Posted on 10/04/2017 5:25:13 AM PDT by C19fan
Hahahaha...Reuters sees the EU as a democracy, when it is nothing of the sort. It is more like an oligarchy than anything else, and even the delusional Reuters is looking at it as if it is anything more than a swollen, bloated oligarchic bureaucracy.
I suspect they’re referring to Spain’s young democracy, not the EU. Not even Reuters can consider the EU as democratic.
Spain used to be one of my favorite European countries, been there a bunch of times back in the Seventies, honeymooned there...but when they tucked tail and ran after the Barcelona bombing, that did it for me.
It is almost just as entertaining to realize they don't have people writing and editing for them who actually know how to write...which we all kind of knew...:)
I refer you to posts 17 and 23. ISIS wants to blow up Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona.
Spain’s Muslim problem hasn’t been this bad since El Cid.
This is all happening pretty quick, isn’t it.
fake news amigo
RE: Abraham Lincoln said:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better— This is a most valuable, — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world
_______________________
I don’t think Lincoln believed what he said.
We toured Souther Spain 20 years ago and saw lots of gorgeous (empty) mosques. Muslims believe this is their land and want it back. I pray the Catalons are not being influenced by this.
Its not.
Its the most left-wing part of Spain, except out in the country villages. But the vast majority of it is very left.
There are no major Spanish military bases and garrisons there, unless the scope of the separation grows to include the Baleares.
No more so than anywhere else in Spain.
And traditionally Catalunia was the most secular part of Spain anyway.
And for that matter the Church is generally irrelevant these days.
Really? Because he said it again in 1852 about Hungary.
"Whereas, in the opinion of this meeting, the arrival of Kossuth in our country, in connection with the recent events in Hungary, and with the appeal he is now making in behalf of his country, presents an occasion upon which we, the American people, cannot remain silent, without justifying an inference against our continued devotion to the principles of our free institutions, therefore,Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose."
Obviously a man that clearly stated this principle twice on two different occasions should be regarded as believing in it, don't you think?
I don't think it will matter. If they can't use that excuse to stop independence, I'm sure they will create another excuse to do so.
So, why did he not allow the South to secede?
From what I have learned of the Civil War in the last few years, I would put his reasons as "Pride", "Money", "Power."
An Independent South was a grave threat to his financial backers in the North East. It would have caused an immediate 100 million dollar loss to New York, and an Immediate 100 Million dollar gain to various cities in the South, predominantly Charleston SC, and New Orleans.
Interesting, on Columbus Day (in the US, or least the US I grew up in), there will be another country leaving Spain.
SeekAndFind wrote:
RE: Abraham Lincoln said:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better— This is a most valuable, — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world
_______________________
I don’t think Lincoln believed what he said.
I would posit that at least his actions belied his statement, if that was his true belief.
SeekAndFind: "I don’t think Lincoln believed what he said."
DiogenesLamp: "Obviously a man that clearly stated this principle twice on two different occasions should be regarded as believing in it, don't you think?"
SeekAndFind: "So, why did he not allow the South to secede?"
DiogenesLamp: "From what I have learned of the Civil War in the last few years, I would put his reasons as 'Pride, 'Money', 'Power.' "
ro_dreaming: "I would posit that at least his actions belied his statement, if that was his true belief."
Totally false and DiogenesLamp knows it full well, but keeps repeating it anyway.
The fact is that Buchanan & Lincoln did nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to stop Deep South states from seceding, did nothing to stop them from forming a Confederacy, did nothing to stop them from ratifying their new constitution, setting up their new capital, raising up an army, and imposing their own taxes: nothing.
Lincoln only acted against the Confederacy after it provoked war, started war, formally declared war and began waging war on the United states, including in Union states.
That made Confederates an existential threat, a threat Confederates refused to end on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
And DiogenesLamp knows all this very well, but keeps repeating his lies regardless.
"Totally false" my @$$. It is what the evidence indicates. What is totally false is the oft repeated claim that Lincoln fought the war to free slaves or to "preserve the union."
Lincoln was willing to let the initial seceded states remain independent if Virginia would give him assurances that they would remain in the Union.
Goes to show how big of a principle was "preserving the Union" to him. Preserving economic control of the South's economy is closer to the truth.
Lincoln only acted against the Confederacy after it provoked war,
Lincoln attacked them first. Of course he kept it mostly out of the papers, so most people are unaware of the fact that Lincoln sent warships to Charleston with orders to attack the Confederates there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.