digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Eisenhower was obviously "with the terrorists"

populistamerica.com — Here's what he said: "May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." Clearly, this man was part of the blame-America first crowd...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bgholt1970, on 04/11/2008, -11/+107This Bush administration ostracizes any dissenting opinion, basically to quell criticism. Whereas we have had presidents that welcomed differing opinions, namely Lincoln who specifically chose members of his cabinet from the opposing party and with very different views. This is the path to good decision making, not surrounding yourself with cronies who tell you what you want to hear.
    • phenry, on 04/11/2008, -10/+20Lincoln would not be my choice to represent "good decision making".....
    • jimbabb, on 04/11/2008, -3/+26Lincoln imprisoned thousands of northern dissenters.
      • populist, on 04/11/2008, -1/+24right, and not to mention all those newspapers he had shut down for.....dissenting!
        • Dynamis, on 04/11/2008, -11/+5I'm a little confused. America is worse off because of the things mentioned that Lincoln did?
          • jimbabb, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9Yes, he destroyed the republic.
          • nickj6282, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6Wow, Dynamis. There are so many things wrong with your comment it's appalling. Have you ever heard of the bill of rights? Specifically the first amendment? Look it up.
          • mmortal03, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Dynamis, the ends don't always justify the means. We could have done the good things it did, without having the bad things it did.
        • icono1, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1To preserve the Union Lincoln had to suspend certain rights for the citizens of the Union.
      • dracostimpy, on 04/11/2008, -4/+39You guys obviously all hate freedom since you want to enslave America to the Constitution. True freedom fighters like George Bush are freeing America from the shackles of Constitutional restraint! Hooray freedom!
    • souljaboytellem, on 04/11/2008, -3/+8Lincoln didn't really do anything, he didn't want slavery at the start of the war, he did that as a political move, he only wanted to make the South pay, hence only "freeing" slaves in the south not in the North
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9The reason the emancipation didnt cover the northern states was to keep the 4 "sway states" from switching sides
    • zekaric, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9"This Bush administration ostracizes any dissenting opinion..."

      Sounds like China...
    • tvanwyk, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3If by "welcomed differing opinions" you mean raising an army of draftees (of poor people) to crush the rebellion of a bunch of people who disliked northern rule (eventually appointing generals who employed brutal scorched earth policies against the lands and cities of the people with "differing opinions"), then, yes, Lincoln welcomed differing opinions.
      That's to say nothing about the widespread suspension of habeas corpus.
      • SpinningHead, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3You call it a rebellion and then make it sound like the south just "disagreed"? I suggest reading Company Aytch. It was written by a confederate soldier and makes the point that the war waged to maintain the slave-owning aristocracy was a "rich mans war fought by the poor man". In many cases they had entire battalions of soldiers in the rear with orders to fire on anyone leaving the battle.
    • MWeather, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Don't read everything you believe. Oh, and Sic Semper Tyranis!
    • eth3l, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1He's done a horrible job then ....
      Huffington Post, Digg, Olbermann ... Obama ... etc etc etc.
    • MaskedSlacker, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1In addition to what was said, Lincoln only had a split cabinet because the southern states had stated they would secede if he were elected. The split cabinet was an effort to prevent that to no avail.
  • JimmySpaza, on 04/11/2008, -55/+9It's one thing to petition the government to change its policies. It's quite another to protest your government in another country and hang out with dictators while doing it.

    Isn't that right, Jim McDermott (D) ?
    • populist, on 04/11/2008, -7/+39wait, so you feel the government should have the power to limit WHERE you can dissent? And who you can spend time with while dissenting?

      If so, how is that to be accomplished - will people have to register where they are and who they're with in order to have the "right" to dissent? And, if you're dissenting against the government, what moral authority does that same government have to tell you HOW you are to do it?

      Or, are you just irritated with McDermott and not thinking of the consequences of what you're asking for?
      • InfidelAl, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Looks to me like he was saying it's inappropriate. Kinda like telling other people about your friends case of Herpes. Nothing illegal, but it's just not the right thing to do.
        He didn't say anything about having the government dictate where you can dissent. You made that up all on your own. Nice straw-man argument though.
      • bonhoeffer, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2Spaza's comment has nothing to do with government power; it has do do with distinguishing the protest of honest desent (petitioning) from the protest of disloyal subversion (criticizing your government in the company of hostile dictators).
    • CryRightardCry, on 04/11/2008, -9/+28You somehow just never ever get it.
      Thanks for the rightard shill version of what constitutes acceptable protest.
      What a ***** joke you rightards are. Too bad you aren't funny.
      • walkingdogs, on 04/11/2008, -5/+5Took the words out my mouth
      • IIAmusedII, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2"Rightard." I like that. Kinda' clever. I haven't heard the term before. Is it fairly new? Did you coin it? Mind if others use it too?
    • yellowcakewalk, on 04/11/2008, -5/+19It's even worse when you side with the enemies of your own country, i.e. BushCo and their traitor lackeys
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-dNjrVhc2U
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/11/2008, -44/+11So when protestors try to block the seaport in Tacoma, WA, throwing rocks at police and troops driving Strykers, is that honest dissent or disloyal subversion?

    When city of Berkley, CA and Code Pink calls Marine recruiters "unwelcome intruders", which one is that?

    When MoveOn calls GEN Patraeus a traitor, is that honest dissent?
    • populist, on 04/11/2008, -4/+26Well, I'd say there's a big difference between using violence and speaking one's mind.

      Free speech is the freedom for people to say things YOU don't like. Otherwise it's not freedom at all - it's a dictatorship of your speech at the expenses of others.

      Is that what you'd prefer?
      • JohnReb, on 04/11/2008, -6/+2So you would say that the actions in Tacoma weren't honest dissent?
        • populist, on 04/11/2008, -3/+8I'm not really familiar with the actions of the people in Tacoma - on either side. But my position is quite straightforward - I oppose the use of aggressive force to solve problems.

          For example, that includes protesters using force to get their message out - as well as the force that the government uses to come and take a large portion of your income.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/11/2008, -5/+7I don't think it is physical violence that marks the line between dissent and subversion.

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subversi ...

        subversion səb-ˈvər-zhən, -shən 1: the act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within


        • populist, on 04/11/2008, -2/+11Thank you for pointing that out.

          But, just to reiterate, I was merely stating what I thought was morally right and wrong - and I'm not in favor of using aggressive violence.

          Sadly, though, there's plenty of people out there who think resistance or opposition to the government is the same as "a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government"

          I guess they would've been opposed to resistance against Stalin, Mao and the rest too...

          Oh, and they probably think Patrick Henry and Tom Paine were terrorists too!
        • Erich100, on 04/12/2008, -2/+1Your definition of subversion could be used as the definition for the Bush administration.
    • siszam, on 04/11/2008, -8/+24It's honest dissent. As the mother of a Marine I do not support the president who is responsible for the death of our troops. Code Pink is trying to save the lives of our sons and daughters. You should support those who want to save our soldiers. You and the people who think like you and support the war are the enemy and terrorists.
      • oldhick, on 04/11/2008, -15/+7That makes no sense... You can condemn marines and call them names and then claim to support them. If you can, please help me understand how.
        • nblsavage, on 04/11/2008, -5/+15That was a dishonest statement hick. There is a difference between Marine recruiters and the Marines in the field. You can dislike one but not the other.
          • oldhick, on 04/11/2008, -13/+5How? Marine recruiters are Marines... Without recruiters their wouldn't be Marines. You're the one being intellectually dishonest.
          • nblsavage, on 04/11/2008, -4/+13So if you dislike some people in a certain field you have to dislike them all? Interesting point of view.
        • delafere, on 04/11/2008, -3/+4The protest was against recruitment in specific. Not against marines or even the marines doing the recruiting.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/11/2008, -6/+6Code Pink ranks with greenpeace and peta in my list of groups that should be shot for bastardizing a good cause
      • RRJackson, on 04/12/2008, -3/+3Were you under the impression that the Marine Corps was an organization that engaged in knitting circles and water volleyball? Semper fidelis? By sea and by land? Had you noticed that the eagle is sitting on a globe and not a lawn chair in its front yard?
    • raoulduke87, on 04/11/2008, -5/+16Disloyal subversion, my ass. There's no such thing. You seem to forget that patriotism doesn't mean loyalty to the government, it means loyalty to the country and the people.

      You seem to forget that facism always comes wrapped in a flag.
      • jgzman, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Disloyal Subversion is trying to destroy the country. Do not doubt that it exists; however, none of the examples above are disloyal or subversive, although the bit at the seaport might be closer to riot than protest.
    • Delphium226, on 04/11/2008, -5/+7Yes it is. If you want to be obediently loyal to a king like some little poodle, ***** and go and live in a monarchy.
    • OriginalReplica, on 04/12/2008, -2/+2I seem to remember a story about a bunch of activists completely trashing Boston Harbor to protest government policies they didn't like, You may have heard about "The Boston Tea Party"
      • bonhoeffer, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Apparently you haven't heard as much about it as you should. Bostonians didn't trash Boston Harbor, they brewed tea in it; and they were careful about protecting private property (even repaying a sea-captain for a lock that was broken in the search for tea) other than the tea which was being force on them by government fiat.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 04/12/2008, -2/+1Actually that's nothing compared to what people will do if pushed further. It's just cause and effect. When people get pushed too far they push back.
      • RRJackson, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1And then Stalin sends them all to Gulags.
  • cobbwobbles, on 04/11/2008, -7/+39You have a right to bear arms for a reason, might be time to pick up that gun soon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_t ...
    • Lyk4n, on 04/11/2008, -21/+2LOL.. crazy gun people..
      • jimbabb, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7That's what the Jews said.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3Guns are a tool of last resort my friend. Fear of retribution is the only thing that keeps people in power honest. The lack of that fear is what has brought us to what we have now. It is too bad that ethics and honor aren't enough for people to do the right thing.
    • OriginalReplica, on 04/12/2008, -0/+4I support the basic sentiment, but just remember how much experience and technology is being currently developed to counter a native insurgency. There is nothing that common Americans could do militarily to try to get rid of an out of control government, that isn't already being tried in Iraq. Surprise will only buy you your first shot. Just read up about the Montana Freemen if you want to know what happens when you try to do to Uncle Sam what the founding fathers did to England.
  • reuscel, on 04/11/2008, -4/+104Eisenhower was the last Republican who had a conscience.

    "Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
    - Dwight Eisenhower
    • mikelist, on 04/11/2008, -0/+20and that's from a career soldier. and general officer. i would vote for dwight eisenhower.
      • themonkman, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5I second that sentiment. We need a person like Eisenhower or Jefferson like dying man in the desert needs water.
    • cheez, on 04/11/2008, -0/+15From Ike's famous farewell address-
      "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
      • mortinmaxwell, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6"Why We Fight" is a good documentary about Eisenhower's farewell speech and how the military-industrial complex has had us in a constant state of "war" since WWII.
      • gwolf, on 04/12/2008, -0/+5He was brilliant and a true patriot, I wish the Republicans would listen to him.
    • washdude, on 04/11/2008, -4/+10what about Ron Paul? he is a republican
      • kelt65, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6The only one. I disagree with him on many things, but he is an actual republican, I'll give you that. The rest are shameless crony capitalists, family values panderers and plain old retards.
      • SoulDrift404, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Why would he associate with such a bastardized and corrupt party?
        • Moonrider, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Because he had a better chance of getting the message out to the people through the Republican party than going third party/Libertarian. Too bad the media was so successful at ignoring him and his message.
    • Russellk30, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3I wouldn't say he was the last and I am sure there are more to come. Though the party may have been hijacked by big government warmongers, a few maintain their morality. This pretty much describes the Democrats as well. One party spends and borrows while the other spends and taxes. On an annual basis, the size of the federal government has not been reduced on one occasion in my lifetime and instead grows substantially and consistently. If this trend continues, the only possible outcome is socialism. Both parties know it and that is why we (the public) are distracted with divisive but relatively unimportant issues like gun control, abortion and such. The threat of socialism "is" the threat of a dictatorship. Absolute responsibility is absolute subversion. Individualism is an endangered concept.
    • Bodhinature, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Yes, Eisenhower was so conscientious that he invaded a defenseless democracy that ushered in decades of oppression and violence. All so we could have some cheap bananas. Good going Eisenhower. Beware the military-industrial-congressional congress that you helped create.
    • foofightrs777, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I've recently been reading a biography of Eisenhower. Now, ideologically I fall much further to the left than he did but just about everything I've read has only increased my respect and admiration for this great individual.
  • bgrah449, on 04/11/2008, -5/+14Disloyal to what, or to whom? The country in its current borders? The constitution? The citizenry?
    Subverting what, or whom? The administration? The constitution? The law?
    I'm all about Eisenhower and all that, but this comment is, and probably originally was, vapid.

    "Dissent" means to disagree - it's an opinion. "Subvert" means to overthrow or cause the downfall of - it's an action. Of course the government is going to tell you to disagree all you want - just don't act. This doesn't mean violence is okay, but it does mean that sometimes, nonviolent subversion can, in fact, be loyal to the people and to the constitution.
    • buckw1lde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Excellent point.
    • bonhoeffer, on 04/12/2008, -2/+0The Constitution protects freedom of speech, not freedom of action. Speech is about persuasion; action is about coercion. In America, you persuade a majority or you lose; in the liberals' world, you tear up jack and terrorize until you get your way.
      Moving from freedom of speech (the Constitution) to freedom of "expression" (liberal lala land) creates the problems. Is burning a flag "expression"? Burning a recruiting office? Burning an abortion clinic? Is burning books free "expression? and therefore protected action?
  • galeninjapan, on 04/11/2008, -4/+11Eisenhower was amazing. Best president of the 20th century.
    • kelt65, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1why wasn't he able to stop what he abhorred, then? (the MIC)
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 04/11/2008, -7/+25More like Dwight Hussein Ibn Abdul-Aziz Al-Malak Eisenhower am I rite guys?!

    Man I wish we had a guy as smart as him in the White House. Thanks, America!
    • rmxz, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5The sad thing is we have people just as smart (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove) - but more evil.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 04/11/2008, -2/+33Hate to rain on the Eisenhower love-fest, but it was he that ordered the overthrow of the democratically-elected governments of Iran and Guatemala in the USA War Against Democracy that continues to this day
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_pbsuccess
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
    • mattes5, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3Oh yeah no doubt... This is one example that the executive branch and the horrors it has commited is not a problem with the man but with the position. Giving a man that much power and add his fears and his desires to huge decissions then you get the evils we have seen. For example Thomas Jefferson great man loved liberty.. but the man was a hypocrit in office. Andrew Jackson great man loved liberty ... but he caused the deaths of many Native Americans.... And the same goes with Ike. The executive and legislative branches of govenrment have only did evils to the people and expanded the size and scope of government. It is a magnent for the statist. So its not a problem with the man its a problem with the position. I wish we only had a judicial branch that enforced the bill of rights... theres no need for expansion of laws or government "managment"
      Also I feel that Ike said that quote in retrospec of the things he had done in regret
    • MikeFallopian, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Who said Eisenhower was perfect? Every single president has made at a couple of really bad decisions.
      • Bodhinature, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Sorry I killed 100,000 innocent civilians and supported an oppressive military dictatorship for cheap bananas. My bad. Hey, everyone makes bad decisions! And I loves me some cavandishes!
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3Cold War is Hell.
  • Defuser, on 04/11/2008, -7/+6It's funny how so many of you are getting exactly the wrong message out of Eisenhower's statements. When he says not to confuse "honest dissent" with "disloyal subversion", he wasn't just telling the Government not to oppress dissidents, he was ALSO telling complete assholes to stop using "dissent" as a mask to try and hide their innate disloyalty to America.

    All it takes is a simple read-through of one of these threads to see which of you honestly love America and want to see the damage of the Bush years corrected, and which of you are just mewling jackasses that would use any excuse whatsoever to be douchebags.
    • SpudgeBoy, on 04/11/2008, -3/+9And the Bush administration can count on you to confuse the two and muddy the waters. Which is exactly what this post is about.
    • fleischner, on 04/11/2008, -8/+2The all-encompassing Dem defense: "Don't question my patriotism!" Oh no? Isn't it MY right to do just that, even if I'm eventually proven wrong? Can't *I* think and say what *I* want? Of course not. Freedom of speech is only allowed when it's *approved* speech by Dems. Things like speech codes and political correctness are the results of liberal thinking.
      • YourDoom123, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4i hope you won't mind if i use my freedom of speech to say that your an idiot. next time you get angry, take a deep breath and think before you type...
      • erkokite, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1Actually things like free speech zones were backed by the Bush administration. I don't know where you get off saying that liberals hate free speech. I don't hate free speech. I think political correctness is *****. And I'm liberal. Fancy that. Say whatever you like, it's not my right to make you shut up. Likewise, I am perfectly free to offer my criticisms. I should also point out that conservative Christians are just as guilty for the garbage we call "political correctness," in this country.
        Loyalty to your country means being loyal to its people, and its ideals, not whoever happens to be in power at the time. Torture, murder, and preemptive war are not what the Constitution stands for, nor are they what the Founding Fathers stood for, and they are not what the USA should stand for today. To say that I cannot support my country without supporting the crimes that some of its current and past leaders have committed is an insult to this country and detracts from what it truly stands for.
        • kelt65, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3"Free Speech Zones"? Are you ***** kidding me? Everything this guy does is in newspeak ... "No Child Left Behind" "Patriot Act" "Free Speech Zones"

          Free Speech Zones were created to separate protesters from what they were protesting, nothing more.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 04/11/2008, -5/+18Fox News and Karl Rove have poisoned our national dialogue. The founding fathers would be ashamed of what has become of our understanding of freedom and liberty.
  • Stryder81, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU
  • NewGTGuy, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJVUQIwb-iM

    Please watch. Eisenhower was a true patriot.
    • NewGTGuy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Why am I being Dugg down? This video shows that Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" is real!
  • jayhawk88, on 04/11/2008, -6/+3"In this article I'll cherry pick the most ridiculous emails I receive and use them to paint a broad picture of everyone who disagrees with me". Kind of ironic that he's doing the exact thing he's complaining about the "other side" doing isn't it?
  • anbublackops, on 04/11/2008, -5/+2Did anyone else think it was funny that all the messages he got were spelled badly? It seems he is just trying to propagate the stereotype that anyone who isn't a liberal is an idiot who can't spell.
    • RobTyree, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3I think you are a little confused - I'd hardly call someone who calling for smaller government and more civil liberties a "liberal".
    • ZeroIce, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Your comment should read as:

      Did anyone else think it was funny that all the messages he got were spelled badly? It seems he is just trying to propagate the stereotype that anyone who is a neocon is an idiot who can't spell.

      I am pretty sure the writer, Michael Boldin, is a libertarian. Look at his bio page and the books he reads.
  • loftbunny, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5Does anyone else get the crapy FW: e-mails telling you that if you are against the war then you should stand in front of their gun and ask god for forgiveness? Oh...then they tell you to send it on to 15 people with pics of flags.
  • SwedishNinja, on 04/11/2008, -3/+8He also clearly didn't support the troops since he railed against the military-industrial complex.
    • mikelist, on 04/11/2008, -2/+0 his career as an army general officer in ww2 would suggest otherwise.i hope you are being ironic, otherwise you just dropped your soap in the gene pool.
      • mortinmaxwell, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I believe that is sarcasm not irony.
        • mikelist, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0i believe that sarcasm and irony are the same. if you read a dictionary definition of either, you will too.
  • rbk303, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1good point.
  • Hetman, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1I do not think he is a traitor. If you do not like something in America you should try to change. However socialism is not the way to go. We are not Europe. We cannot afford to enact socialism on a larger scale than it already is. We are burrowing trillions of dollars from the chinise. The american dollar keeps falling. He just has a horrible economic plan, that in the end will bankrupt america which is not a good thing. I agree with his thoughts on the patriot act and the military industrial complex though.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Socialism would work great if you americans didnt go around and waste 650 billion a year on a bloated military. Granted, that military apparatus does produce some of america's affluence (in a similar way as a gun helps the maffia become rich) but in the long run millions are dirt poor because it's kept intact. Socialism, the real kind (not some imagined boogieman fantasy most americans entertain) works, when applied in a sane social-democratic context.
  • mattes5, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7Wow its nice to see other people get it. The label "American" and the moron sheep who throw that word around don't even comprehend what that word means. And the Eisenhower quote is great... its one of my favorites... A president that understood what it means to be American and what that label meant... Heres the first part which is my favorite. "Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine"
    So to me dissent, liberty, freedom, are American
    and hatred to our "leaders" is not only our privlidge its in our blood
  • tvanwyk, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2It may be biased selection on the part of the author, but isn't the fact that pretty much every one of the e-mails from the "America lovers" exhibited an apparent lack of grasping of basic English grammar and spelling?
    Curious...
  • Rizmaster, on 04/11/2008, -6/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

    Ike was a prescient political genius.
    • SpookyPig, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Don't use uuiU. Everyone knows it.
  • wizzroom, on 04/11/2008, -1/+12It's no surprise the 'better educated' are supporting the likes of Ron Paul and Obama
    • MikeFallopian, on 04/11/2008, -3/+1Because only the educated can embrace two polar-opposite political ideologies at the same time.
      • Resolver, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3no, because only the better educated realize that you can think for yourself, instead of marching blindly behind one political party or the other.
        • ZeroIce, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2You sir, deserve a prize. MikeFallopian deserves to be slapped.
  • JohnDBandit, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5We must dissent.
  • mal1964, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2"We Like Ike"
  • ralph12c41, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4Ike was right. I am sure he would view the actions of several of our US Senators as being "disloyal subversion" if he were still on the scene. The far left is all too often working for America's defeat to achieve a political point
  • Tirial, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2For all the Lincoln bashers, there was a grand total of 2 years between the war measure emancipation proclamation which freed slaves under confederate control and the passing of the 13th amendment which freed all slaves under the constitution. Constitutional changes don't happen over night, and it got done, and done as quickly as possible.
    • tvanwyk, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2For all the Lincoln defenders, Lincoln himself didn't give a damn about the slaves.
    • MaskedSlacker, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Yes, but ending slavery was never his goal. Sure, the republican party was the abolitionist party, but Lincoln wanted the country to remain intact A LOT more than he wanted to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation covered only Southern States because it was a punitive measure. The goal was to add a further tool to Sherman's scorched earth campaign, the liberation of all the slaves they crossed to further weaken the confederacy (not that it was even necessary at that point, by the time Sherman was in Atlanta, it was ALL downhill for the confederates.)
  • PresRob, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4For someone to tell another person not to speak up when they feel their country needs to improve is something I would have to take exception to. As a parent, I need to correct my child, that is my responsilbity. If he grows up to be a jerk, that is at least partly my fault. In much the same way, we are all responsible to insure our democracy works. If it becomes too fascist or too permissive that is the fault of all of us. We need to speak up (in large numbers) to correct the bad behavior of our government, we need to excercise our right to vote in large numbers and we need to watch what our government does, just like a good parent. You would never tell someone to allow a child to play in the street or throw a fit in public. Sometimes you have in-laws who will undermine your instructions to your child (both for good and for ill), just like we have opposing parties who see our country as needing to be directed in different directions. If you had in-laws tell you to never correct your child or to only listen to them, how would you react? So if someone tells you to stop trying to improve your country's behavior, think about that and remember that if you don't act to correct what is wrong, you are as wrong as the person who leads the country astray.
  • exomni, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Errr... he mentioned Eisenhower in just one sentence, the rest was just pointless rambling. The people who he was responding to were complete idiots, he was making a mistake responding to them in the first place. On top of that he failed to decimate them in his response, as he'd need to have done to make the post even worthwhile.
  • caponumen, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4Eisenhower was one of the last true constitutional presidents.
    Most of what Eisenhower predicted has come true in a manifold manner.
    The MIC model has been extended to all aspects of the federal government and most state governments as well.
    The failure of the people to recognize these facts by continuing down the path to a totalitarian system does not leave me with much hope of a happy outcome. Maybe starvation will be a better motivator than our idealism......

  • ZeroIce, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3$10 says that the author (Michael Boldin) is a Ron Paul supporter.
  • n8f8, on 04/12/2008, -6/+1Actually, you retards spend most of your time ostracizing folks who support the war.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1No *we Europeans* are plotting actively to have americans who support the war sent to PRISON.
  • upran, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2Boy, that's something to read.
  • InnerRayg, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1Very interesting paper.
    As an addendum...I wish everyone in these comments would stop pretending anyone who disagrees with them is their favorite evil political label. It's always those damn dirty Liberals or those malicious greedy Conservatives messing stuff up. Because we all know that those two factions encompass the majority of our country and the -right one- is totally about trying to save us, while the -wrong one- quite obviously opposes everything beautiful, freedom, and ponies.

    Just kidding. Ha. ha. ha.
  • MrShinra, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3Liberal. Conservative. Two sides of the same coin. Just names to distract you from seeing the third viewpoint.

    I hate politics, its so polarizing. You HAVE to be one or the other, and if you try and have a SENSIBLE
    viewpoint you're either ignored or called crazy.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Parliamentary democracy. One man is one vote. Coalitions, multi-party democratic elections and the biggest party produces the president. That is how the civilized world conducts democracy.
  • travelon77, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Where did the title of this come from? i read the related 'article' and it actually praised Eisenhower's recognition of the necessity & power of free speech.
  • AvangionQ, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I can forgive spelling and grammar errors, but when it comes to ad hominem arguments, blatant personal attacks and irrational anger, there doesn't seem to be a point -- you can only change the mind of someone who's willing to listen to reason, evidence and logic ...
  • wrttnwrd, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Damn, I KNEW there was something suspicious about that guy. D-Day was a front!
  • habenneas, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Fast text mirror: http://www.lynxcache.org/usr/1/The_America_Haters_ ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.