Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Author/historian Robert Vincent Remini argues that Andrew Jackson was a product of his age. Nothing more, nothing less. Andrew Jackson's hatred for the British was no less intense, and by-and-large, the native tribes too often sided with the British during the American Revolution and, subsequently, during the War of 1812. Native Americans of that period repeatedly visited death and destruction (i.e., the Ft Mims Massacre in 1813) on the settlers -- Jackson's neighbors and kin -- who dared to move west into the frontier regions of modern Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.
I agree he was in part a product of his age, but that does not exonerate him. He was still wrong. And the other side of the issue would generally describe those "settlers" as treaty breaking "invaders".
Nor does his hatred of multiple groups justify his extreme abuse of the federal hiering process.
I agree he was in part a product of his age, but that does not exonerate him. He was still wrong. And the other side of the issue would generally describe those "settlers" as treaty breaking "invaders".
Nor does his hatred of multiple groups justify his extreme abuse of the federal hiering process.
There you go with your supercilious, 20/20 hindsight trying to impose your irrelevant 21st POV on 19th century personalities again, Old-THUMPER. Jackson was considered a hero in his time for all of the reasons you claim to despise him, Old-THUMPER. Hence, you'd have been the one they ran out of town tarred and feathered and astride rail in that era, Old-THUMPER.
I agree that he was popular. I do not agree with your belief that morality is a popularity contest. Was Hitler morally right until Germany fell? He was certainly popular with many GermanNo, Jackson was popular as a war hero--as was Grant. Neither was a good president, and Jackson's actions were wtong (different from illegal).
If you use the same standards of "good" in our era, then you must consider the very, very popular and in synch with the masses Bill Clinton as the best president we have had in a long time. But I suspect you don't.
So which is it: popularity of the masses equates to morally good, or not? The answer to that question shiuld be the same in 1816 as 2016.
I agree that he was popular. I do not agree with your belief that morality is a popularity contest. Was Hitler morally right until Germany fell? He was certainly popular with many GermanNo, Jackson was popular as a war hero--as was Grant. Neither was a good president, and Jackson's actions were wtong (different from illegal).
If you use the same standards of "good" in our era, then you must consider the very, very popular and in synch with the masses Bill Clinton as the best president we have had in a long time. But I suspect you don't.
So which is it: popularity of the masses equates to morally good, or not? The answer to that question shiuld be the same in 1816 as 2016.
Jackson wouldn't have been "President" Jackson if he hadn't savagely defeated the Creeks and the Brits, Old-THUMPER. So your supercilious notion that he was "wrong" because you hold different values in the 21st century than did Jackson and his peers -- and their Native American enemies -- in the 19th century is pretentious, disingenuous BS, Old-THUMPER. Your notion that Hitler's values reflected universal 20th century values also, and as before, continues to be unmitigated, disingenuous BS, Old-THUMPER.
As usual you can't hold a civil discussion, can you? Nope.
So Jackson being elected validates that he was moral--so you DO believe Bill Clinton was also moral.
You are complete bull shit. Jackson was morraly wrong. Slavery was morrally wrong. Neither was "universally accepted and loved", as you yourself said: ghe Brittish and Cherokee didn't exactly like him. But you really don't care about truth or morals. To you, Jackson was a moral man because he hated Native Americans and Blacks almost as much as you do.
But when Clinton wins the presidency, all of a sudden your "popular enough to be president means he was moral in his time" gets silent. You didn't eveny mention it you pathetic hate monger. Jackson was a scum of a human bein. Not the first president we elected who was a mistake (I notice you also didn't comment on Grant's great presidency).
Poor little IB just love him some southern bigot with a big gun who supports genocide.
As usual you can't hold a civil discussion, can you? Nope.
So Jackson being elected validates that he was moral--so you DO believe Bill Clinton was also moral.
You are complete bull shit. Jackson was morraly wrong. Slavery was morrally wrong. Neither was "universally accepted and loved", as you yourself said: ghe Brittish and Cherokee didn't exactly like him. But you really don't care about truth or morals. To you, Jackson was a moral man because he hated Native Americans and Blacks almost as much as you do.
But when Clinton wins the presidency, all of a sudden your "popular enough to be president means he was moral in his time" gets silent. You didn't eveny mention it you pathetic hate monger. Jackson was a scum of a human bein. Not the first president we elected who was a mistake (I notice you also didn't comment on Grant's great presidency).
Poor little IB just love him some southern bigot with a big gun who supports genocide.
You'd be the illiterate and supercilious jackass that imagines your 21st century POV matters diddly-squat in relation to 19th century personalities and events, Old-THUMPER. Morality is a social phenomena; not an unshifting absolute as you so ignorantly continue to argue, Old-THUMPER. Without Jackson, your beloved Ohio would be a land-locked backwater subject to British commercial regulations for the last two centuries, Old-THUMPER; so, take your ignorant ass and drown your sorrows in the Ohio River, jackass. BTW, Old-THUMPER, Grant is your straw man deflection; so, guess where you can shove that straw, Old-THUMPER.
IBBlithingAsshole, learn how to read you pathetic bigot. The question was not Jackson the general, but Jackson the president and bigot.
And neither Grant nor Clinton are strawmen. They fit YOUR statement that Popular = Moral. That was not MY statement. But as usual when you are hung by your own words you deflect and lie. IB at his most pathetic.
[COLOR=""]IBBlithingAsshole, learn how to read you pathetic bigot. The question was not Jackson the general, but Jackson the president and bigot.
And neither Grant nor Clinton are strawmen. They fit YOUR statement that Popular = Moral. That was not MY statement. But as usual when you are hung by your own words you dblueeflect and lie. IB at his most pathetic[/COLOR].
First, yes, U B a blithering asshole, Old-THUMPER. But you'd also be the prick that is conflating "morality" with "popularity", Old-THUMPER. It's your ignorant contention that morality is an immutable absolute, Old-THUMPER. Yet, your deceitful, lying ass will argue that it's the "moral" thing to do in the 21st century U.S. to let cock-suckers take wedding vows, Old-THUMPER, even as you cannot show a 19th century instance where, in this nation's history, your so-called sense of "morality" previously held sway on this issue, Old-THUMPER.
Lyin’ Cruz Campaign Lies To Maine Governor – Reneges on Agreement For Delegate Unity Ticket…
Posted on April 23, 2016 by sundance
During the Maine GOP caucus on March 5, candidate Ted Cruz came out on top with about 46 percent of the vote. Based on the caucus result Cruz was allocated 12 delegates, leaving nine for Trump and two for John Kasich.
cruz quoteMaine’s Governor Paul LePage coordinated with the Cruz camp, the Trump camp and the Kasich camp to insure the state convention would provide equitable distribution of the delegates based on the caucus result.
This is called a “unity ticket”, with delegates assigned based on the results of the caucus.
However, during the state’s convention this weekend the Cruz campaign reneged on the agreement and stabbed the caucus voters in the back. As they have in other state contests, Team Cruz manipulated the delegate selection to gain 19 of the 2o delegates. CNN has more on the events:
(Via CNN) […] Cruz collected 19 of the 20 spots up for grabs, with the 20th spot going to Maine Gov. Paul LePage, who’s supporting GOP front-runner Donald Trump.
The fight at the state’s convention Saturday underscores the intense battle for delegates heading into the Republican National Convention in July. Cruz’s campaign is pushing for every delegate it can collect to prevent Trump from winning the 1,237 he needs to win the nomination outright and force a floor fight. Even with Saturday’s developments, both Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich need to win more delegates than are available in the remaining primary contests to win the GOP nomination on the first ballot.
Ahead of the vote, LePage accused the Cruz campaign of going back on a promise to back a “unity slate” of the state’s delegates, a move he portrayed as “stabbing us in the back.”
In a statement, LePage said, “We reached a deal with Cruz’s national campaign to put up a unity slate that would honor the wishes of the thousands of Mainers who voted at caucus. But Cruz’s Northeast Political Director David Sawyer lied to us and broke the deal. Sawyer stabbed us in the back, reneged on the unity slate, and betrayed the people of Maine.”
Though he singled out Sawyer in his statement, LePage said the actions were emblematic of the Cruz campaign. “As we have seen throughout the country, Cruz’s national campaign is run by greedy political hooligans.”
