Hagee: Western Civilization Based on Torah

Glenn Beck had John Hagee on his show the other day and Hagee told him that America must support Israel because “we’re so indebted because, if it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t have the Torah, which most of our laws come from; all of Western society comes from the Torah.”

Really? Most of our laws come from the Torah? Oh, like the law that women who give birth are unclean and can’t go near a church for 30 days? And the law that women who aren’t virgins on their wedding day must be stoned to death? And gay people too? And those who worship other gods? And the law that says a man who rapes a woman gets to pay her father a few hundred bucks and then marry her? Wait, we don’t have any of those laws? How about that. It’s almost like Hagee is full of shit or something.

httpv://youtu.be/ggl7_V9UlPI

"It's "The Little Drummer Boy" that does it for me."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"A few years ago I was wished a merry Christmas by a man wearing earlocks ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"Me previously:At some point conservative Christians may stop defending Roy Moore’s predatory behavior. Artor responds:No, ..."

And Two More Women Come Forward ..."
"He'll probably revive the War on Christmas rhetoric next year, knowing his viewers will likely ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    Well, the Hebrew Scriptures were, in fact, the basis for slavery in the United States.

  • kantalope

    Oh man – the Greeks and Romans are gonna be sooooo pissed.

  • Alverant

    Here’s a related article about Hagee and his plans for world wide destruction (no that is not an exaggeration).

    http://www.alternet.org/belief/gods-foreign-policy-christian-zionism?paging=off

  • steve oberski

    Give the man his due, he’s almost got it right.

    The Torah is indeed the basis of laws that legalized slavery, misogyny, homophobia and racism.

    Now he just needs to explain why it’s all the Torah based laws that have been or are being expunged to reflect a changing zeitgeist where increasingly the metric used to create a just society is based on human well being and not placating a psychopathic sky daddy.

  • notyet

    Some days I think that there is hope, that fundamentalism is on the decline and that maybe even in my lifetime the country will not be full of, and run by, batshit crazy, fairy–worshiping, denialist halfwits. Thanks to you, Ed, today is not one of those days.

  • matty1

    I thought the evolution of the common law could be traced back to pagan Angles and Saxons?

  • doublereed

    I think most Jews just facepalmed.

  • doublereed

    You could also hit him from the other direction, because the Quran is based on the Old Testament as well. So it’s stupid both ways!

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Where the fuck do these people learn their history? I’ve never had either a Christian or a Jew tell me that nonsense before today — at worst, they just didn’t care enough about history to make up anything like this.

    Is this part of Beck’s church’s belief that America was first colonized by Jews fleeing Rome or something?

  • Chiroptera

    Hell, Christianity itself isn’t even based on the Torah or any other Jewish teaching in any serious sense. Christianity is really a Hellinistic pagan religion with some Jewish mythology grafted onto it.

  • Synfandel

    Gregory in Seattle wrote:

    Well, the Hebrew Scriptures were, in fact, the basis for slavery in the United States.

    Getting rich by forcing people people to work for free was the basis for slavery in the United States. The Old Testament’s condoning of slavery was the often-trotted-out lame excuse.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    @Synfandel #11 – You are correct. I should have said that the Hebrew Scriptures were the justification for slavery in the United States.

  • raven

    Western Civilization is based on many sources.

    The Sumerians and other Mesopotamian groups, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Pagans, the Enlightenment, and so on.

    The idea of Democracy isn’t in the bible although it was known at the time. In Romans 13, it says to obey the rulers who at that time were all kings and emperors. And pay your taxes.

    There is some xian and Jewish influence but it isn’t much.

  • jws1

    This really isn’t all that much of a reach for people who read and believe the conclusions of books like “Seven Tipping Points that Saved Freedom.” The religionists are acutely aware that they have gotten their asses kicked by science and the modern commitment to individual liberty and equality, so they are in a big hurry to take credit for the stuff that is now taken for granted as being “good”.

  • Don Williams

    Anybody remember how the Southern Baptist Convention got started?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Divisions_over_slavery

    Can’t have no prosperity doctrine if the rich slaveowners don’t dump a few pieces of silver

    into the collection plate.

    And I ain’t talking about 1855 — I’m talking about today.

  • jws1

    You sure that the Southern Baptists weren’t REALLY concerned with COAL in WEST VIRGINIA?!!!11!!!!!

  • Don Williams

    Maybe Glenn Beck can ask Hagee who caused the Holocaust:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee#Judaism

  • Don Williams

    jsw1 at 16:

    The Rich in the South were concerned about Property and the Rich in the North were concerned about Property. Both ran cons on the rabble in pursuit of Property, both sent a generation of the rabble to their deaths, and both used hypocrisy and deceit to conceal their agendas.

    next question.

  • colnago80

    Re Don Williams @ #17

    Huh, I thought it was David Lloyd George.

  • Don Williams

    Instead of drafting hundreds of thousands of commoners to pursue their agenda, why didn’t the Rich in the North pay a tax to purchase and free the slaves — and thereby avoid the huge death toll and expense of the Civil War?

    Come to think of it, why did the Northern shippers get into the slave trade to begin with? And what explains the late-breaking outbreak of human values in the Northern slave traders?

  • Don Williams

    colnago80 at 19:

    Nah — the Royal Navy had decided to switch from coal to oil by the time Lloyd George came alone. Different scam:

    http://www.colorado.edu/PeaceStudies/area-studies/middle-east/iraq/wwi-oil-Britain/

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    You’re just mad because Hagee’s right. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to not to eat chametz on the afternoon of the 14th day of Nissan, not to work the soil during the fiftieth year and not muzzle an ox while plowing.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    @Don Williams #20 – Rich northerners did not want to free the slaves, they wanted them gone.

    One oft overlooked fact is that the vast majority of Abolitionists wanted the slaves sent back to Africa: the country of Liberia got its start in 1820 when the American Colonization Society began to do just that. Several “colonies” were set up in a region called the Pepper Coast by the ACS and other groups, most of which banded together in 1847 to form Liberia. Many did not survive the trip — it was not unknown for the ships hired by these societies to dump their “cargo” at sea — and most of those who did land safely faced great odds surviving the equatorial African coast with few skills and fewer resources.

    A great deal of money was raised for these endeavors by rich Northerners, with an eye towards crippling the Southern economy and thus improving the regional economy of the north. Thus, these colonization societies, which were seen by the rich as an opportunity to hurt their rivals, and by the poor as a way of getting rid of cheap competition for factory jobs.

  • jws1

    @Don: Yawn. I’m sorry, did you say something? Oh yeah, that tired old tactic used by southerners and school children alike: “But, but, but….look at what other people did! Don’t focus on me so much, that way I come off better!”

  • Sastra

    Religious-style thinking tends to shrink the world because everything needs to be interpreted inside the framework of one’s own personal journey of faith. Maybe the ludicrous claim that “Western civilization was based on the Torah” is coming from the fact that as a very young child Hagee attended Sunday school before he attended ‘regular’ school. Thus, he learned the Old Testament before he learned European or American history. To the unreflective mind, the rules and regulations in the Bible therefore precede and cause everything that comes after. The first laws are the boss of the others.

    Maybe Hagees conclusion is easier to understand if you don’t think so hard or know so much. A four-year-old might consider it self-evident: as his world goes, so goes the world.

  • http://aceofsevens.wordpress.com Ace of Sevens

    @23: That’s correct, but beside the point. After importing slaves was banned, the average price drifted way up. By the time the Civil War broke out, Slaves were worth more than any other resource in the US except land. That price would have only gone up further if someone attempted to corner the market by buying them all out. The only way the North could have freed the slaves by buying them would have been to force people to sell at below-market prices, which still would have likely led to a war.

    And that’s assuming you could keep slavery from popping back up through loopholes in a country where slavery was technically legal, but there were no hereditary slaves to be had.

  • Don Williams

    jsw1 at 24:

    1) People in southern Appalachia saw no need to fight for the property of Tidewater aristocrats who had screwed the mountain people over:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/mapping-appalachia/

    2) Unfortunately, the US government repaid their support by letting Northern plutocrats set up a wage slavery system — the company town — in Appalachia after the war. It took a guerrilla war to overthrow that:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

  • Don Williams

    Ace of Sevens at 26:

    1) It’s called eminent domain. And the Tidewater aristocrats would have computed the costs of fighting to keep their property versus the offer made and concluded it was more profitable to sell.

    2) The real problem was the localized nature of wealth. How were the Southern aristos able to draft huge numbers of rabble and send them to their deaths defending slavery when 1/3 of the Confederate Army was too poor to afford even one slave?

    Same way Dick Cheney was able to send 4500+ US soldiers to their deaths grabbing Iraqi oil for Exxon:

    control of jobs and the newspapers.

    The Northern aristos could have bought newspapers in the South advocating abolishing slavery — or at least pointing out that only a fool would die and impoverish his widow and children in order to protect the property of the Rich. Why didn’t they? Professional courtesy. Since the aristos agree that the rabble must be divided and conquered –today as well as in 1860 .

    Today urban Democratic billionaires let rural Republican billionaires lie through their teeth to the rural rabble — and the rural Republican billionaires in turn are careful to never point out to the urban Democratic rabble how the Democratic billionaires are lying to their supporters.

  • http://aceofsevens.wordpress.com Ace of Sevens

    @Don Williams: Eminent domain wouldn’t have worked. The Fifth Amendment says the government must pay fair market value, which would have bankrupted the government. Also keep in mind the south started an insurrection over slavery not being allowed to expand into new territory while leaving current slave ownership and laws intact. Actually banning slavery until the war was well underway. You’re proposing something that goes a lot farther than what actually started the war and saying that it could have prevented the war.

  • Don Williams

    So how did other nations like Great Britain, Spain and France (in the Caribbean) manage to ban slavery without

    a massive civil war?

    And last time I checked, the Africans didn’t swim across the Atlantic out of eagerness to work in the cotton fields of Alabama.

    The government could have banned slavery within a generation merely by passing a law that all children born of slaves were free. Which would not have violated the Constitution.

    And WHY were so many rich Southerners left rich after the war? Why were they not stripped of ALL their land , given they had started the war? Why were the Rich of the North so quick to throw the rabble — white as well as black, northern as well as southern — aside like soiled toilet paper as soon as the war was won and so quick to cut a deal with the Southern aristocracy to maintain its “special institutions”?

    With did the common soldier in the Union Army win with 4 years of horror and sacrifice? The privilege of competing with a massive influx of cheap immigrant labor for scarce jobs while the Rich slide into the Gilded Age? And what is the state of black Americans 145 years later?

    The Northern ruling elite was fighting for money. Once they had it, the bullshit was forgotten. The blacks were not freed, the rest of us were enslaved.

    And if 310 million Americans forget that, 5 corrupt old assholes on the “Supreme” Court are ready to remind them any day of the week. The 100 corrupt old assholes in the Senate being too busy dialing for dollars to answer any questions at the moment.

  • http://aceofsevens.wordpress.com Ace of Sevens

    @30: None of those other countries had a slave economy on nearly the scale of the US by the time they banned slavery. Also, again, keep in mind that the Civil War wasn’t started over banning slavery, but over whether it should expand. The North wasn’t even trying to ban slavery at the time and the South started the war, so it doesn’t make sense to say the North could have banned slavery without starting a war.

    As for why the war was ended the it was: It was because Lincoln wanted to make the country function as a whole again and harsh punishment was a bad way to do that. Slavery was the main objective of the war for the South. Keeping the country together was the main objective for the North.

    I would also quibble with your examples. France did have a Civil War over slavery, but it led to them pulling out of Haiti, not to an immediate ban on slavery. With Haiti gone, the economic impetus of slavery was largely lost, though.

  • Don Williams

    @31:

    1) Both the Southern elites and the Northern elites knew that their economic system –upon which their wealth and power depended — was in a war with the other. The South seceded because it knew the North was expanding in power and would eventually overwhelm the South.

    2) Laws and the Constitution are merely claptrap that the elites use to con the rabble — the elites themselves don’t take the law or the Constitution seriously because they know money can make the law mean anything they want. The Supreme Court was created to generate sophistry to justify decisions already made by others. Power is the only law.

    And if you think I am joking, look at the unconstitutional means why which Northern plutocrats stole the Pocahontas coal fields –the Saudi Arabia of the Industrial Revolution — from Virginia in a manner expressly prohibited by Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia#Assessment

  • Don Williams

    “Inter arma enim silent leges ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges#In_the_United_States

    Which is why a war with no end is so convenient.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    The Northern aristos could have bought newspapers in the South advocating abolishing slavery…

    Yeah, that would have worked. Southerners just loved abolitionists, and would have gladly tolerated an abolitionist newspaper in their midst published by Yankees. In related news, rich American Jews should have bought up newspapers in 1930s Germany and explained to the Nazis the error of their ways.

    The basic cause of the Civil War was Southern states being afraid that the increasing population of the North and the admittance of new free states to the union would result in slavery being abolished by legal, political means. So any claim that the war could have been avoided if slavery were abolished by legal, political means misunderstands the whole thing.

  • Don Williams

    The Southern elites did not fight so fiercely to preserve an ideology –people don’t get rich with that mindset. They fought fiercely to preserve their wealth.

    Same with the Northern elites. They knew that they had hit a wall — that they could never form massive empires –especially in continental railroads — if they had to buy off every pack of rogues in every state legislature. Capitalists hate risk — so they always have to buy off the government. But to keep overhead within bounds, they only wanted to have to buy off one pack of rogues — in Washington.

  • Don Williams

    Plus Southern secession put the Port of New Orleans — the connection of the Mississippi River to the Atlantic — within the hands of a foreign power.

    And since the days of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, US elites had known that he who controlled New Orleans controlled the USA from Appalachia west to the Rockies.

    Even with railroads, much of the Midwest heavy trade had to travel

    by Mississippi barge. Circa 1830, it was cheaper and faster to ship corn from Pittsburgh down the Mississippi and up the Atlantic Coast by ship than it was to haul it overland by wagon.

  • Don Williams

    So with the secession of Louisiana , massive Northern investments in the upper Midwest and Chicago turned to shit. Even with the Great Lakes and Erie Canal.

  • http://aceofsevens.wordpress.com Ace of Sevens

    The Southern elites didn’t do much fighting. The poor white people did. White supremacy was dreamed up largely as a way to get poor whites onboard with slavery, even though they were getting fucked over. It also got them to fight for it.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    White supremacy was dreamed up largely as a way to get poor whites onboard with slavery, even though they were getting fucked over.

    Very true. Also, the fear of slave revolts, especially after Haiti, kept poor Southern whites supporting slavery even though it was clearly against their interests (though I doubt most understood it at the time). Slavery suppressed the price of labor and of agricultural commodities, which kept poor whites poor.

    So slavery persisted primarily for economic reasons, but that wasn’t all. Southern whites really didn’t want free blacks roaming all over the place, especially since in many places they outnumbered whites. They weren’t going to agree to abolish slavery even if the federal government could afford the buy all the slaves, which they couldn’t. (By some estimates, slaves constituted nearly half the capital wealth of the USA.)

    By the way, how did this thread get hijacked like this? Shouldn’t Don Williams start his own blog or something?

  • Don Williams

    Posts 1, 4 and 11 started this thread arguing the Southern slave system was

    justified from the Torah. I responded that slavery was not confined to the

    South, that the Civil War was promoted by the Rich elites and that the elites are

    driven by other motives.

    Religion does not rule the elites — the elites use

    religion to rule. Southern Baptist Convention in the South, Abolitionists in the

    North, and Hagee today.

    But maybe we could ask the shade of Benjamin Judah what he thinks:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

    I’ll put it in baby talk next time.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Adult talk works fine. Seriously, it does. If you would state your case in a clear, coherent fashion, rather than presenting a deluge of questionably relevant facts and pseudo-facts, then maybe there would be no thread hijacking.

    The Civil War is a fascinating subject (hence, my getting drawn in). But despite its complexities, the bottom line is that the South was trying to preserve slavery, and the North regarded unilateral secession as a nation-killer. Of course there was economic self-interest all-around. That doesn’t change the bottom line. If you disagree, then please make your case. In adult talk.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “So any claim that the war could have been avoided if slavery were abolished by legal, political means misunderstands the whole thing.”

    Um, you’re talking to DON FUCKING WILLIAMS. Dondi is, to “misunderstanding” what the ocean is to “wet”.

    “If you would state your case in a clear, coherent fashion, rather than presenting a deluge of questionably relevant facts and pseudo-facts, then maybe there would be no thread hijacking.”

    Please see previous insult to Dondi, above.

  • Don Williams

    Area Man at 41: “the North regarded unilateral secession as a nation-killer.”

    Horseshit. The Northern elites themselves were talking about seceding from the Union a few decades prior.

    See the Hartford Convention of 1815. Using military force to Coerce people into belonging to a political union is not constitutional law or republican government — it is tyranny. See the Declaration of Independence.

    The man who was the major financier of the North’s Abolitionist movement had a son-in-law who made a massive fortune exploiting the Pocahontas coal of West Virginia. As did several other Northern plutocrats. Meanwhile, they left the US government in the hands of racist Southern Democrats for decades and the blacks in the hands of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan and racist southern regimes. Because morality is of interest to the Rich only so long as it earns profits. When it doesn’t they leave their useful idiots. Last year 29 men died in West Virginia from a gas explosion that should not have occurred — anyone see Don Blankenship in jail?

    For thousands of years, The elites have used religious leaders to promote the agendas of the elites under a false front of religion. But a religious leader being a whore for the Rich is not preaching religion — he is being a whore.

    Hagee preaches the agenda of the Israel Lobby — because the Lobby has billionaire supporters both in the Democratic and Republican Parties. But the murderous oppression of the Palestinians –by the Likud with the massive aid of the US Government — is contrary to Matthew 25: 31-46. Anyone truly understanding the Bible would argue that following Hagee will damn us in the sight of God, not endear us. But godless heathern will never recognize that — they will continue to wander blindly in the fog of delusion created by the Rich’s whores

    — ignorant of who Haim Saban is (see Wikipedia) — while mocking “low-information” rural voters

    Look around. Slavery never disappeared from the US.

  • colnago80

    Re Don Williams @ #43

    But the murderous oppression of the Palestinians –by the Likud with the massive aid of the US Government — is contrary to Matthew 25: 31-46.

    Gee, I didn’t realize that he book of Matthew was part of the Hebrew bible. Learn something new every day.

    Ah gee, the poor oppressed Palestinians. Instead of bitching about those dastardly Zionists, they should consider themselves fortunate that they aren’t living in Syria or Egypt. As a talkbacker from Syria on the Ynet web site put it in commenting on Knesset member Hanan Zoabi’s claim before the Israeli Supreme Court that she was being oppressed, she should consider relocating to Damascus where she would find out what oppression really was.

  • colnago80

    Re Don Williams @ #43

    Horseshit. The Northern elites themselves were talking about seceding from the Union a few decades prior.

    Actually, part of the reason for resisting Southern secession was the fear that if the South was allowed to secede peacefully, New England would secede followed by the states of the upper Midwest. The result would have been 4 or more independent nations in the area of the USA, which would have been hard put to maintain their independence from covetous European powers, particularly Great Britain. The Government of Great Britain was sorely tempted to intervene in the Civil War, being held back by the opposition of folks like Charles Darwin and his influential Wedgewood inlaws.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Well, I tried. I got a deluge of gobbledygook.

    This is the closest we get to disagreement over what caused the war, a flawed argument beloved of neo-confederates:

    Using military force to Coerce people into belonging to a political union is not constitutional law or republican government — it is tyranny. See the Declaration of Independence.

    Gosh, why didn’t anyone explain this to Lincoln!

    You know, Lincoln said and wrote lots of stuff explaining why this is not, cannot, be correct. The whole point of a political union is that people are bound to it and can’t just come and go as they please. The whole point of a democracy is that the majority rules. If a minority can just leave in a fit of pique the second it gets an election result it doesn’t like, then the whole concept of democracy breaks down and next thing you know, the residents of Upper Left West Joe County decide to form their own nation and confiscate federal property because they don’t want to pay their taxes. In other words, anarchy.

    You can disagree with this interpretation if you wish and argue that endless Balkanization is the right of every state, region, and neighborhood association out there. But it’s not as if no one in the North actually took this under consideration and made strong arguments to the contrary. So you don’t really need coo-coo conspiracies to explain the North’s willingness to go to war; you can just accept at face value that they truly believed that secession would destroy the nation.

    The man who was the major financier of the North’s Abolitionist movement had a son-in-law who made a massive fortune exploiting the Pocahontas coal of West Virginia. As did several other Northern plutocrats.

    In case no one pointed this out before, Virgina did not secede from the union until after the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for volunteers to put down the rebellion. So any theory of the war based on some conspiracy to steal Virginia’s coal can’t possibly be correct.

  • colnago80

    Re Area Man @ #46

    The vote for Virginia to secede was close. Had Virginia not seceded, Robert E. Lee would have accepted the field command of the Union forces which was offered to him by General Winfield Scott.

  • Don Williams

    1) And yet who ended up with MASSIVE fortunes from the Pocahontas coal? The essential input to Big Steel, Big Railroad –and the US and Royal Navies , the essential headknockers of global empire.

    Who ended up owning the railroads that carried massive amounts of Pocahontas coal across Virginia to the fishing village of Norfolk for the next 150 years?

    2) And what state went from being the leading power of the USA to an impoverished, economic backwater for the next 150 years. Just like Saudi Arabia is going to be when the oil runs out.

    3) Oh, but I suppose extremely rich men don’t get that way by looking ahead at where technology is heading, by plotting and by political manipulation. No they get extremely rich by the Grace of God.

  • Don Williams

    Area at 46: “The whole point of a political union is that people are bound to it and can’t just come and go as they please”

    1) Again, read the Declaration of Independence upon which this country was founded.

    The end result of Lincoln’s malign “union” was the subjugation of lands west of the Mississippi and the relentless expansion of an empire which is still attempting to conquer the world today. An empire in which 2% of the population get 25% of the income –(and that share continues to increase) and which control most of the wealth.

    2) And when they finally succeed in creating a global empire based on Lincoln’s paradigm, the benign Augustus will be followed by Caligula, Nero, Domitian and Commodus. Except this time there will be no Germanic invaders to rescue us from the prison crafted for us by our own taxes.

    Edward Gibbon told us how this will end back in 1776:

    “The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind.

    A modern tyrant who should find no resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of allies, and the apprehension of his enemies.

    The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge.

    But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies.

    The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. (58) To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly.”

    3) Except it gets much worse. The elites of such empire stagnate, grow lazy and don’t like the disruptive effects of science. Which is why the ancient Roman Empire never matched the achievements of the competing Greek City States –even though the Empire had infinitely greater resources and population.

    The similar Qing Dynasty in China made China the sick man of Asia. If Lincoln’s Union takes over Earth, then mankind will die here. We will never expand into space.

    There is a reason why modern science and the Industrial Revolution arose in Europe.

  • colnago80

    Re Don Williams @ #49

    The US had begun subjugation of the lands west of the Mississippi long before Lincoln became president. Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase by the founder of Utterly Vacuous Assholes? Ever hear of the Lewis and Clark Expedition?

    The Mexican War, which, by the way Lincoln opposed, ended up adding California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas to the Union.

    The fact is that Jefferson Davis had an opportunity to win the Civil War and obtain Confederate Independence but blew it by supporting incompetents like Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood. Davis was a totally incompetent strategist and was not helped by his military adviser Robert E. Lee who was likewise no strategist (not that he would have paid any attention to him anyway). Just like Frankenberger could have won WW 2 but blew his chances with poor strategic choices.

    The counterfactual history of the 20th Century would have been much different if ole Donaldo’s advice had been followed by Lincoln and the USA split up into 4 or more independent countries. Sans the intervention of a powerful USA in World Wars of the 20th century, Germany very possibly would have won WW 1 and very probably won WW 2. Very fortunate that the USA was there to pull Britain’s chestnuts out of the fire.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    2) And what state went from being the leading power of the USA to an impoverished, economic backwater for the next 150 years.

    In case you didn’t know, Virginia is one of the richest states in the union. W. Virginia is one of the poorest. If the war actually was fought to separate Virginia from its coal, then Virginians should be erecting statues of Lincoln everywhere to thank him for it.

    As for the rest of the gobbledygook: No.

  • Don Williams

    Area at 51:

    Oh bullshit.

    1) Take out the federal military industrial complex areas of Fairfax County, Prince William County, part of Loudoun County and the massive US Navy complex at Norfolk — the rest of Virginia is low income flyover country. The coal mining area of Southwest Virginia made some fortunes but the money left and people there are hurting– similar to West Virginia.

    Or are you arguing that the massive $1 Trillion per year military budget is actually a covert reparations program for the Confederacy?

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    The median household income of VA was $61,882 as of 2011, ranked 7th in the nation. For WV, it was $38,482, putting them at 49th in the nation. You can look this stuff up you know.

    Virginia’s GDP is $424 billion. Federal spending can only account for a small portion of that.

  • colnago80

    Re Don Williams @ #52

    Hey, don’t forget Arllington Co,. and the City of Falls Church.

    Re Area Man @ #53

    Ole Donaldo considers Northern Virginia (and presumably Montgomery Co., Md.) the anus of the world.

  • Don Williams

    Area Man at 53: “Virginia’s GDP is $424 billion. Federal spending can only account for a small portion of that.”

    1) You obviously haven’t “looked it up”. I, on the other hand, grew up in southwestern Virginia, went to college at the University of Virginia in central Virginia, and lived for many years in Northern Virginia outside Washington DC.

    In 2009, Virginia GDP was $408 billion . Federal Spending in Virginia was second highest in the USA — $55 Billion — almost the same as in California and way above that in Texas.

    http://gsa.federalschedules.com/resource-center/reports/federal-spending-by-state.aspx

    2) And let the wealthy real estate developers and lawyers of Northern Virginia explain the magic of the 4X multiplier to you — every federal dollar handed to a Fairfax resident gets passed around 4 to 5 times. Which is why you can buy cheap farmland, bribe your local supervisor to rezone it , throw up a $40,000 tract house and sell it for $400,000. Better than the Fed’s printing presses so long as the gravy trains run.

    3) From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/us/politics/virginias-feast-on-us-funds-nears-an-end.html?_r=0

    “The Center for Regional Analysis estimates that federal spending drives 37 percent of the Northern Virginia economy”

  • Don Williams

    The end result:

    In the Washington DC federal zone:

    Median Household income for Fairfax County: $105,406

    Median Household income for Loudoun County: $115, 574

    IMeanwhile, back at the ranch:

    Median Household income for Tazewell county:$35,215

    Median Household income for Buchanan: $29,183

    Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_locations_by_per_capita_income

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    1. Virginia is an “impoverished, economic backwater”.

    2. Virginia is rich thanks to the federal government.

    Pick one.

    By the way, the combined population of Tazewell and Buchanan counties is less than 70,000 people. Tiny rural areas do tend to be poor. Fairfax and Loudoun together have over 1.3 million people.

    “The Center for Regional Analysis estimates that federal spending drives 37 percent of the Northern Virginia economy”

    That’s great. Subtract 37% of the economy and the place is still vastly richer than WV with all its yummy, yummy coal.

  • colnago80

    Re Don Williams @ #56

    And only 30% of the taxes collected in Northern Virginia end up being spent there. Northern Virginia is a giver, Tazewell and Buchanan counties are takers.

  • Don Williams

    Re area at 57:

    1) Having most of the state stuck in low income mode and with the small middle class part

    permanently dependent on massive federal welfare is hardly yummy yummy. Especially if the

    Chinese Creditor and a $17 TRillion federal debt derails the gravy train.

    The value of middle class homes in Northern Virginia fell about $80,000 just with the minor cutbacks in the

    military budget in the 1990s.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Having most of the state stuck in low income mode…

    Most of the state does not have low incomes. Most of the state has, relatively speaking, very high incomes. If you’re not familiar with the definition of “median”, study it for awhile and get back to us.

    I also have no idea why you think it’s so important to prove your false point. Did Virginia beat you up as a kid or something? Whatever the state’s faults, being poor is not one of them. It’s an observable fact.

  • colnago80

    Re Area Man @ #60

    Ole Don is originally from Buchanan County which is coal mining country. Of course, he currently resides in a suburb of Philadelphia, not noted for its lack of affluence.