I haven't seen this movie in many years and didn't find a video. I'm pretty sure what he's doing is shooting his own guy for messing with a woman and burning civilian homes for no reason.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
"Hey Boy! Hands off the White Lady!
*SHOOTS*
That wouldn't have been necessary if that sesesh woman hadn't started it. They never learn. You see sesesh has to be cleared away by the hand of God like the Jews of old. Now I will have to burn this town."
As far as no reason, well... Sesech has to be cleared away by the hand of God like the Jews of old.
oh, and I was just looking at his last state of the Union. It's a zinger. He's basically telling the South that all of their concerns are justified, that the Abolitionists are the worst! and that the USA can do nothing if they want to walk away. He tells them that they shouldn't secede but...
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29501
Including this delightful passage, wherein he tells the nation that the South has every to conduct "revolutionary resistance" if all the states don't vigorously enforce the Fugitive Slave Act:
There is a statue of him in Meridian Park in DC. Think I might take a night-time run later this month and urinate on it.
- 1
So how much would the federal government need to abuse you to change your mind?
Oh, sure. If by 'proven track record of failure' you mean 'has succeeded as an attorney, as a senator and as a secretary of state'. Compared to Reagan's selling weapons to the nation's enemies and Bush's lying to provoke an unjustified and disastrous war, her record is terrible indeed.
As for putting her on trial... sure, the Trump justice department wouldn't need any reason to prosecute enemies of the Dear Leader. But I'll agree with you - right after we prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
She failed as a senator and as a secretary of state. She voted for Bush's war and signed off on the intelligence, then helped Obama stab our allies and our soldiers in the back, and actively pursues a dangerous policy of global islamic destabilization.
In addition to her professional failures, she has many personal failures. She personally sold out her principles to the highest bidder, authoritarian regimes and special interests alike for hundreds of millions of dollars. She helped her proven serial sexual harasser, and allegedly violent multiple rapist husband Bill Clinton escape prosecution. As a result of her avarice and paranoid narcissism she mishandled classified information and destroyed public records; which are reasons for Trump to prosecute her that he won't have to make up.
She does not deserve to be President. She deserves to be in prison.
I don't think we can blame her for that. Almost all the Republicans and about 40% of the Democrats voted for it. Overall about 3/4 of politicians endorsed it. And signing off on the intelligence meant reading the report (or in her case the summary).
I'm not sure I'm competent to sort out smear job from serial abuser when it comes to people in power; Elmo and Bill Cosby show it is possible but I have no idea how common it is.
Yes we(or you) can. She is responsible for her vote and is responsible for reading the reports that inform her policy decisions. Her support for the war isn't a problem for me since I supported it and still do. Director and others have a problem with that. I don't like her betrayal on it after the fact.
In Bill Clinton's case, his infidelities are not in dispute and have been investigated by many people. His alleged rape was not investigated, unfortunately, because the alleged victim mishandled the situation. Supposedly she felt guilty. Now we'll never know. I heard in passing there could be more than just Juanita Broaddrick, or that it might have happened more than once but don't know anything more.
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/10/exclusive-juanita-broaddrick-provides-never-published-details-bill-clintons-rape/
Appropriate or not, this section is a lot more intelligent than OT and I'd love to have the regulars here posting over there. Even if its Keynes lovin on Hillary.
Isn't such assessment rather unjust? His times were extremely difficult. Do you think any better president could avoid the Civil War?
Just asking...
That's why I usually avoid the OT. its hard to have a meaningful debate with someone who has a fundamentally different world view from you. Assuming of course that I count as a more intelligent poster...
No, I am not looking for affirmation.
Avoiding the Civil War can only be done in two ways, preventing Southern secession (only by bowing to Southern demands), or by letting the South go peacefully.
The latter is on Lincoln, and whilst the legality and immediate morality were debatable the longterm rise of abolitionism justifies it IMO, as much as I disagree with some of the legal principles.
The former is tricky. For one, it might still result in a civil 'war', only with the North seceding (though the South would probably shout 'Good riddance' rather than fighting). This might occur if Southern abuse of the Federal government continues, or if someone takes a moment to push the logical conclusion of Taney's judgement in Scott vs Sandford, which (serving as another perfect example of the South abusing Federal government) implied that abolition even in the North might be illegal. Even avoiding this eventuality, you're left wondering what Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan might have done more to prevent secession. These men were already sucking hard on the pro-Southern tit. Despite what is often said, the balance of Federal abuse was wholeheartedly in favour of the South during the antebellum.
Really, the reason these 3 are so bad is not because they failed to stop the Civil War. Rather because they abused their office in an attempt to appease the South. For example, take Pierce and Buchanan's repeated attempts to annex Cuba/Nicaragua, support pro-Southern legislation, mishandling Kansas to the extent that things broke into insurrection (Pierce is the main culprit here, to the extent that he lost his job over it), etc...
Buchanan's last address simultaneously said that the South had no right to secede, but that there was nothing that could be done to stop them if they wanted to.
Essentially Fillmore/Pierce/Buchanan were just an equal mix of useless and Southern lapdog.
- 2
"Off Topic" - a section of the forum for the discussion of anything and everything, generally by those who know nothing about anything and everything. If you're thinking of visiting there, and are expecting a civil and rational discussion, you have been warned.
- 1
To be honest it's not that bad.
This forum tends to be a cut above most in terms of knowing things (okay, the HoI and CK forums are darker than the dark depths of Moria), and the OT is one of the better bits.
- 1
No.
For ONE of his enormities: Buchanan gave a his State of the Nation address for 1860 in early December, after Lincoln's election.
He laid the blame for the country's tensions squarely on the abolitionists, denounced their aims and methods, encouraged the south to conduct "revolutionary resistance" to the federal government, and pointed the southern delegation towards the declaration of independence for inspiration. while he denounced secession, he spent a lot of time talking about how the south was wronged and being oppressed by the north.
South Carolina seceded later that month, and Buchanan, historically, did almost nothing.
If he's not the worst President, then it's Andrew Johnson, the first President to be impeached, and a truly repugnant racist who supported re-enslaving the Freemen in all but name.
- 2
I'd say Pierce was probably worse than Buchanan on balance. Then again, it's choosing between two sides of the same coin, both of which are coated in fecal matter.