Quote from: elmer fudd on October 01, 2013, 09:24:17 AM
Ike put the troops in there.  Kennedy would have gotten them out, most likely.  There were, I believe, about 16 thousand americans serving in Viet Nam when he was assassinated, and all the evidence points to him pulling out.  But Johnson didn't want to go on record as losing America's first war.  It was about egos.  And those big egos weren't all dems.  In fact, dems were taking heat for WANTING out. 

Nixon was prez when I served.  I don't recall him taking much heat for Viet Nam.  Is this some historical rewrite?

And worst war in history?  You can't possibly believe that.

Ike put ADVISORS there. Not quite the same thing. Before Kennedy died, it was still just ADVISORS.

Nixon will forever be strongly identified with the Vietnam War, mainly because he was running the show during the worst of it. LBJ most certainly should be held responsible for the whole business, but folks identify Vietnam with Nixon nevertheless.

LBJ took over an advisory operation involving roughly 16,000 personnel and turned it into an overseas war with half a million soldiers in combat. That's what Nixon inherited when he took office in 1969. There were fits and starts, and ugly incidents like My Lai and Kent State, but by early 1973, it was over.

For the first time in its history, this country walked away from total victory and accepted defeat in the eyes of the world.

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 04, 2013, 07:37:50 PM
Ike put ADVISORS there. Not quite the same thing. Before Kennedy died, it was still just ADVISORS.

Nixon will forever be strongly identified with the Vietnam War, mainly because he was running the show during the worst of it. LBJ most certainly should be held responsible for the whole business, but folks identify Vietnam with Nixon nevertheless.

LBJ took over an advisory operation involving roughly 16,000 personnel and turned it into an overseas war with half a million soldiers in combat. That's what Nixon inherited when he took office in 1969. There were fits and starts, and ugly incidents like My Lai and Kent State, but by early 1973, it was over.

For the first time in its history, this country walked away from total victory and accepted defeat in the eyes of the world.

I was going to respond, but I knew he knew he was full of shit and just wanted to be a contrarian dick head , it's what he does.
You say the sun is warm today, he will argue it's all relative, you say you say pedophilia is evil, he'll claim it's moral relativism and that morals stifle growth.

Bottom line, the guy is an ass hole.

Quote from: daidalos on June 27, 2013, 07:35:52 PM
I was speaking with a friend of mine, who was telling me they'd read someplace that at the end of the Revolutionary war, there were some in the Congress who proposed and actually considered having the United States, become a part of France?

Under the rule of at the time the French King?

Anyone else ever heard this? Or have some resource that states this?

I've heard there was talk about proclaiming Washington King, but  becoming part of France?

As an American history buff, who's particularly fascinated by our Revolutionary war era, I find this tale my friend read in an article a little hard to believe, and I highly suspect it's likely a liberal lie, designed to acclimate Americans to the idea of a monarch/dictator.

But just in case it's not a liberal myth, I figured I'd ask here and see if anyone else had ever heard this, or had some information about this.

Dreaming!!  The discussion  centered on making German the official language.
would've saved a lot of bloodshed. And possibly  averted the civil war to boot!

Quote from: Blauritter on October 07, 2013, 04:48:41 PM
Dreaming!!  The discussion  centered on making German the official language.
would've saved a lot of bloodshed. And possibly  averted the civil war to boot!

With the exception of a German immigration population in Pennsylvania - the "Pennsylvania Dutch" - the United States simply didn't have that large enough German population at that time, to make German the official language. An official tongue the majority of the people didn't speak?

The reference to the colonies becoming subjects of France was a common topic in France prior to and during the War.  It was brought up repeatedly during Franklin's presence in France who did little to dispel the notion.  It served him no purpose.  This was never a serious consideration among the colonies and I've seen no reference to it on this side of the pond.  It is quite clear this wasn't the case on the other side of the pond in both France and Britain.

Communiques from Franklin are rare during this period because transatlantic communication was limited as Britain controlled the seas.  Furthermore, Franklin was given Carte Blanche in regards to negotiations with France.  Franklin was very much a pragmatist and diplomat.  Later released writings indicated he often relied on the fact his charter was less than dubious and carried no real weight of contract or treatise.  He could legitimately discuss and imply almost anything short of signing.  In the end what mattered was attaining funding for the war.  Any implications could be dealt with or denied by colonial officials should the war succeed.  If it didn't no promise would matter.  Franklin was indeed a shrewd diplomat.  If you want a reference to this subject see Lafayette and other writings of the time.  Lafayette also used this possibility to mollify his position between the crown and the French commoners which at times was unbearably tenuous.  The politics of the day should be understood when considering Franklin's TRUE sentiments on the subject which are subsequently obvious.

It is unbecoming a Southerner to speak ill or posterior to the dead.  At the risk of doing just that I will briefly reply to the subject of religion among the Founding Fathers and ask their understanding due in large part to their generosity in making their beliefs known publicly.

As with all assemblies, religion is as diverse as a group can be enumerated.  Almost without exception the Founders distrusted ALL organized religion outside the individual.  That much is clear in the documents they produced.  They repeatedly clarified religion was the realm of the individual and equally diverse.  No two men can share the same faith nor have the right to restrict the fluidity of belief in others.  If you share perfect religious consensus with another, await another day and all may change.

Remember, at the time there WERE no legal organized religions outside the Anglican church.  How would it be possible to follow a religious denomination or profess its righteousness where none existed save the Anglican church.  There were few among them who hadn't tasted the bitterness of religious tyranny.  While it is undeniable religion was of paramount importance to the Founders, it is religious freedom they sought not religious indoctrination to a particular faith.  They were content with separation and no one was better situated to appreciate the importance of keeping religion out of government processes.

Remember too societal pressures made it highly unlikely ANYONE of social standing would profess publicly a secular grounding.  Such a profession would surely have precluded their acceptance among "respectable" society denying them Founding membership.

Atheism for the most part had no centralized theme as Darwin was only a gleam in his mother's eye.  Of course they believed in God, what else could they believe in, Many Gods?  Still indications do exist some founders didn't give religion the level of esteem displayed by contemporaries.  Most notable are Franklin and Jefferson.

Franklin had no consistent religious fellowship.  In fact he attended and contributed equally to every imaginable secret society religious or otherwise.  It would be difficult to pin any one particular religion as he attended Synagogues, churches, pagan whatever.  He clearly sought religious affiliations and the furtherance they afforded him over singular devotion.

Early writings of Jefferson give indications of the writings he produced later in life which clearly and notably refer to the right of individuals to worship no religion whatsoever.  Though he gave no indication whether he included himself in the lot.  The suggestive nature alone without a disclaimer was notable for the time.

Regardless, it is safe to say the vast preponderance of the Founding Fathers were religious.  But their legacy is one of religious freedom.  They sought this gift for their descendants in the hope we would find our own unique religious doctrines.  What matters is not their religion but their contract with all Americans to protect our free and fluid worship (which also includes the choice not to worship).

That said, any reading of their writing clearly indicates this contract does not extend to the dissolution of all religion as a prerequisite for public service.  Quite the contrary.  The prevention of religious expression by public officials was never the intent and given the high standard "inalienable" implies.  We have extended the separation clause for church and state and digressed to the level of separation of church and individual.  It is okay for a teacher (or anyone) to pray.  It is not okay for that same teacher to ask her 5 year old students to finger paint pictures of why they love Jesus.  If it weren't for public schools it wouldn't even be an issue in schools.  It would still be an issue in other realms of government exhibit.

No one should be more wary of the diminishment of the separation clause than the religious.  It is a double edged sword as you might not always enjoy majority status but will always enjoy separation.  Nowadays the issue at hand is over extension of the separation clause to individuals (the opposite and a Nazification of the separation clause our Founders so graciously gifted).

Quote from: LibDave on October 15, 2013, 06:23:42 AM
Franklin had no consistent religious fellowship.  In fact he attended and contributed equally to every imaginable secret society religious or otherwise.  It would be difficult to pin any one particular religion as he attended Synagogues, churches, pagan whatever.  He clearly sought religious affiliations and the furtherance they afforded him over singular devotion.

Early writings of Jefferson give indications of the writings he produced later in life which clearly and notably refer to the right of individuals to worship no religion whatsoever.  Though he gave no indication whether he included himself in the lot.  The suggestive nature alone without a disclaimer was notable for the time.

Regardless, it is safe to say the vast preponderance of the Founding Fathers were religious.  But their legacy is one of religious freedom.  They sought this gift for their descendants in the hope we would find our own unique religious doctrines.  What matters is not their religion but their contract with all Americans to protect our free and fluid worship (which also includes the choice not to worship).

That said, any reading of their writing clearly indicates this contract does not extend to the dissolution of all religion as a prerequisite for public service.  Quite the contrary.  The prevention of religious expression by public officials was never the intent and given the high standard "inalienable" implies.  We have extended the separation clause for church and state and digressed to the level of separation of church and individual.  It is okay for a teacher (or anyone) to pray.  It is not okay for that same teacher to ask her 5 year old students to finger paint pictures of why they love Jesus.  If it weren't for public schools it wouldn't even be an issue in schools.  It would still be an issue in other realms of government exhibit.

No one should be more wary of the diminishment of the separation clause than the religious.  It is a double edged sword as you might not always enjoy majority status but will always enjoy separation.  Nowadays the issue at hand is over extension of the separation clause to individuals (the opposite and a Nazification of the separation clause our Founders so graciously gifted).

What the Founding Fathers distrusted most was hierarchical state religions. These had a tendency to become arms of a authoritarian state apparatus.