Nothing new.

And the soldiers of the Confederacy weren't necessarily the bad guys. They were people loyal to their states. Robert E. Lee sided with the Confederacy because of his loyalty to his state. Loyalty is inspiring.

Losers of wars are underdogs. We root for the underdog. Usually. It's a unique position to observe the human spirit.

They are like Ronin, emotionally fraught PTSD survivors living a waking nightmare, with no satisfying role in society left to fill. What can they do?

They will fight.

He totally screwed up the part were River gained or had her "powers" naturally (she was only naturally/gifted mentally, that is, she was a genius or prodigy). That came from the experimenting FROM the Alliance... Same with her fighting abilities, that was also an Alliance "gift" (to use her as a "psychic weapon"). But I think Joss already made the point IN the show that Mal was indeed a very shady person, if you didn't get that you are an idiot!

You were supposed to know that the Alliance brought a lot of great things with them, but they also stole your freedom...essentially (in exchange for a world with lots of rules).

But, what the Alliance was up to "behind the scenes" is what was really everyone's main concern--which they covered in Serenity a bit... In Serenity we found out that they had been up to a LOT more terrible things than just taking individuals like River--they were in the business of thinking they knew how to make all people "better" people...and one day they would try to institute it in force, en masse...

It seemed like the show was more a story about the civil war had the wrong side won--to some degree; I think you could make an argument for both. But it was obvious from watching that "Mal's side" was the "Confederacy", but they didn't stand for the same things, it was just that the history of things were playing out the same in many ways...and that was the point.

If The Union had been lying about a huge amount of things and started to institute policies that you went into action then they'd seem so very much like the Alliance in the show (BUT, some actions are exactly like what The Union did to Confederate "states" after the war; which DID leave them in states of welfare were citizens were left to fend for the most basic of necessities on their own--the Wild Wild West didn't just appear from comic books... Even the citizens had to fight off Indian attacks here and there and most of these attacks were born from the legacy of military campaigns and other actions via The Union (or before the States went to war--but, it's easy to see what the "Reavers" were based on, at least I assume that is what he had in mind).

Ironically, right now in our government it's doing the things that Mal was so concerned over that many that HAD lived in the Alliance regions hadn't been as worried about: slowly eroding our civil liberties, our regular freedoms are being taken away or one-by-one being hamstrung, and regulation is being destroyed allowing the corrupt to make this circle all that much worse (of course one day this cycle will just feedback on itself and create a revolution--as it always has). That is what The Alliance was doing, especially to the planets that didn't join immediately...so it does have a lot in common with our history. As The Union did do some pretty annoying and considering all of the people that needed help and were not getting anything, they actually directly killed a large amount of completely innocent people...just to punish some wealthy land owners and other people that had something to do with the Civil War. They should have taken the matter directly into their hands, but there is a lot on that as well (just like the show...why the Alliance never intervenes in the outer planets...).

God how I miss that show. I can only imagine what Joss could have accomplished in 7 or 8 seasons (maybe more). He could have made a show that could easily be written about in a college setting, about the civil war and the topics related to it. How grand the adventure could have been, except for one dickhead producer at Fox...

(*I take no responsibility for the parts of my comment I messed up on...* )


*nerd rant*

wait..what?
thats simply just untrue bob.
unless you are saying there was ZERO voting in the beginning of this country.
is THAT what you are trying to say?
are you also implying that representative democracy is losing our way and therefore bad?
/holds head in hands...
im trying to unravel your comment but its not making much sense.

what the fuck is this "true" history you are talking about? hell..just plain "what the fuck are you talking about"?

are you confusing the articles of confederacy with the constitution?
or the fact that senators used to be picked by elected officials and now they are voted for by the citizenry?

good god man,you are giving newt shit for not knowing his history yet you are butchering the very thing you proclaim to know the "truth" of.there is no definitive "truth" when it comes to history.there is just data and books and transcripts and journals,all left to be interpreted by the reader.the more information that you have the clearer the picture becomes but it aint math bubba.
people will still debate the finer details,and historians often do.though revisionists are particularly venal in my opinion,because they have an agenda.

i think you may have read a revisionists history book.

"Your description of events ignores the fact that 100% of the territory was part of the union"

That's why it's called secession. It was all one 'union' and then the Confederacy decided otherwise, they seceded, or attempted to.

"When you write pages of text about my digressions, it indicates the opposite. I hope you understand that. If you really aren't interested, just ignore me.""

You do have a point about this. Anyway, we may even agree more than disagree, except about some definitions that, while not as precise as could be, keep in mind the medium this discussion is occurring in, not the ideal for formal debating, more like informal statements and comments of what comes to mind, not dissertations.

In addition to the "sarcasm" box, we should probably get a "jus' sayin'" box as well.

Well, I thought I had been quite clear. The 'derision' with no argument from you was "Yeah, far be it from me to stand between you and your hacktivism! lol"
I understand why you want to ignore and/or drop it...that's fine.
My point was to clarify your statement "The North didn't go to war with slave-owning northern states, did it?", and it took quite a while to understand you were simply ascribing the label "northern" to any non-seceding state. You mistook that for me arguing that he went to war to free the slaves...I never said, or intended to imply that. It may have entered into his motivations, but was not the stated reason, or even the logical reason for joining the war.
Your description of events ignores the fact that 100% of the territory was part of the union, and taken by this new 'confederacy', an act of war by invasion/usurpation/theft.
My 'survey' included numerous websites descriptions, websites about the war not just based on one side or the other. As I said, you are welcome to disagree, but should be prepared to be challenged when you state claims about "northern/union slave owning states" It was all about that labeling.
Life is in the details. Blanket statements (especially obviously untrue ones) should be challenged. I can finally agree with your statement about public sentiment about slavery today. I agree, I split hairs to gain understanding.
I agree, I may have made a tangential argument, but I did it to clarify your argument (at east to myself), which seemed to be about what happened and how, not about Jon...mostly, that's why he's not germane.
Very well, if you have no interest that's fine. When you write pages of text about my digressions, it indicates the opposite. I hope you understand that. If you really aren't interested, just ignore me.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to with regards to 'derision,' but i don't really care. Probably best for us to drop it since it now appears that you're turning to some rather irrelevant issues. The original point about the "border states" was not how to label or refer to them, but to show that Lincoln did not 'emancipate' or invade them, thereby showing his motivations had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

I don't know who specifically 'shot first' but this is what happened:

"Ft. Sumter was located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, SC where the U.S. forts garrison had withdrawn to avoid incidents with local militias in the streets of the city. Unlike Buchanan who allowed commanders to relinquish possession to avoid bloodshed, Lincoln required Maj. Anderson to hold on until fired upon. Jefferson Davis ordered the surrender of the fort. Anderson gave a conditional reply which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis ordered P. G. T. Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could arrive."

The Confederacy ordered an attack on a fort in what it saw as its territory and therefore under Union occupation. The Union saw it as their fort.
Again, a survey of the opinion of people you know about who 'started it' does not the same thing as that "most reasonable people" would see it like you do.

More irrelevant splitting of hairs: in the United Sates of 2014 practically no one openly advocates institutionalized slavery or openly argue their "right" to own slaves. So for practical purposes, (almost) everyone is openly against slavery.
That, in any case, is totally irrelevant to the Jon Stewart video and so your comments are far from relevant.

"I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing."
It's all well and good that you're not going to comment on Stewart's motives or morality, but most of what you constitute your "arguments" are not germane to what I'm discussing here, or to any of my original points prior to your digressions and tangential discussions about which I frankly have little interest. No offense.

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

The right answer is noninterventionism, in my opinion. And sanctions aren't diplomatic solutions. They are acts of war on a sovereign country, which usually results in starving its people, which creates resentment.

Here's some reasons why noninterventionism is so important. First, bombing campaigns usually create collateral damage, and the funny thing about people, they tend to hate you when you kill their moms or sons or wives or friends. For reference, please refer to 9/11 in the U.S.

Secondly, Syria is having a civil war. How'd the U.S. like it if Britain supported the Confederacy during its civil war?

Thirdly, supporting the rebels is essentially being al-Qaeda's air force. Yeah, remember those guys? The guys who flew planes into our buildings? I don't think we should support them.

Fourth, our sudden pious indignation is misplaced, and worse, selective. I didn't hear one person in the U.S. calling to bomb Israel when they used white phosphorous on Palestinian women and children.

Fifth, you know exactly what is really fueling the march into Syria. It's not a humanitarian intervention, it's about oil. Syria doesn't want to trade their oil in U.S. dollars. Neither does Iran. If we allow the U.S. to bomb Syria, we will soon be marching into Tehran.

Sixth, who made us world police?

Lastly, it's not like we couldn't be spending that money at home fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our people. I think feeding the homeless here is way more important than making people homeless in other countries from bomb campaigns.

you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
you didnt click the link i shared did you?
it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to.

which leads us further into the rabbit hole of governments role.
which by your response it appears i need to describe a tad further.

so lets change the question from:
"what is governments role?"
to
"what,if at all,is the FEDERAL governments role"?

which of course we can refer to the federalist papers or the articles of confederacy.
one is a great argument in regards to what federal powers should be the other was an absolute failure and needed to be discarded.(too much anarchy lol)

that argument is still going on today.
well,between people like you and i,not from the political class.

i agree with your position.
i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part.

what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will point to the government and say "there..thats the problem"
while someone from a more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit.

you need to understand i point to both.
hence my "plutocracy" argument.
so while you are correct that a corporation cannot throw you in jail,they can and DO influence our legislation (in the form of alec,lobbyists,campaign funding) to enact laws which may make anything their competitors do "illegal" or keep them out of the market completely.or make anything they do "legal".both governments and corporations do this for their own survival and self-interest.

the war on drugs and the private prison system come to mind.since weed is becoming more and more acceptable "illegal" immigrants will become the new fodder for the prison.

in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a civilized society.
fairness,justice and truth.

now how we get there is the REAL discussion (like you and i are having right now).

i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing.

this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local communities and municipalities.

for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced apathetic coma and participate and become informed.

no easy task.
in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
but worthy..so very very worthy.

active citizenship basically.

when we consider the utter failures of:
our political class.
the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
and the venal corporate class.

which all have served,wittingly or unwittingly, to create the corporate totalatarian surveillance state we now find ourselves living in.
there can be ONLY one recourse:

we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people.

nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence.

we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of its own hubris and self-aggrandizing.

even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to watchdog.

the institutions that existed 50 years ago to put pressure on the levers of power are gone,destroyed and crushed or outright abandoned.

when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people.those rights and privileges were hard fought for by social movements.
in fact,america had the longest and bloodiest of labor movements on the planet.
the woman sufferagists.
the liberty party in its stance against slavery.
the civil rights movement.

it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political class.

we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political class.

we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it.

power is petrified of peoples movements.

there will be another movement.
i do not know when or how it will manifest.
i just hope it will not be violent.

because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being subjected to today.
civil disobedience.
and i aim to misbehave.

this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns into a burning flame.

i am a radical.
a dissident.
but radical times call for radical thinking.

you and i both want fairness,justice and truth.
everybody does.
some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other.
this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political class and propaganda corporate tv.

the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me.
that does not serve their interests.
fear and division serve their interests.
hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.

i aim to disappoint them.

now go watch that video i posted for ya.
when ya got time of course lol.

maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
just some of the people who have influenced me greatly.

anyways.
loving this conversation.
i am in 3 other debates with highly educated people.
nowhere near as polite and awesome as you.
then again..i am kicking the crap out of them.
arrogance really annoys me,makes me vulgar and beligerent.
peace brother man.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Sorry I don't get it. What's wrong with this idea? If states could secede you could have a more diverse set of regimes and people could choose more the style of government they prefer by moving state... It seems like quite a good idea. I'm not an American so maybe I'm missing something but why is there animosity about people suggesting the idea? I don't mean to provoke. I'm just curious...

The majority of the people creating and signing these petitions are the ones who are butt-hurt over the re-election of Obama. As it was already pointed out in the video, a lot of the states involved in the petition to secede are in the south and below the Mason-Dixon line, which were part of the confederacy during the US Civil War. Also of note is that, though correct me if I am wrong, majority of the states involved are also states where the electoral votes went to Romney.


The biggest issue I have with people creating the secession petitions is the absurdity of it, especially in today's world where countries are eyeballing us more than ever. It is a given now that the US isn't much of a country to look up to as a "leader." Also added is how some of the folks in the middle-east hate our guts. Timing is a major factor when a group of people want their state to secede from the country. This would raise an eyebrow if this was proposed when the country was actually stable, financially and militarily. But we're not living in such times.

The people wanting this fail to realize just how much of a bad idea this is if they do not think of the consequences if such secession were to happen. Hypothetically, the whole country would be in ruins, and invites those with extreme agendas to infiltrate the new and old country. It doesn't take a genius to see that no country can ever transition smoothly from one form to another, as evident with people revolt and overthrowing leaderships.

When GWBush got reelected, I was personally disappointed. But that doesn't mean I should just throw my arms up in anger and demand that so-and-so state secede from the country. No, I lived with it and dealt with it. Those idiots should do the same, instead of bickering over a mere election that didn't go their way. Rather than trying to make the whole situation worse, adapt and deal with it. In 4 years, the whole country will either be better off than now, worse, or be the same. And by then, we can judge the POTUS if he was good enough to turn the country around after the shitty mess GWBush left us.

Even if Obama has to look at the petitions (the ones that passed the minimum signature requirement), I highly doubt he'll give it a second to think it over. He'll glance over it and then throw it into the trash right there. I can only hope that the people in the Senate and in the House are smart enough to see the absurdity in them.

Cynical NetRunner says it'll never happen because the Confederacy will stop at nothing to prevent any further dilution of the whiteness of the electorate, and voting en masse against reasonable things is pretty much what they're known for.

Optimistic NetRunner says it could be that the Confederacy will wisen up slightly and decide that this is a perfect opportunity for them to start down the path of courting latinos in earnest, since it's becoming obvious even to them that they're going to need to enlist the help of at least one of the non-white demographic groups if they're ever going to destroy the New Deal and return America to the rigid class system they enjoyed before Lincoln fucked it all up by freeing the slaves.

And yes, I realize there's not an awful lot of daylight between optimistic and cynical NetRunner these days...

Thje coolest Planets I've ever experienced in Sci-fi are the four worlds from the "The Four Lords of the Diamond" A series of four science fiction novels by author Jack L. Chalker.

"The Warden Diamond is a system of four planets, each very different from the other, ruled by their own lords, collectively called “The Four Lords of the Diamond.” Each planet of the Diamond has its own special “Warden Organism,” a symbiotic microorganism that lives within the inhabitants of the planets. However, the organisms destroy their host when he or she leaves the Warden Diamond, making the planet system the ideal prison colony for the Confederacy, a massive space empire."

The series features four books, each centering on one of the four planets of:
"Lilith: A Snake in the Grass" (Del Rey 1981, ISBN 0-345-29369-X)
"Cerberus: A Wolf in the Fold" (Del Rey 1981, ISBN 0-345-31122-1)
"Charon: A Dragon at the Gate" (Del Rey 1982, ISBN 0-345-29370-3)
"Medusa: A Tiger by the Tail" (Del Rey 1983, ISBN 0-345-29372-X)


These books have repeatedly been in and out of press. I've bought them several times, then lent them out. Some of the most complex and thought out worlds I've experienced in sci-fi reading. Unfortunately, no movies were ever make. However unlikely, I am forever hopeful. ;:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lords_of_the_Diamond

I'll just respond to these in bulk, since it's quite a pile of manure.

The following state things happened that never happened:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.


The following he wasn't the first to do, or wouldn't have been if it weren't also part of the block above:

>> ^lantern53:

First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law a duly passed Act of Congress.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect.
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to take a 17 day vacation.


Many of these he not only wasn't the first to do, they were things Bush did when he was in office. Some, like "arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it" and "require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party" happened back when the founding fathers were still alive.

Let's see, what's left?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.


There's a lot wrong with this one. First, it wasn't a trillion dollars. Second, "the President" didn't spend it. Third, "shovel-ready" was a term to describe projects that could begin work sooner rather than later, and amazingly enough, those existed. Fourth, this wasn't a "first" -- the New Deal was bigger when you adjust for inflation. Fifth, it was a big help to our sagging economy, and we should've done a second round of it.

But I do agree, the President deserves credit for getting the stimulus passed. So does the President -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the stimulus) is featured prominently in the video above.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.


That's because Republicans in Congress came within seconds of forcing the US to default on its debt.

>> ^lantern53:

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.


No argument from me on this one. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>> ^lantern53:

First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.


I suspect if we check the record really carefully we can find Bush (Jr. or Sr.) saying something similar, but in any case is this supposed to be a bad thing?

President Obama's record is one he should be proud of. I was hoping he'd be able to do more, but honestly I underestimated the totally craven hostile bullshit that having a black Democrat in the White House brought out of the Confederacy. Excuse me, I mean the "Republican party."

I think the main liberal commentary is that the Tea Party thinks the Boston Tea Party was some sort of conservative anti-government protest against taxes levied on tea.

What it was actually a protest against was the 18th century equivalent of tax breaks for oil companies.

Now, if the modern day teabaggers wanted to earn the kind of rich ideological history they pretend they have, they'd actually be applauding centrist proposals from Obama that would close those kinds of loopholes to raise revenue and help reduce the deficit.

Instead they just mostly go around saying racist shit about Obama and talking about armed insurrection against their own government.

There is an actual historical predecessor for the teabaggers, but it's not the Tea Party -- it's the Confederacy.

Da wiki sez: Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, several English and French banks had lent money to the South during the war.[48] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."[49] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the president unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[50] Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]". [51] The issue of the 14th Amendement and the debt ceiling has been categorized as an unsettled question in the legal community.[52]