubleReed wrote: I don't understand the problem with that video. So he didn't think all the Americans needed to die, so he's delusional?
"What is that Ron? Martin Luther King wasted his life fighting for equal rights because the free market was just about to solve segregation? Sounds legit!"
You do know that he has said multiple times that MLK is a personal idol of his.
Regardless of his views, he's historically innacurate and so his entire point is way off-base. The Civil War wasn't started because the north wanted the south to abolish slavery. It was started over states' rights and slavery was the main talking point for that larger issue.
That was Ron Paul's response to the idea that without the civil war we wouldn't have slavery. He was saying that we could have done something less wasteful than war. Where is he historically inaccurate?
The quoted statement at the beginning directly implies that Lincoln went to war to abolish slavery. Paul then says, "Absolutely" to agree with the statement. This was simply was not the case, thus the historical innacuracy.
He did agree to the quote, however, if you read anything he has written about the civil war, you would know that he is very well aware what the motives of the civil war were. The issue of slavery was what was used to drum up angry civilians to march off to war, while in reality it had very little to do with the underlying agenda of the federalists (Abe Lincoln).
If you watch his entire opinion on the subject (instead of a 1 min snippet taken completely out of context) you would hear that his argument is that "the civil war was to abolish slavery" is complete garbage. If the government was so worried about slavery, they would've done something beside splitting the country in half to fix it. THIS is the point he is trying to make. The government used slavery and injustice to rally troops to destroy individual state rights.
So please, before you just throw out 'he's historically inaccurate' crap, do a little bit of research, this man has been studying this for a very long time, and is actually trying to make a difference, rather than just keep the stupid status quo that we call American politics.
There was no "destroying" of states' rights. The entire thing was caused by the secession of the Confederate states and then their attack on Fort Sumter. This was in turn caused by the fact that Lincoln got elected and that the Republicans had been fighting to not allow slavery in the new territories, which isn't a destruction of states' rights because it wasn't actually trampling on the rights of the southern States at all because there was never an attempt to actually get rid of slavery in states where it was already in place until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The vast majority of the war was fought to preserve the unity of the country. The abolition of slavery was tacked on later and wasn't even a main talking point until after the war because it was the biggest effect that it actually had.
Of course there was a destroying of states' rights. The north used the opportunity to pass the 14th amendment, the biggest blow to states' rights in U.S. history, which never would have passed had the south been represented. And this is coming from someone who doesn't even particularly like states' rights (especially the kind that allow slavery).
edit: To be clear, they weren't represented in the sense that they never would have ratified it had the people's wishes been accurately represented. But the north, having just won the war, was in a position to pretty much do whatever they wanted.
I don't consider a state's role in denying human beings basic fundamental rights even a question of states' rights vs. federal control. No government should have that ability, period. So no, I wouldn't consider the 14th amendment a huge blow to states' rights.
On February 22 2012 02:50 Jibba wrote: Why did the North have a manufacturing economy and the South an agrarian economy? Economically, the South was basically a colony of the North. There's a reason for that.
Uh, maybe it had something to do with the composition of the South's labour force...
Obviously slavery is evil and self ownership is inalienable. No one can own someone else. But that is completely separate from the debate between decentralization and centralization. One solid argument in favour of decentralization (aka 'states rights') is that if you don't like how things are you can vote with your feet but when you have a monolithic central government that controls everything if you don't like the way things are it's too bad.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Well he is a bad candidate no doubt, but he is actually right about one issue and that is climate change!
I mean if you look at the global warming alarmists own numbers the earth in the past 100 years has gotten warmer by 0.6 or 0.8 Celsius degrees depending on which study you look. So in their own studies this is a non event, its such a miniscule change that makes local and small forest fires look like the end of the world.
Also recent studies done by the global warming alarmist show that the oceans on earth will rise by a whooping just 18 centimeters in 100 years! I mean talk about non events. This means you have better chance of getting struck by lighting 2ce in the same day and then dying, than cities being engulfed in water and everyone dying because of it.
On the other hand with scams like cap and trade and taxing every producer of goods in this world it could turn up huge profits for the privately owned carbon trading markets and destroy the world economy!
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Well he is a bad candidate no doubt, but he is actually right about one issue and that is climate change!
I mean if you look at the global warming alarmists own numbers the earth in the past 100 years has gotten warmer by 0.6 or 0.8 Celsius degrees depending on which study you look. So in their own studies this is a non event, its such a miniscule change that makes local and small forest fires look like the end of the world.
Also recent studies done by the global warming alarmist show that the oceans on earth will rise by a whooping just 18 centimeters in 100 years! I mean talk about non events. This means you have better chance of getting struck by lighting 2ce in the same day and then dying, than cities being engulfed in water and everyone dying because of it.
On the other hand with scams like cap and trade and taxing every producer of goods in this world it could turn up huge profits for the privately owned carbon trading markets and destroy the world economy!
Awww, a denialist. How precious. I bet you buy things off infomercials too, and claim to know quite a few Nigerian princes.
We're long past the point of discussing if the globe is warming and if that is causing climate change. If you want to debate the merits of cap and trade (and other carbon offset plans) versus widespread flexibility in living environments and increasing the stress communities can take under adverse climate conditions, then by all means.
If, instead, you would rather continue believing that the scientific community doesn't know how to read, write, or do math, especially compared to your GOP and Christian science foundations, I do believe Battle.net has forums. Those people over there would much rather listen to your ramblings than we would.
Climate change denial has become a litmus test for modern Republicans, but Rick Santorum, in his fondness for melding faith and government, has become one of the precious few to cite the Bible as evidence that the science-accepting crowd has it all wrong — and apparently the first to bring that thinking to the presidential stage.
“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told a Colorado crowd earlier this month.
He went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”
The surging presidential hopeful fleshed out this argument further this Sunday on CBS Face The Nation, when asked to justify his recent controversial claim that President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible.” He said the President sides with “radical environmentalists” who don’t understand what God intended to be the relationship between humans and the planet.
Well he is a bad candidate no doubt, but he is actually right about one issue and that is climate change!
I mean if you look at the global warming alarmists own numbers the earth in the past 100 years has gotten warmer by 0.6 or 0.8 Celsius degrees depending on which study you look. So in their own studies this is a non event, its such a miniscule change that makes local and small forest fires look like the end of the world.
Also recent studies done by the global warming alarmist show that the oceans on earth will rise by a whooping just 18 centimeters in 100 years! I mean talk about non events. This means you have better chance of getting struck by lighting 2ce in the same day and then dying, than cities being engulfed in water and everyone dying because of it.
On the other hand with scams like cap and trade and taxing every producer of goods in this world it could turn up huge profits for the privately owned carbon trading markets and destroy the world economy!
When talking about things like the climate science can you at least give reference points to your statements? Oceans have risen 18 cm in the past one hundred years and the IPCC projects a minumum of 20 cm and max of 70 cm by 2100. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Also I don't really get the point which you seem to be raising; "its not that bad now, what's the big deal?".
On February 22 2012 05:36 Derez wrote: There's a debate again this week isn't there? I need my entertainment!
I'm hoping for an update on the jihadists in Cuba. It's such a shame Perry dropped out also, who is going to be the voice of reason arguing for the reinvasion of Iraq now?
Its def. a shame Rick Perry dropped out (herman cain as well). Need more of this:
EPT
