Page 7 of 11 [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Should states be allowed to withdraw from the union if a majority of the state's population agrees?
Yes! 45%  45%  [ 24 ]
No! 21%  21%  [ 11 ]
Oh look, SHEEP! 34%  34%  [ 18 ]
Total votes : 53

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,652
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Nov 2012, 11:41 pm

If that were ever proven to be true, I'd be the least surprised person in the world.
Funny how conservatives are only concerned about "civil rights" when blacks allegedly are threatening the rights of whites. And yet, they attack blacks when they're the actual victims of discrimination for playing the race card.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Vatnos
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 119
Location: Chapel Hill, NC

20 Nov 2012, 8:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
The South resorted to use of violence, they didn't resort to trying to deal with things peacefully. I would say the didn't have the right to succeed simply because someone they didn't agree with got elected, despite him not being allowed on the ballot in many southern states.

The Supreme Court at the time was pro-slavery and it is extremely difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is pretty much what it would have taken to do away with slavery.

You think if the South had not attempted a military solution to reinforce their secession, it would have been a legal secession? That appears to be what you are implying.

Quote:
In case you didn't realize it, the Republican Party was the party that was against slavery. Despite the claims from the left, the Republicans didn't switch with the Democrats when it came to liberty. The very people whom are today's conservatives have largely the same values as those whom were against slavery (which was primarily opposed for religious reasons I might add).

You cannot rewrite history because it is inconvenient for you. The Democratic party was formed from anti-Federalists that were opposed to Alexander Hamilton's fiscal policies (government regulation of the monetary system). They favored state's rights and strict constructionist adherence to the Constitution, both fundamental tenants of the Republican party today. The progressive democratic coalition that we have now was formed in the 1930s under FDR and the New Deal democrats.

You can't change the fact that Republicans regained power in Washington in the 1970s by going after southern whites who were opposed to JFK and LBJ's policies of desegregation. You can't change the fact that Strom Thurmond, Jessie Helms, and a bunch of other openly racist Republicans in Congress in the recent past voted against civil rights legislation, voted to make all the minority groups that currently overwhelmingly support the Democratic party second-class citizens. That is a thing that happened, and it is a hundred years more recent than the Civil War.

Quote:
One mistake people often make is that being against drugs, stating that society should have some ground rules, etc. is a form of tyranny, but it isn't.

I would actually argue that the legalization of drugs whould be something that tyrants would want. The fact is if you get the populace hooked on a drug, you can pretty much control the populace.

1 in 4 people in prison in the world is an American citizen in prison in the United States. Most of them are there for nonviolent drug related offenses. We are a gulag nation. Banning harmless recreational substances and punishing people for using them is authoritarian. There is no arguing your way out of that box. It is social engineering. Nobody wants heroin or cocaine on the streets, but incarcerating people for having an addiction to these substances is cruel and unusual punishment. Addiction is a disease, and it's the only disease we still punish people for having, ever since we stopped sending tuberculosis victims to internment camps.

Quote:
Conservatives value personal responsibility and believe people should not be dependent on the government. I would actually argue that it would be substancially more difficult for a tyranny to form if people are self-reliant, or they get help from neighbors when they need it. People would be significantly less likely to stand for Government trying to run rampant.

Conservatives want to give the keys of the kingdom to corporations. In the absence of a government that is accountable to the democratic process with regulatory control over the economy, corporations become de facto governments. They become feudal dictatorships, where the people at the top have complete dominion over the lives of everyone below them. The fundamental logical flaw with conservatism is that it is critical of government excess, but it casts a blind eye to the excess of the private sector. In an ideal society, all institutions should be held accountable. All authority, private or public, should be questioned. All the systems that organize society should be transparent, flexible, and changeable, and that is the antithesis of what conservatives want. An ineffective government is the best way to ensure that the people cannot use the democratic process to hold others accountable.

These conservatives that value 'personal responsibility' were the ones that voted to make the lion's share of the stimulus funds tax cuts for themselves. They were the ones that wanted to give bailouts to failing banks without any government takeovers or restructuring. Personal responsibility... yeah right... from the guy who just a few paragraphs earlier said that people cannot be responsible with recreational drugs--that they can't be entrusted to make that decision for themselves. This is just an empty catchphrase for an ideology that is intellectually bankrupt.



CyborgUprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland

21 Nov 2012, 8:38 am

"Chicken-Littleism" at its finest. Even if the states tried, they'd never succeed because there would be a system of laws in place to prevent the secession of states. It's the United States for a reason.



CyborgUprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland

21 Nov 2012, 8:46 am

Fnord wrote:
From the Orange County Register, Nov. 19, 2012:

Image

It isn't a secret any more.


Don't forget; you'll need a passport to pass through each state... Because, you know, they don't want any terrorists in their micro-nation/states. :twisted:



LennytheWicked
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 545

21 Nov 2012, 10:39 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Comparing Obama to Lincoln is extremely disrespectful to President Lincoln.

Lincoln had just been inaugerated and the South rebelled, he hadn't even done anything yet.

A lot of people are extremely opposed to Obama due to his record, Fast & Furious is a perfect example as to why.

Then we have the situation in Benghazi, which could arguably be grounds for impeachment.

The south rebelled over what Lincoln 'might' do; the people that created those petitions are protesting what Obama's White House as well as the Federal Government has done. They haven't taken up arms, unless they do so, and until they fire the first shot (which I suspect they won't), this is quite frankly a 1st Amendment issue.


As Lincoln was pro-civil rights and anti-states rights, I'd say Obama has more in common with Lincoln than you might think. And opposition to Obama began long before Bengahzi or Fast & Furious. The people who hate him do so because of half truths and all out lies concerning Obamacare, socialism, regionalism (pro-south, mostly) the President's religion, and, yes, I'll say it, the color of his skin (and no, that's not directed at you). And I'll remind you, despite the Obama haters you site, the majority of Americans still reelected Obama.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Obama is not pro-civil rights well let me re-phrase he's only for it when it is conveinent. If he was pro-civil rights there would be some individuals from the New-black panthers whom would be sitting in prison right now for voter-intimidation, and they got away with it twice now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/youtube]

So the idea that Obama is pro-civil rights is rather laughable.

Btw, the Bush DoJ actually got a conviction but in 2009 Obama's DoJ dismissed the charges.

@ Cornflake

You are giving a false equivalency, Lincoln would never have approved of something like what is seen in the video above.

Right, Obama is personally responsible for people standing around doing nothing.

I bet if they were white you wouldn't care.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 1:16 pm

According to at least one, black revisionist, Lincoln made racist jokes and openly called blacks selfish. He did not call for them to be sent back to their native Africa, but to colonize South America.

At the time, a tropical empire was being discussed.

Atlas Shrugged is assumed to be a work of fiction. If I am not mistaken, it discussed that a global welfare state would be dependent on American subsidies.

I believe this would have been Lincoln's ostensible goal, not the preservation of civil rights for blacks.

I was personally surprised at his monument. He sits on a chair. The armrests are fasces (of fascist infamy.) Axe bundled with firewood. It is an allegory for the democratic (wood) and republic (axe).

We are not a democracy or republic, BTW. We are a democratic or people's republic.

To some extent, liberalism is understood to be a disempowering cycle of dependence, fostered by champagne communists.

Preservation of the union (bonds tying together the wood) might be seen as the continuity of this cycle, to which most of us owe our very lives, if we are not living as wildmen, without textiles, etc.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

22 Nov 2012, 1:23 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
I was personally surprised at his monument. He sits on a chair. The armrests are fasces (of fascist infamy.) Axe bundled with firewood. It is an allegory for the democratic (wood) and republic (axe).

Actually, the facses originated with the Roman Republic (~509 BCE to ~27 BCE). The traditional Roman fasces consisted of a bundle of birch rods, tied together with a red leather ribbon into a cylinder, and often including a bronze axe (or sometimes two) amongst the rods, with the blade(s) on the side, projecting from the bundle. They were carried by the lictors who accompanied the magistrates. The fasces was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates and the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity; a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break. The axe often represents the power over life or death through the death penalty, although after the laws of the twelve tables, no Roman magistrate could summarily execute a Roman citizen. It was used as a symbol of the Roman Republic in many circumstances, including being carried in processions, much the way a flag might be carried today. The term is related to the modern Italian word fascio, used in the 20th century to designate peasant cooperatives and industrial workers' unions. Thus, the image did not originate with the Nazis.

Image
Roman Fasces



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,652
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 2:11 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
According to at least one, black revisionist, Lincoln made racist jokes and openly called blacks selfish. He did not call for them to be sent back to their native Africa, but to colonize South America.

At the time, a tropical empire was being discussed.

Atlas Shrugged is assumed to be a work of fiction. If I am not mistaken, it discussed that a global welfare state would be dependent on American subsidies.

I believe this would have been Lincoln's ostensible goal, not the preservation of civil rights for blacks.

I was personally surprised at his monument. He sits on a chair. The armrests are fasces (of fascist infamy.) Axe bundled with firewood. It is an allegory for the democratic (wood) and republic (axe).

We are not a democracy or republic, BTW. We are a democratic or people's republic.

To some extent, liberalism is understood to be a disempowering cycle of dependence, fostered by champagne communists.

Preservation of the union (bonds tying together the wood) might be seen as the continuity of this cycle, to which most of us owe our very lives, if we are not living as wildmen, without textiles, etc.


So what if Lincoln had made off color jokes about blacks, and said some uncharitable things about them. It was his action of freeing them that should be remembered, and the only thing that counts.
As for recolonizing blacks in South America - the fact that he had called for Black citizenship and equal voting rights proves that if that was ever a serious consideration, he eventually dropped any ideas of colonization in his later presidency.
As for Lincoln trying to foster dependency on the federal government in the guise of civil liberties among blacks - that sounds like nothing more than Neo-Confederate revisionism of history. And very bad revisionism, at that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 3:06 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
I was personally surprised at his monument. He sits on a chair. The armrests are fasces (of fascist infamy.) Axe bundled with firewood. It is an allegory for the democratic (wood) and republic (axe).

Fnord wrote:
Actually, the facses originated with the Roman Republic...


I see a bundle of sticks, and assumed they would have been gathered for a fire.

Otherwise, I have no possible disagreement with this interpretation. The many, bound to absolute authority, who derives strength from them.

Kraichgauer wrote:
So what if Lincoln had made off color jokes about blacks, and said some uncharitable things about them.It was his action of freeing them that should be remembered, and the only thing that counts.

Then, what if Lincoln said that blacks should not be the moral equals of whites.

Kraichgauer wrote:
in the guise of civil liberties among blacks

Of which I am aware, Lincoln was not a proponent of equal rights.

No disrespect, but someone could 'liberate' your dog, without wanting to eat at the same table with it.

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for Lincoln trying to foster dependency on the federal government

Actually, the plantation system would have been in existence, before the Lincoln administration.

They might be comparable to too-big-to-fails, especially in terms of startup capital, which would have come from a credit monopoly.

The argument of states vs. federal rights would have been in terms of the management of slaves and related infrastructure, supporting this agricultural economy.

Kraichgauer wrote:
that sounds like nothing more than Neo-Confederate revisionism of history. And very bad revisionism, at that.

If Neo-Confederates favor a free market, this financial history of welfare for corporate juggernauts should not seem favorable to them.

If anyone thinks this is off-topic, I would like to know how modern secession would affect entitlements and so many derivatives. A liberal activist referred me to investment records, in the public domain. Hedges go long on too-big-to-fails. What will happen to the economy -- the one that makes white socks, notebook paper, beef -- all the indispensable things, which the hardcore clinger had no hope of making for himself.

Sections of entire cities are based on people receiving assistance.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,652
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 3:35 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
I was personally surprised at his monument. He sits on a chair. The armrests are fasces (of fascist infamy.) Axe bundled with firewood. It is an allegory for the democratic (wood) and republic (axe).

Fnord wrote:
Actually, the facses originated with the Roman Republic...


I see a bundle of sticks, and assumed they would have been gathered for a fire.

Otherwise, I have no possible disagreement with this interpretation. The many, bound to absolute authority, who derives strength from them.

Kraichgauer wrote:
So what if Lincoln had made off color jokes about blacks, and said some uncharitable things about them.It was his action of freeing them that should be remembered, and the only thing that counts.

Then, what if Lincoln said that blacks should not be the moral equals of whites.

Kraichgauer wrote:
in the guise of civil liberties among blacks

Of which I am aware, Lincoln was not a proponent of equal rights.

No disrespect, but someone could 'liberate' your dog, without wanting to eat at the same table with it.

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for Lincoln trying to foster dependency on the federal government

Actually, the plantation system would have been in existence, before the Lincoln administration.

They might be comparable to too-big-to-fails, especially in terms of startup capital, which would have come from a credit monopoly.

The argument of states vs. federal rights would have been in terms of the management of slaves and related infrastructure, supporting this agricultural economy.

Kraichgauer wrote:
that sounds like nothing more than Neo-Confederate revisionism of history. And very bad revisionism, at that.

If Neo-Confederates favor a free market, this financial history of welfare for corporate juggernauts should not seem favorable to them.

If anyone thinks this is off-topic, I would like to know how modern secession would affect entitlements and so many derivatives. A liberal activist referred me to investment records, in the public domain. Hedges go long on too-big-to-fails. What will happen to the economy -- the one that makes white socks, notebook paper, beef -- all the indispensable things, which the hardcore clinger had no hope of making for himself.

Sections of entire cities are based on people receiving assistance.


Lincoln was in his personal life most certainly a proponent of equal rights. Frederick Douglass maintained that when Lincoln had invited him to the White House, Lincoln treated him as an equal. Other blacks had attested to the same thing. And it should be recalled, giving equal voting rights to blacks on par with whites was a huge step no one had ever taken before, and should not be underestimated. And yes, Lincoln had said blacks were the moral equals of whites, deserving the exact same rights. Lincoln was a man for both his time, and beyond his time, which is why he was our greatest president.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Nov 2012, 3:41 pm

LennytheWicked wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Comparing Obama to Lincoln is extremely disrespectful to President Lincoln.

Lincoln had just been inaugerated and the South rebelled, he hadn't even done anything yet.

A lot of people are extremely opposed to Obama due to his record, Fast & Furious is a perfect example as to why.

Then we have the situation in Benghazi, which could arguably be grounds for impeachment.

The south rebelled over what Lincoln 'might' do; the people that created those petitions are protesting what Obama's White House as well as the Federal Government has done. They haven't taken up arms, unless they do so, and until they fire the first shot (which I suspect they won't), this is quite frankly a 1st Amendment issue.


As Lincoln was pro-civil rights and anti-states rights, I'd say Obama has more in common with Lincoln than you might think. And opposition to Obama began long before Bengahzi or Fast & Furious. The people who hate him do so because of half truths and all out lies concerning Obamacare, socialism, regionalism (pro-south, mostly) the President's religion, and, yes, I'll say it, the color of his skin (and no, that's not directed at you). And I'll remind you, despite the Obama haters you site, the majority of Americans still reelected Obama.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Obama is not pro-civil rights well let me re-phrase he's only for it when it is conveinent. If he was pro-civil rights there would be some individuals from the New-black panthers whom would be sitting in prison right now for voter-intimidation, and they got away with it twice now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/youtube]

So the idea that Obama is pro-civil rights is rather laughable.

Btw, the Bush DoJ actually got a conviction but in 2009 Obama's DoJ dismissed the charges.

@ Cornflake

You are giving a false equivalency, Lincoln would never have approved of something like what is seen in the video above.

Right, Obama is personally responsible for people standing around doing nothing.

I bet if they were white you wouldn't care.


Actually I would care, and I'm also part Native American and quite frankly you just gave a shining example why I have next to no respect for liberals in general.

The two people in the youtube were convicted of Voter Intimidation due to Prosecutors from the Bush era DoJ. Their convictions were promptly negated when the Obama DoJ dismissed the charges after the conviction...

A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.

Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/federal ... tion-case/

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger for Pajamas Media, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.

"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 ... z2CzCRwz5M

Reason I actually know about this is because I don't drink mediamatter's kool-aid.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

22 Nov 2012, 3:43 pm

Why keep the argument going?

Obama won; Romney lost.

Deal with it.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 4:05 pm

I didn't vote on either, lesser-of-two-evils.

I have gone to several farms, often lined with razor wire and menacing signs. Sometimes, the shed is not deep enough for a toilet seat, but there are men's and women's restroom's signs on the front. They're unlocked, when a tool is needed. People live out of their cars, are allowed to park there, but are asked to help. They get no pay and have no rights. (Don't call it a plantation -- They get offended.) Vagrants are railroaded into prisons and can be rented to pick the fruit. It happens in many industries, where people don't bother to look.

Any thinking person can find financing. If you have a good year, one harvest pays for the farm. (Mission or Georgian style architecture, speaking of the plantation meme.)

This is the basis of the Social Darwinian foodchain. If potable water comes out of your pipes, be thankful, today; you're almost an apex predator.

But, who is ultimately responsible to delegate.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,652
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 4:09 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
I didn't vote on either, lesser-of-two-evils.

I have gone to several farms, often lined with razor wire and menacing signs. Sometimes, the shed is not deep enough for a toilet seat, but there are men's and women's restroom's signs on the front. They're unlocked, when a tool is needed. People live out of their cars, are allowed to park there, but are asked to help. They get no pay and have no rights. (Don't call it a plantation -- They get offended.) Vagrants are railroaded into prisons and can be rented to pick the fruit. It happens in many industries, where people don't bother to look.

Any thinking person can find financing. If you have a good year, one harvest pays for the farm. (Mission or Georgian style architecture, speaking of the plantation meme.)

This is the basis of the Social Darwinian foodchain. If potable water comes out of your pipes, be thankful, today; you're almost an apex predator.

But, who is ultimately responsible to delegate.


I see social Darwinism as one of the most vile philosophies ever invented by man, and the practice of forcing vagrants to work as slave labor, or to take advantage of the poverty stricken with starvation wages just so I can get rich would surely land me in hell upon death.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Nov 2012, 4:14 pm

Many of us here have stims and quirks, but the workers are not the sort of people, who you would want in authority.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,652
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2012, 4:41 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Many of us here have stims and quirks, but the workers are not the sort of people, who you would want in authority.


Why not? My Dad had been an aluminum plant worker, and he was one of the most intelligent, best read men I had ever known.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer