The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Revan529]

((I don't know either, but I can take some leeway, no?))

If Spain doesn't sale, no skin off our nose. The Cubans, if the seek freedom, can rebel. Spain is impotent.

 

[BigBadBob]

((I'm not sure that happened in this game, correct me if I'm wrong.))

You're right. TTL, the Californian Republic was more a temporary measure created by the invading American forces and local politicians to hold order in California before statehood. It was a puppet government with no real puppeteer.

 

[Revan529]

((So in the absence of an actual puppeteer, I merely took that part for my character. My bio puts me as the head of the California Union Militia, so we kinda just rose up to take over. Since we have room to create, I simply used the story to my advantage))

 

[Spitfire5793]

((So in the absence of an actual puppeteer, I merely took that part for my character. My bio puts me as the head of the California Union Militia, so we kinda just rose up to take over. Since we have room to create, I simply used the story to my advantage))

((Your state would still be in Mexican hands had we not attacked))

 

[atomicsoda]

I fail to understand why Mr. Jarvis fails to see the Spanish giving aid and comfort to people who have organized and funded attacks on US soil as unimportant. Are we going to set the precedent that foreign nations can give our domestic enemies a base from which to plan attacks against us. Would Mr. Jarvis feel the same way if Mexico allowed marxist-vinograd extremists to plan and execute attacks against California and ignored our requests to hand them over.

He calls Spain impotent, but by our failure to act we are ones looking impotent in world opinion.

 

[Revan529]

((But I never said we shouldn't fight the Mexicans, they provoked us. We simply exploited your conflict and would have joined as Texas did.))

Mr. Walker, the strongest man isn't always the one to punch first, or the first to fight. If the Rebels are really proving to be a minor threat. We have no evidence of Spain actively collaborating with the Confederates, so you are making an assumption. Perhaps if we guarantee to the Spanish government that the Confederates will be given a fair trial, they would oblige us. But regardless, I fail to see how Rebels yelling at a dwindling base to do something is a threat.

As for the California/Mexico question, then we have been provoked, but we shouldn't seek to expand our territory. As well, we could more than likely work to a peaceful resolution.

 

[Mikeboy]

((And has Spain not provoked us?

Also are we going to see the update soon?))

 

[Devotist]

Gentlemen, are you seriously suggesting going to war over a handful of anarchists? They plunder our streets everyday, but we do not send our army to every corner of our towns and cities! Were France and Britain to prove the place of shelter for Confederate rebels, would you invade them? I doubt it, for you will only attack the weak and pander to your party, never one to dare losing one's head over liberty. Oh no, you take this as a populist issue, only attacking dear little Spain, never daring to go beyond such nations. If you shall advocate the force of arms, be sincere about it.

The principles of destroying these damned Confederate rebels have no greater advocate than a staunch Unionist such as myself, but there is a time and place for petty wars. You may have petty wars in Congress and public areas as you are engaging in now, but they should go no further than rhetoric in global diplomacy, rhetoric which is already stretching the limits. Impatience has always been the vice of nations, more so than even mighty pride, hence it is unfortunate that I smell it floating down from the Libertarians. Even more saddening is that this is a strictly partisan issue. Gentlemen, there is no need to prosecute a war over Cuba with a power betrothed to France and Britain, a war that has almost no effect whatsoever on the lives of Americans. It is traitorous to call the Republican Party a coalition of traitors, while advocating a ruinous war for nothing more than looking pretty on the Libertarian ballot.

 

[komisha]

I have no problem with Cuban citizenship; I merely don't a war over it. We could purchase it, since it would be more valuable than the Virgin Islands, though I personally would rather the money go to law enforcement. I would defer both purchases to Congress, and would negotiate the price with Spain and Denmark, respectively..

You would advocate purchasing, when you state that any expansion would be imperialism?
If Spain were willing to sell Cuba, why have two administrations failed to purchase it?

 

[Revan529]

I do not advocate purchasing, I believe the Congress should decide; I personally don't see the point in expanding, but if we must, then do so peacefully. It's a concession. I am not saying the Spanish government is; I am just addressing the possibility.

 

[King50000]

Something doesn't seem right here.

Dishonorable does not mean traitorism Mr Carr. President Jackson was dishonorable, but he was not a traitor.

 

[Seek75]

I would like to know how you figure that being as disgraceful as Confederate terrorists does not imply that you are a terrorist and/or a traitor yourself. How can one be as disgraceful as a terrorist if one does not cause destruction, death, and, for lack of a better term, terror?

You say one thing and then when confronted about it, you give three different explanations, none of which make any sense.

I also recall you saying, and I quote, "This debate is over, I will not continue to argue with one so blind to his own ignorance." Why are you still here then, if I may be so bold to ask? Why legitimatize someone who is "so blind to his own ignorance", hrm? Even in the matters of conversation itself, you flip-flop from one position to another. Make up your mind, sir, or this debate will be over, and unlike you, I will be firm and convinced on that.

 

[King50000]

Disgraceful and dishonorable are two different words and thus I have no reason to respond to your statement. Though I will humour you and imagine that you had been intelligent within your thinking.

I said that the members of both the rebel "Government" and the Republican Party were dishonorable, because they have shamed what each stands for. The rebel "government" stood for State's Rights and the limitations of Federal Power. They have disgraced that old tradition when they sought to change the system via rebellion. The Republican Party have stood for truth, justice, and equality, but they have continually used "dirty politics" and personal attacks against their opponents, most notably the attacks against my grandfather, Warhero General Khur, by the Whig Party, father-party of the Republicans and the party that most of the current members would have or were a part of, in his attempts to run as President. They are both dishonorable, but only the rebel "Government" are traitors.

 

[Seek75]

I suppose that makes four explanations then.

 

[King50000]

I also recall you saying, and I quote, "This debate is over, I will not continue to argue with one so blind to his own ignorance." Why are you still here then, if I may be so bold to ask? Why legitimatize someone who is "so blind to his own ignorance", hrm? Even in the matters of conversation itself, you flip-flop from one position to another. Make up your mind, sir, or this debate will be over, and unlike you, I will be firm and convinced on that.

That was not ment for you, so do not pretend to fill the shoes of another, you will not be convincing anyone. And please tell me how I have given four explanations, the one I gave before is the only explanation I have given for why I say the Republicans are dishonorable but not traitors.

 

[Revan529]

If you are equating criticizing another politician to seceding from the Union over slavery, your are extremely misguided. Your party would be just as dishonourable for their, unfounded, attacks on me

 

[King50000]

Pray tell what attacks these have been. And I do not see how saying both the Republicans and rebel "government" are dishonorable but lying the difference as the rebels being traitors makes these two equal through my words. The Republicans are dishonorable but are not traitors or enemies of the state, and thus not equal to the rebel "government."

 

[Revan529]

Perhaps I am blind, as are all Republicans? Or that I am a fearmonger? Take your pick; there are several more. You previously said we were as bad as them.

 

[Seek75]

Let's not forget Howard's comment on how we're shortsighted neanderthals, too.

 

[King50000]

Let's not forget Howard's comment on how we're shortsighted neanderthals, too.

Howard is a member of the ((New Democrats or Independent, I forget which)), and thus not a member of the Federalists.