Guard Dog

That's not an entirely fair characterization. The United States in those days was nothing like it is today. It really was a union of 33 largely independent states by today's standard. The power of the Federal Government was weak compared to today. If you were a citizen of Virginia you were more likely to consider yourself a Virginian than an American. Gen George Thomas was an excellent commander. He served under Grant in the west and won a number of major victories. He was outnumbered at Chickamunga and held against Johnson. He defeated Gen John Bell Hood at Franklin & Nashville, which essentially knocked Tennessee out of the war. He was born in Virginia and chose to remain with the Federal army. You could actually make a case he was more of a traitor to his home and family than Lee was. He lost everything for his choice and even was refused command of the western theater by Lincoln despite Grants suggestion because he was a southerner. If the war did nothing else if forged a national identity where there was not one before. Had slavery been killed in the crib during the ratification of the Constitution, as it should have been, the US would be a very different country today. So different it's difficult to even guess what it would look like.

I hate to say this but there was a time I was an advocate of the "Lost Cause" narrative. It was the result of idealism mixed with a lack of knowledge on the actual history. Please don't take this wrong Hurlshot it's not intended like it might sound. The history you learn in school can teach you what happened. But if you really want to understand the WHY and the impact of the WHAT. you have to take an interest and learn on your own. For the last 15 years or so the Civil War and Reconstruction have been subjects I've read and studied a great deal. More than enough to know the Lost Cause story is just what I said, a mix of idealism and lack of understanding. The only thing more abhorrent to me than erasing history is revising it to fit modern mores. It should be remembered just as it happened. The good, bad, and ugly. As terrible as the whole affair was, not secession so much as secession in defense of slavery, there was a lot of credit gained even by people in the South. The "Lost Cause" story calls it a bad war fought by good men. That much is true... for the most part. From a military standpoint what the CSA Army and Navy accomplished were remarkable. Particularly Lee. Had the war not happened no one would ever have heard of Robert E. Lee. He missed the Mexican War. He was in Texas,a middling Captain of no particular note, when Beauregard gave the order to fire on Ft. Sumter. Before Virginia seceded he was a Colonel and one of two regimental commanders in the 2nd Cavalry Brigade of the US Army. One of histories greatest ironies I think is that exact same Brigade, later under the command of one of my favorite historical figures, John Buford would end up depriving Lee of the chance for a victory at Gettysburg that would have seriously altered the course of history. But I digress. Sorry, I can talk about this stuff all day. What Lee and the CSA Army was able to do, out numbered and out supplied in every battle they took the field for was remarkable. Things like that are worth remembering. Maybe not in glory, but at least in recognition.

Completely agree. But the monument should make some sense or be tied to the area it's in. Like I pointed out a statue of Davis and Lee in New Orleans does not make a lot of sense. But a statue of Davis in Montgomery or Lee in Richmond makes perfect sense. But it's so politicized now I expect eventually they will take all the statues out of Gettysburg and all the Confederate headstones in the old cemeteries. This was not our country's proudest moment. But the worst thing we can do is pretend it never happened.

This was supposed to be a joke.... it's not!!! http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9187

The city of New Orleans is purging itself of all civil war monuments and any reference to the CSA. They have removed Jefferson Davis and PGT Beauregards' statues. Robert Lee's is next. I consider myself a student of history and the idea of purging it because it might be ugly at times is abhorrent to me. But in all honesty Jeff Davis and Lee having monuments in New Orleans does not make a lot of sense to me. Lee has no connection to New Orleans a all. He may have passed through there on his way to Texas where he was serving prior to the Civil War. Davis also has no ties to New Orleans or Louisiana other than being the President of the CSA. He was a senator from Mississippi, then spent his post-war life in TN. And as people from the Civil War go he's not one who won any real credit. As a political leader he was not terribly effective at uniting the political factions in the CSA. Although by it's very nature a confederation is not easily directed by a central authority. Now Beauregard does have a connection. He was born near New Orleans, served there in both armies, ran for political office there. His military service was not terribly distinguished. He was an engineer and a good one from what I've read. His main contributions were in designing defenses. He does have the distinction of firing the first shots of the war. He was in command of the shore batteries that fired on Ft. Sumter. Other than that he did command a successful holding action against Grant at Petersburg. Although the city was eventually taken. They should have left his monument up.

Hey they are not call bribes here! They are called campaign donations! GD what do you define as corruption in the USA ? How about this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/corrine-brown-former-florida-congresswoman-found-guilty-sham-charity/ Or this: http://freebeacon.com/politics/rep-alcee-hastings-maxes-girlfriends-salary-fifth-straight-year/ This was a big one: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/us/rostenkowski-pleads-guilty-to-mail-fraud.html Gotta love this one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/congressman-william-jefferson-hid-90-000-freezer-face-20-years-jail-article-1.395138 I don't think of sex scandals as corruption, but is one involved money too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/nevada-sen-john-ensign-to-resign/2011/04/21/AFdIJsKE_blog.html?utm_term=.189f57f02fd2 On oldie but goodie going back to the S&L crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five I could come up with others. Former speaker using public funds to pay hush money to a boy he was sexually molesting when he was a wrestling coach. The House Banking scandal was a good one. Congressmen taking out loans of public money they never pay back. ABSCAM from the 80's was a great one and the FBI guys got to dress up as Arab Sheiks to boot. Then there the ones that never quite came out because everyone who knew details about them mysteriously dropped dead. Like Whitewater. Watergate was another good one. That actually DID involve tampering with an election. Unlike this Russia DNC hack BS that people are hyperventilating about for no good reason. Despite what Leferd said the Seth Rich murder is still a thing and if it was just a botched robbery why did the FBI seize his laptop, which was not at or had anything to do with the crime scene? I could go on all day,

Hey they are not call bribes here! They are called campaign donations!

That's all well and good but the media was always a bunch of biased muckrackers, even back to the days of the beginning of your country. The mainstream media is continuing as it always was, sometimes good, sometimes bad but most times just mediocre. Trump as President was the result of a weird confluence of factors, the strongest of all being the subprime financial crisis, but also the cult of celebrity, the increased awareness of underlying prejudices in society, the rise of internet powered extremists, the hard partisan divide, demographics, the electoral college, the slanted perception of crime and terrorism, the return of fascism as a relevant political force, and more things that haven't crossed my mind, right now. One could argue that the pivotal event leading to the Trump Presidency was Comey's shenanigans a week before the election, but really, Trump shouldn't even have made it out of the escalator, much less the Republican primaries or the actual Presidential campaign. You all that is true to an extent. But I really believe the biggest factor in electing Trump was the absence of a viable alternative. If the Democrats had nominated nearly anyone else (except Sanders, that s--t will never fly in the US as a whole) We would have a congress in control of one party and executive in the control of the other and we'd all be sleeping better. Hillary Clinton and all the baggage that came with her was a nonstarter. I mean she lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Democrats don't lose those states. She nearly lost Minnesota. Even Mondale won Minnesota. It was the only State he won. So for all of Trumps flaws, Clinton was equally flawed. And the voters were facing a choice of SoS or something different. Unless they were smart. The smart ones said "to hell with both of you" and voted 3rd party. I know that saying all the GOP/DNC candidates are pretty much the same is your thing, but that was always obviously not true about Trump and is, incredibly, becoming even more blatantly obvious as time passes. I don't see a candidate the Democrats could have put up that would be massively better President than Trump. That was also true of the candidates that the GOP put up against Trump in the primaries, as terrible as that field was. What Trump was, was a huge litmus test of partisanship in American politics. Once a upon a time you could say something along the lines of the following, albeit without evidence: "Republican voters would vote for their party even if Justin Bieber/Carrot Top/Donald Trump/Kim Kardashian/Paris Hilton was the nominee". well, now there's evidence, and I think the same is true of Democrats. Hell, if you could have magically exchanged the nominees in the last election, I'm pretty sure the end result would have differed very little in terms of the popular vote. I don't think I agree with that last part. There are plenty of decent candidates that did run for the Republicans and could have run for the Democrats. This is purely my own opinion here so take that for what it's worth but I do think I'm pretty well read on there things: For the Democrats these candidates should have performed better than Clinton nationally: James Webb US Senator VA: Smart, practical, level headed and good name recognition. US Army Vet. He wasn't socialist enough to get traction in the primaries but would have shown well vs Trump. He has no negative baggage. Brian Schweitzer Governor of Montana: Big advocate of Federalism, He's likable with a good record or states rights and workers rights as well as practical environmental regulation. The quintessential Jacksonian Democrat. But he's anti-gun control so the national Democrats won't have him. They don't tolerate dissent on any issue. Tulsi Gabbard US Rep HI. The DNC showed her the door when she endorsed Sanders (dissent on any issue will not be tolerated by the DNC) but she has a clean record, military service, opposed the TPP and sequestration, and bank bailouts. She should be the rising star of the Democrat Party but they won't have her. Corey Booker US Senator NJ: Centrist Democrat with a reputation for working with opposition party. Of everyone on this list he's be the most likely to make deals and compromises to accomplish goals. He has some great ideas about tax free enterprise zones to rejuvenate inner cities. His gun control advocacy would hurt him in flyover country. Republicans. The thing that helped Trump the most is the number of candidates in the Republican field. Trump was not winning primaries by majority. He just was getting more because support was spread so thin among all the others. Take away Rubio, Kasich, & Cruz (or any combination of 3 prior to Super Tuesday) and it's likey Trump would not have been nominated. Trump is president today in large part because a few GOP candidates didn't "take one for the team" and bow out so support could coalesce around one of the others. Rand Paul US Senator KY: OK, this was my choice. If he won the nomination I'd have voted for him. I did donate to his campaign during the primaries. He's more in the traditional Republican mold than his father is, but still has a strong libertarian streak. Of all the candidates he would have been the biggest advocate for fiscal responsibility. Nikki Haley US Ambassador to UN: Think Sarah Palin with a brain. She checks the conservative box without being a fanatic and a four year stint as UN ambassador will giver foreign policy cred. But she could have gone on the strength of a successful term as governor of SC. Marco Rubio US Senate FL: There is nothing wrong with Rubio. For some reason he was never able to get his campaign in gear. I think he was focusing on defeating Clinton when he should have been focusing on Trump. But nationally he would have performed better to the general electorate than he did to the primary. Tim Scott US Senate SC: OK, this one is a bit of a reach because he's still light on electoral experience but he's the balance between fiscal conservative and social liberal that general election voters would gravitate to. Put any of those Democrats vs Trump or any of those Republicans vs Clinton and I think they would have won a general election.

That's all well and good but the media was always a bunch of biased muckrackers, even back to the days of the beginning of your country. The mainstream media is continuing as it always was, sometimes good, sometimes bad but most times just mediocre. Trump as President was the result of a weird confluence of factors, the strongest of all being the subprime financial crisis, but also the cult of celebrity, the increased awareness of underlying prejudices in society, the rise of internet powered extremists, the hard partisan divide, demographics, the electoral college, the slanted perception of crime and terrorism, the return of fascism as a relevant political force, and more things that haven't crossed my mind, right now. One could argue that the pivotal event leading to the Trump Presidency was Comey's shenanigans a week before the election, but really, Trump shouldn't even have made it out of the escalator, much less the Republican primaries or the actual Presidential campaign. You all that is true to an extent. But I really believe the biggest factor in electing Trump was the absence of a viable alternative. If the Democrats had nominated nearly anyone else (except Sanders, that s--t will never fly in the US as a whole) We would have a congress in control of one party and executive in the control of the other and we'd all be sleeping better. Hillary Clinton and all the baggage that came with her was a nonstarter. I mean she lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Democrats don't lose those states. She nearly lost Minnesota. Even Mondale won Minnesota. It was the only State he won. So for all of Trumps flaws, Clinton was equally flawed. And the voters were facing a choice of SoS or something different. Unless they were smart. The smart ones said "to hell with both of you" and voted 3rd party.

This thing is freaking me out: http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/17/cyclops-goat-born-with-one-eye-is-worshiped-by-villagers-in-india-6643422/

Good thing you got in when you did Leferd. The A's ballpark passes are sold out: http://ballparkdigest.com/2017/05/17/as-ballpark-pass-sales-capped-at-2000-for-now/ In other news 43% of all Rays team ABs end in a walk, a SO, or a HR. They are leading the majors by 19%

So what's the difference to all other publications, according to you? Three words: Duke Rape Story. There are about half a dozen others but that was the worst by far. All in the same vein though. If a story sounds good and fits their narrative it does not need to be true to be in Rolling Stone. Johannes Mehserle does not reflect on BART police officers. Lawrence Phillips is not a reflection on the student body of the University of Nebraska. Toe Nash does not represent the Tampa Bay Devil Rays organization. Rolling Stone publishes a hell lot more great pieces of long form journalism than a dud here or there. I'll take their body of work over Breitbart, NewsMax, InfoWars, and the special drivel from hacks like Hannity, Fox and Friends, and the late Bill O'Reilly on FNC. If I may quote Seinfeld "next to garbage is garbage" The same editors that passed the "good" stories passed and defended the "bad" ones. I would rank them right there with Breibart, NewsMax, and Infowars. Alex Jones just makes s--t up too. It's Mother Jones with a pop culture section. And if they do pop put a few good stories so does Breibart. Hell even a broken clock is right twice a day.

No Gromnir that isn't spin. They are making s--t up. A quick search on google turns up a number of times they attributed some rather dumb quotes to George W Bush he never said. One of which was from a Comedy Central TV show skit. When Huffington Post is calling out Rolling Stone for bad journalism something is up.

So what's the difference to all other publications, according to you? Three words: Duke Rape Story. There are about half a dozen others but that was the worst by far. All in the same vein though. If a story sounds good and fits their narrative it does not need to be true to be in Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone LOL. No there is a publication with zero credibility!

Well, I'm with Gromnir on Trumps comments about McCain. If I were a Trump supporter that idiotic POW comment would have been it for me. As far as I'm concerned if you've never worn the uniform you can just shut the f--k up about the service of those who did. Trump has no clue what the f--k he's talking about. Trump is the first Republican candidate in my lifetime that did not receive overwhelming electoral support from the Military: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president

Leferd that Seth Rich story is not nothing. Yeah I'm making light of it because that's what I do. But is absolutely possible that he was assassinated for political reasons. That Clinton "death list" thing is 90% BS... but not 100% by any means. There are a few names on it that died under circumstances that give you pause. But is also might not be a coincidence that it comes out the day after Trump's mouth gets him in trouble. Not that it's getting much traction in the media.

More info on Seth Rich. It seems he sent a lot of info to Wikileaks: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/16/fox-news-murdered-dnc-staffer-sent-44053-internal-emails-to-wikileaks/ And the police were "ordered" not to do a thorough investigation according to the PI looking into it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4509952/DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-DID-links-Wikileaks.html Oh yeah... the Clintons had him killed. I'd bet on it. After all he wouldn't be the first. And I'm sure it's just a coincidence all this breaks on the day Trump gets himself in hot water. I love conspiracy theories! No proof required. Just a few facts connected with conjecture!

I'm picking up on a definite anti-East Asian vibe from you s13ep. You guys are not still pissed about that whole Mongol Horde invasion thing are you? That was a long time ago. Water long under the bridge you know.

I believe he's 6th in the line of succession

All kidding aside the US shares intel with other nations all the time. Even ones we have adversarial relationships with like Russia. But generally is it done via channels to each State's intelligence services. It's not usually, or ever to my recollection, done in a meeting between the heads of state or their representatives. And it's certainly not done with a reporter in the room. So while the "what" was shared might not be a real issue, or even the "who" is was shared with, the "how" certainly demonstrates Trump does not have particularly good judgement. What a shock.

Modern education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM "Don't mind that... it will stop"

Ahhh the objectivity of the Washington Post (the paper who broke the Russia intelligence story). http://www.theamericanmirror.com/washpost-reporters-cheer-trump-russia-leak-story-just-like-obama-09-visit/ What an age we find ourselves in. We can't trust the political leaders. We cant trust government institutions. We can't trust law enforcement. And we surely cannot trust the media that is supposed to keep all of that in line. I'm feeling the need to stockpile more ammunition, preserved food, and other essentials. Of course the news source I linked isn't exactly unbiased so you can't trust them either.

Well, if Trump did compromise US intelligence and jeopardize US intelligence assets illegally then that is up to the FBI to investigate. We'll just have the director of the FBI inve..... umm... uh-oh. I wonder is Pence is working on his inauguration speech yet?