Spielberg's Lincoln: In Three Paragraphs

[Guest American Woman]

AW, this is a thread about an American movie about an American president. I have no desire to argue the good from the better.

Yet you're not only the one who brought Canada into this thread about an American movie about an American president, you're the one who brought up the argument of "good [and] better." You are the one arguing that Canada is better, "more successful" - ie: civilized while the U.S. is not - and I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your claim.

You seem to simply dismiss the arguments that refute your claim, while insisting that your viewpoint is somehow correct, rather than ludicrous (which it is).

You Americans still live with these divides, between North and South, between Black and White.

We Americans elected a black president. I note you simply ignored your "never can a Catholic be your head of state." As I said, you simply dismiss what you don't want to address - or more accurately, what you cannot address; and I daresay blacks in America today are much better off than First Nations in Canada today. Or perhaps you are totally unaware of Canada's history of prejudice and discrimination:

http://www.thecanadi...-discrimination

As I say (unoriginally), the ultimate measure of a society is how the majority treats the minority.

And as I've said, look at your own society in that regard. Canada doesn't hold the moral high ground that you seem to think it does..

[dre]

Canada's history isn't very civilized in that regard.

So what? Nobodies history is civilized if youre willing to go back generations to dig up skeletons.

And as I've said, look at your own society in that regard. Canada doesn't hold the moral high ground that you seem to think it does..

THis line of argument is mindnumbingly simplistic and foolish. Youre trying to use things that peoples ancenstors did to impune the morals of people today who were not even alive then. By those standards the morals of the entire human race can impuned because of stuff we did when we were still apes. Christians today are immoral because of the crusades and witch hunts! Germans today are immoral because of the Nazis!

[Guest American Woman]

So what? Nobodies history is civilized if youre willing to go back generations to dig up skeletons.

Oh for God's sake. Generally I ignore you, but this even I can't pass up. August is the one who brought up "history," so that's what I've been responding to. Note that August went back generations to bring up the Civil War. But yes, you're right - because you are arguing my point.

THis line of argument is mindnumbingly simplistic and foolish.

This line of argument is in direct response to the line of argument I have been addressing. Try to follow along.

Youre trying to use things that peoples ancenstors did to impune the morals of people today who were not even alive then.

Again. I'm refuting a claim based on such a mindset. Did that truly escape you?

By those standards the morals of the entire human race can impuned because of stuff we did when we were still apes.

Ya think?

Christians today are immoral because of the crusades and witch hunts! Germans today are immoral because of the Nazis!

And Canada's history isn't pure goodness and light, making Canada "civilized" as opposed to the uncivilized U.S. Nor does its present hold the moral high ground. See the plight of the First Nations for evidence of how your nation "treats its minorities."

But once again. Thank you for arguing - my point.

[dre]

Oh for God's sake. Generally I ignore you, but this even I can't pass up. August is the one who brought up "history," so that's what I've been responding to. Note that August went back generations to bring up the Civil War. But yes, you're right - because you are arguing my point.

This line of argument is in direct response to the line of argument I have been addressing. Try to follow along.

Again. I'm refuting a claim based on such a mindset. Did that truly escape you?

Ya think?

And Canada's history isn't pure goodness and light, making Canada "civilized" as opposed to the uncivilized U.S. Nor does its present hold the moral high ground. See the plight of the First Nations for evidence of how your nation "treats its minorities."

But once again. Thank you for arguing - my point.

No sorry this crap about Canadian natives is an ongoing theme for you. You obviously have some serious issues.

Both you and August just clogged up yet another thread with crap, end of story.

[Guest American Woman]

Both you and August just clogged up yet another thread with crap, end of story.

Yet you couldn't resist responding, even though you feel that way; and even more amusing, you responded with - crap.

But no, it's not the "end of story." I feel that a typical dre response is appropriate here ....

[August1991]

No, "my list" is factual. Republican tickets won the presidency with frequency after Lincoln's term(s).

Republicans first won the presidency because of reconstruction, and then because of splits among Democrats (because of populism), they managed to elect Theodore Roosevelt.

The critical point however is that in federal politics, the Republican Party lost the south because of Lincoln. At most, Southerners would vote the Democratic party line, but switch at the top of the ticket.

Trudeau was no FDR, in anyone's terms.

Both were politicians, and both knew how to manipulate.

FDR managed a curious coalition of southern Democrats (think Strom Thurmond) and northern progressives (think Henry Wallace). Indeed, Thurmond is a good example of my point: he switched parties.

Similarly, Trudeau (like Laurier before him) managed a curious coalition of Quebec nationalists and practical Ontario trough-seekers.

Yet you're not only the one who brought Canada into this thread about an American movie about an American president, you're the one who brought up the argument of "good [and] better."

America is a good country, and so is Canada. I happen to think that Canada is "better" because we have avoided a civil war.

Civil wars are terrible, as we are seeing now in Syria.

Edited December 2, 2012 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Republicans first won the presidency because of reconstruction, and then because of splits among Democrats (because of populism), they managed to elect Theodore Roosevelt.

They also "managed" to elect Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Eisenhower, well after "Reconstruction".

The critical point however is that in federal politics, the Republican Party lost the south because of Lincoln. At most, Southerners would vote the Democratic party line, but switch at the top of the ticket.

Then you should have stated as much, instead of inventing a silly conclusion about the Republican party and federal politics.

Both were politicians, and both knew how to manipulate.

FDR managed a curious coalition of southern Democrats (think Strom Thurmond) and northern progressives (think Henry Wallace). Indeed, Thurmond is a good example of my point: he switched parties.

So what ? Reagan switched parties too.

Similarly, Trudeau (like Laurier before him) managed a curious coalition of Quebec nationalists and practical Ontario trough-seekers.

The world knows what FDR stands for.....not so much PET.

America is a good country, and so is Canada. I happen to think that Canada is "better" because we have avoided a civil war.

Civil wars are terrible, as we are seeing now in Syria.

You must really dislike revolutionary wars as well. How do you like us now?

[Guest American Woman]

America is a good country, and so is Canada.

You won't get an argument from me there.

I happen to think that Canada is "better" because we have avoided a civil war.

Before you based it on "how a nation treats its minorities," but since you can't refute how Canada has/does treat its minorities, it's now all because Canada avoided a Civil War? Actually, looking at the Rebellions that took place in the 1830's, it's more like the French Canadians couldn't fight off the British, so Canada's "civil war" didn't last long. So that makes Canada more noble, more moral, how?

And again. You might want to take a look at British and French history, especially since Canada was still very much a part of Britain for some time. It seems to me you just disassociate Canada from whatever doesn't support your viewpoint.

Civil wars are terrible, as we are seeing now in Syria.

Can you point out a war that wasn't terrible? You think the wars that Canada was involved in were somehow less "terrible?" That the wars with the Natives were somehow less terrible? It was less terrible for the Natives to have the British and French come in and take their land from them?

The "holier than thou" attitude just doesn't cut it.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The "holier than thou" attitude just doesn't cut it.

Well, to be fair, it's hard to be smug and superior without it.

[August1991]

Smug, superior, civil.

IME, like an American in English Canada, you are an English Canadian in Quebec.