I'm still reading this article, but this assertion right here proves that this guy isn't exactly an American history buff.
Don't know how he is viewing it, but...depends on how you look at it. The North beat the South winning the Civil War, but the United States lost in the sense that it was American versus American, brother versus brother, family versus family, and friend versus friend.
Did something prompt this to be posted? The only thing he said that was verifiable was that Tea Party members have made threats of violence against political opponents, he barely mentioned that one of them was actually acted on. Literally every other point in this rambling and barely coherent mess is historically false. If this had any point at all I would say that it's a poor attempt to convince people to ban firearms but it was all over the place so I can't even tell. How did he even try to compare the Civil War to Iraq? Even for one sentence? Vietnam would have been a much better fit to his premise.
It's really the Holy then thou art attitude of the whole thing that bugs me. He mentions how conservatives band together when they feel they are being oppressed, they use what ever means they can to accomplish their goals of retaking or maintaining power. He mentions the Missouri burning murders in 1964 while making it seem like no liberal organization would ever be so violent. Hmm, let's see, any mention of the Weathermen movement or the Days of Rage in 1969? Anything about the Sybionese Liberation Army or the Patty Hearst kidnapping in the 70's? Nah, that would be too inconvenient for him to play down. It's just better to hope that people forget that idiots with violent tendencies are evenly distributed to both sides. It would be too hard to win a perceived morel victory by telling the truth.
What is with the not so clever snide remark about Country music or NASCAR? Like gun violence is a central theme of either event? Like it isn't praised and advocated for in what I will refer to for the sake of cheekiness as "Northern Culture" like Hip-hop?
EDIT @ BHX: We tried to invade Canada in 1812. Go read up on how that turned out for us if you want to know what I was referring to.
The only thing he said that was verifiable was that Tea Party members have made threats of violence against political opponents, he barely mentioned that one of them was actually acted on. Literally every other point in this rambling and barely coherent mess is historically false.
That's not entirely true. Several of his other claims are verifiable, and he actually links to supporting information. Particularly, the mention of the reconstruction amendments to the constitution and how they were basically side-stepped/ignored by southern states for years.
Though just about everything else you mention in your reply I agree with. The article has clear bias and is extremely one-sided. I just thought it was interesting.
What struck a chord with me is his point near the end about the right tends to act when they don't get their way vs. how the left acts. A lot of liberals were unhappy with Bush's presidency, but ultimately accepted that he was president and got on with their lives. With Obama, conservatives have largely not moved on, and continue to label him as a "tyrant", are fighting tooth and nail to derail his healthcare proposals despite widespread public approval... continue to claim it is unconstitutional, despite the supreme court saying it isn't... and some even continue to claim he was not born in the US... despite it being proven several times. Some members of congress are even trying to sue him.... I mean it's absurd.
I am by no means a Bush supporter mind you. I hate how the people who opposed his administration dismissed him like he was an idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing, who would benefit and what the damage from every action he made would be. How else is it that nothing he did significantly backfired on him? He was a bad person and maybe more should have been done to remove him.
Obama on the other hand does raise some questions for me. He makes every effort to appear to be working for the people he represents and he's good at it; he appears honest and trustworthy. Yet his "solution" to the "healthcare crisis" is to impose a monetary penalty on those who would choose not to pay the insurance companies that started the whole mess to begin with. There was never ANY visible effort at imposing any form of regulation other then some obscure lip service that was never put into writing. He expands on the mandatory coverage of these companies and seems not to even care that this only helps the insurance companies bottom line. They are the only industry in the United States with a return rate of 20% ensured by federal law.
Do you know what it means for a hospital or a doctor to be "inside" of an insurance companies network? Do you know what the service contracts between these entities look like? The Insurance company promises to pay for the patients that have their coverage in the one in a thousand chance that they need a heart transplant that 90% of the country would otherwise never be able to afford. In return the hospital agrees to charge every visitor to the ER a mandatory $200 service fee for walking up to triage and $80 for a prescription of Ibprofen. If any of the patients happen to have that carrier for coverage then that fee vanishes into the ether. The patient later gets an invoice in the mail from the insurance provider showing all of the money that the insurance company "saved them" because they subscribe to their service. Or did you actually think that the line marked "Network Fee" actually comes from someones pocket? And yet you still support this measure that does nothing but exacerbate the situation?
Some got on with their lives. Others made a lot of noise about it:
Yeah the public made noise... but politicians generally didn't.
Yet his "solution" to the "healthcare crisis" is to impose a monetary penalty on those who would choose not to pay the insurance companies that started the whole mess to begin with.
That actually wasn't his solution. His solution was to have a government run option that would compete with private insurance. That would have been fantastic, but it got shot down by republican opposition. What the ACA is today is a heavily butchered/compromised version of his original proposal.
And I agree... it's shit. Private insurance is a bane on society -- it's a total racket and it needs to go away entirely. Giving it a mandatory customer base just inflames the problem and worsens it for the long term.
That said... the ACA has had a lot of positive effects. Millions of people have coverage now that didn't before. That's not to say it didn't also have negative effects... but I wouldn't say the negative effects outweigh the positive ones.
@ BHX: We tried to invade Canada in 1812. Go read up on how that turned out for us if you want to know what I was referring to.
Which historical interpretation are you referring to? You can find historians that say Canada won, others that say US won, others that say it was a draw. Seems currently historians view it as a draw since neither side lost territory and say the signing of the Treaty of Ghent is what ultimately lead to the end of the conflict.
Even in Canada it seems to be muddled as to what happened:
In a 2009 poll, 37% of Canadians said the war was a Canadian victory, 9% said the U.S. won, 15% called it a draw, and 39%—mainly younger Canadians—said they knew too little to comment.
@ BHX: The objective of the war was to occupy Canada which at the time was controlled by Britain, that didn't happen. Instead, Dudley Do-right kicked our butts up and down our own East Coast. They burned Washington DC to the ground along with Philadelphia my home town Buffalo and I want to say Boston and a few other large ones. I'm pretty sure that at that time, getting your capitol and major cities razed by an invading army indicated that you lost. Further more, New York city was occupied for the entire duration of the war and the harbor there was turned into one of the worst prison camps in history up until the Bohr Wars. They made it to New Orleans before we were able to push them back. You'd have to be stubborn as mule to even call that a draw. I'm wondering what morons you found that would actually call that war a victory?
@ Ispil: That sentence suggests that you don't know what a deductible is. Or that you don't know how Insurance works. There is no such thing as a deductible with out an insurance provider. The only way the scenario you provided would have come up is if your family increased their coverage which had absolutely nothing to do with the ACA.
My Insurance went up %30 this year with a $1,500 increase in the deductible and an overall loss in coverage. Face it, the ACA in practice is an absolute failure for anyone that wasn't one of the %6 of the nation making minimum wage. I suppose that I should feel good that the 19 year old reject that can't make my burger right now has coverage though right?
EDIT: I should say if you're not one of the %6 OR in a Union
The objective of the war was to occupy Canada which at the time was controlled by Britain, that didn't happen. Instead, Dudley Do-right kicked our butts up and down our own East Coast. They burned Washington DC to the ground along with Philadelphia my home town Buffalo and I want to say Boston and a few other large ones. I'm pretty sure that at that time, getting your capitol and major cities razed by an invading army indicated that you lost. Further more, New York city was occupied for the entire duration of the war and the harbor there was turned into one of the worst prison camps in history up until the Bohr Wars. They made it to New Orleans before we were able to push them back. You'd have to be stubborn as mule to even call that a draw. I'm wondering what morons you found that would actually call that war a victory?
Interesting, but that isn't what I was taught in any of my History classes growing up. I was taught that the War of 1812 was declared because Britain was interfering with America's trades with France due to Britain being at war with France. Britain supplying guns to the American Indians occupying the Northwest Territory via Canada and encouraging the American Indians to block America from expanding into the territory. It was a draw because Canada held back our troops (victory for them) and America was able to trade with France again (victory for us). There was never any proof that America wanted to annex Canada as everywhere I look is see possible and probable used in regards to that (wikipedia, while not very reliable, even says possible; quoted below).
Results of the war between Britain and the United States involved no geographical changes, and no major policy changes. However, all the causes of the war had disappeared with the end of the war between Britain and France and with the destruction of the power of tribes. American fears of the Indians ended, as did British plans to create a buffer Indian state.
After Napoleon's defeat in 1814, Britain was no longer at war with France and there were no restrictions on neutral trade; the British suspended their policy of impressment of American sailors, and never resumed it—but they insisted they still had the right to resume it. Americans regained their honor and proclaimed victory in what they called a "second war of independence" for the decisive defeat of the British invaders at New Orleans seemed to prove that Britain could never regain control of America, and the threat of secession by New England ended with the failure of the Hartford Convention. The United States failed in its possible goal of annexing British North America.
In Britain, the importance of the conflict was totally overshadowed by European wars, especially the War of the Sixth Coalition against Napoleon, who returned to Paris in March 1815, and was finally defeated at Waterloo 100 days later.
Upper Canada emerged from the war with a sense of unity and pride as part of the Empire. Canadians claimed the war as a victory for their militia and a rebuff of republicanism, as they credited their militia for the successful repulse of American attempts to invade Upper and Lower Canada.