Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I would tend to agree with the statement "
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I would tend to agree with the statement "IF ever there were a dictator in the White House, he was it."

There is not question he kept Maryland in the Union with some pretty heavy-handed tactics. Nobody is denying that there weren't political prisoners.

But notice the difference between your statements and the silliness Thomas is spewing. You actually are giving some facts and figures, he just makes absurd claims that EVERYONE opposed to Lincoln was arrested. That obviously did not happen. When called on it, a rational person would have just said, "okay, yeah, I was engaged in hyperbole there." A conspiracy theory nut just digs in and insists the absurd is somehow the truth.

If he had been content with saying that Lincoln wasn't shy about clamping down on dissidents, I'd have agreed with him. If he had said that Lincoln wielded more personal power to exercise direct government control over the country than any other president, he might well have been right. (Although people don't realize how authoritarian Woodrow Wilson was during WWI. Lincoln probably has him beaten, but that's neither here nor there.) But no, true to extremist form, we can't be content with logic or facts; it has to be out on the fringe. So now we're asked to believe that Lincoln was a dictator who was arresting millions of people. Give me a break!

Now while I personally think you're engaged in some overkill and hyperbole with the characterization of "vicious," you're not being a conspiracy theory net. You're taking a strong stance. I don't agree with it (if it makes you feel any better, I'd agree to "ruthless"), but at least you're backing your stand with some actual facts. You're not making claims that are impossible on their face.

--hide--

I would have thought Richard Nixion was a better choice for this role, and J Edgar was a pretty good manipulator of your laws and politians for 50 years

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta null and void because it interfered with hi...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta null and void because it interfered with his authority over England and King John as his vassal.

--hide--

Magna Carta does no such thing. The Magna Cart or Great Charter gave equality under the Laws of England to all Nobles and the Church. Making it impossible for the Nobles and Church to be subject to the Kings arbitary whims, and thus the basis of the lawful protection we all enjoy.

It gave protection to the Church it challenged Johns right to act as he wished NOT his Divine Right to rule.

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: Magna Carta does no such thing. The Magna Cart or Great Charter gave equality under th...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

Magna Carta does no such thing. The Magna Cart or Great Charter gave equality under the Laws of England to all Nobles and the Church. Making it impossible for the Nobles and Church to be subject to the Kings arbitary whims, and thus the basis of the lawful protection we all enjoy.

It gave protection to the Church it challenged Johns right to act as he wished NOT his Divine Right to rule.

--hide--


Are you disputing that Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta null and void on 24 August 1215? or Are you disputing the reported reason behind the invalidation of the Magna Carta by the Pope?

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I would tend to agree with the statement "
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I would tend to agree with the statement "IF ever there were a dictator in the White House, he was it."

There is not question he kept Maryland in the Union with some pretty heavy-handed tactics. Nobody is denying that there weren't political prisoners.

But notice the difference between your statements and the silliness Thomas is spewing. You actually are giving some facts and figures, he just makes absurd claims that EVERYONE opposed to Lincoln was arrested. That obviously did not happen. When called on it, a rational person would have just said, "okay, yeah, I was engaged in hyperbole there." A conspiracy theory nut just digs in and insists the absurd is somehow the truth.

If he had been content with saying that Lincoln wasn't shy about clamping down on dissidents, I'd have agreed with him. If he had said that Lincoln wielded more personal power to exercise direct government control over the country than any other president, he might well have been right. (Although people don't realize how authoritarian Woodrow Wilson was during WWI. Lincoln probably has him beaten, but that's neither here nor there.) But no, true to extremist form, we can't be content with logic or facts; it has to be out on the fringe. So now we're asked to believe that Lincoln was a dictator who was arresting millions of people. Give me a break!

Now while I personally think you're engaged in some overkill and hyperbole with the characterization of "vicious," you're not being a conspiracy theory net. You're taking a strong stance. I don't agree with it (if it makes you feel any better, I'd agree to "ruthless"), but at least you're backing your stand with some actual facts. You're not making claims that are impossible on their face.

--hide--



John,

Let me begin by conceding your point on the word "ruthless." "Ruthless" is a better description of a leadership (or lack of) trait; "vicious" is a better description of an occasional personality trait.

I'll retract my statement to read describe Lincoln as a ruthless president who could be pretty vicious.

LOCKED
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I think he's saying that the information is easily verified in historical accounts...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

I think he's saying that the information is easily verified in historical accounts.

--hide--


Thank you.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Are you disputing that Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta null and void on 24 A...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



Are you disputing that Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta null and void on 24 August 1215? or Are you disputing the reported reason behind the invalidation of the Magna Carta by the Pope?

--hide--

The first version of it was so declared, but that didn't sit well with the barons. The Charter was amended and passed in 1216 to undermine the rebel barons, and then amended yet again in 1225, neither time apprently with any trouble from the Pope.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The first version of it was so declared, but that didn't sit well with the barons. ...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The first version of it was so declared, but that didn't sit well with the barons. The Charter was amended and passed in 1216 to undermine the rebel barons, and then amended yet again in 1225, neither time apprently with any trouble from the Pope.

--hide--


A person could argue that revising/amending that which is invalid doesn't necessarily validate the revision or amendment...and even though the there was subsequent silence of the Pope on the issue, one cannot assume that he consented. This is especially so if the first charter was declared null for not including the express consent of the Pope, England being his fief and all.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: I would have thought Richard Nixion was a better choice for this role, and J Edgar was...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

I would have thought Richard Nixion was a better choice for this role, and J Edgar was a pretty good manipulator of your laws and politians for 50 years

--hide--


Nixon? Really?

No, read up on your American presidents; Lincoln took the cake. Obama would also be a better role for this than Nixon:

www.washingtonpost.com


LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: A person could argue that revising/amending that which is invalid doesn't necessari...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



A person could argue that revising/amending that which is invalid doesn't necessarily validate the revision or amendment...and even though the there was subsequent silence of the Pope on the issue, one cannot assume that he consented. This is especially so if the first charter was declared null for not including the express consent of the Pope, England being his fief and all.

--hide--

If he didn't declare the amended versions null and void, that means he consented. He didn't so declare, so the Magna Carta, as amended, was valid up to at least the 19th Century.

LOCKED
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) William-607613 said: Nixon? Really? No, read up on your American presidents; Lincoln took the cake. ...
(Quote) William-607613 said:



Nixon? Really?

No, read up on your American presidents; Lincoln took the cake. Obama would also be a better role for this than Nixon:

www.washingtonpost.com


--hide--

Both Lincoln and Wilson violated the Constitution far more greviously than Nixon ever did. Ditto for FDR, from the court stuffing scheme to the Japanese internment during WWII. He also repeated Wilson's trick of getting elected as the "peace president" while trying to goad Germany, and eventually Japan into firing the first shot to get the U.S. into the European theatre at Churchill's request.

LOCKED
Posts 121 - 130 of 194