• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

What does redneck refer to


  • Total voters
    75
You are showing that you hear whatever it is that you want to hear at the time and not what is actually being said. It's a shame that you appear to want to hear Stormfront so often.

Your references to "deplorable tactics" were implicit references to my quotation of Stormfront posts, unless you were referring to something else, so you were interested in my own interest in Stormfront, in that sense. Your mention of it in this post just validates that more.

No, I didn't need to do anything at all. However, in the interest of truth, I did go past that and your truncation of my statement doesn't change its original poignance.

I know. It was reciprocation aimed at your own usage of that tactic.
 
Your references to "deplorable tactics" were implicit references to my quotation of Stormfront posts,

Well...DUH!

I know. It was reciprocation aimed at your own usage of that tactic.

Imitation is a high form of flattery, so I suppose I should cut you some slack given your admited adoration on that front.
 
Well...DUH!

Then...you're interested in my references to Stormfront, since you care enough to continue replying, which contradicts your statements to the contrary.

Imitation is a high form of flattery, so I suppose I should cut you some slack given your admited adoration on that front.

If I was interested in "admiting" such a thing, I mite staart typen leik dis, you know? :shrug:
 
Then...you're interested in my references to Stormfront, since you care enough to continue replying, which contradicts your statements to the contrary.

You can repeat it till you choke on it but it doesn't make it any more true than it did the first time you said it.

If I was interested in "admiting" such a thing, I mite staart typen leik dis, you know? :shrug:

Well I'm glad you take the time to proof read my typos but your affectionate obsession over the grammatical content of my posts is kinda creepy.
 
If I have the opportunity to do that in many threads, that should be a bad omen for the social conservatives as to the number of ways that they line up with Stormfront, from immigration to welfare and affirmative action to Confederate iconography and "states' rights" as opposed to bigoted segregation, etc.

I'm just trying to warn people to be mindful of the authoritarian and liberty-destroying facets of some white populist beliefs, since in their extreme form, they lead to things such as Japanese internment, waves of attacks on Middle Easterners, etc.

Here's your problem with your stormfront comparisons. You are taking comments from posters here, and attempting to turn them into general positions comparable to positions of members of stormfront. Problem is, most of the stormfronters positions are extreme versions of the posters that you are attacking, here. Not only is this a straw man argument, but each and every time you do it, it is nothing but an ad hom... since you know that comparing a poster here to a stormfronter is an insult. Ad homs, which as you so clearly pointed out on your "pyramid", are quite low on the disagreement hierarchy when it comes to effective debate tactics. You might want to modify this, as these ad homs aren't very successful in this or any of your other debates.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said nothing to my most recent attempt to refute him, since he's not here at the moment. I'm just pointing out that your "blunt condemnation" is pretty worthless, since it's a low-ranking form on the disagreement hierarchy.

disagreement-hierarchy.jpg


It's a contradiction, and a response to tone. You should try to refute the central point instead, if you think you're up for it.

For Ad Hominem his pyramid should simply state "this pyramid is an example."

But seriously I like it.
 
Actually, they had been fluctuating between 1816 and 1860. The real spike in the tariffs came in 1828 with the tariff of abominations which actually caused a rift between Jackson and Calhoun because of just how targeted the tariff was toward the south. In effect, it made export of cotton to Brittain so costly that the south had only one option: sell their resources at a markedly reduced rate to the north who then manufactured goods and sold them at exorbitant prices to the south. It was a truly abominable act on the part of congress to pass that tariff and that is where the rift between the north and the south pretty much became irreparable without bloodshed.

That tariff led to a series of heated arguments between the north and the south which culminated in the Nullification Crisis...pretty much a situation where the Southern states convened popular conventions and drafted their own legal philosophies regarding the Constitution as a contract between states and not a supreme law of the land, giving South Carolina, in particular, the right to nullify the tariff (which by this point had been redrafted as the Tariff of Abominations of 1832, reduced by 10%, leaving it still at a staggering 35%). In response, Jackson had Congress draw up the Force Bill which granted the PotUS the power to call up state militias and use the army and navy to put down insurrection. At this point, Calhoun left his post as VP and ran for senate. The conventions reconvened and passed rulings that nullified the Force Act. This is basically the stage that was set for Lincoln upon his inauguration. If he had really wanted to keep the peace and unity of the nation, he would have done something about the tariffs, but instead, he reaffirmed the tariffs, pleasing his northern industrial supporters but alienating the agrarian south. In fact, when South Carolina did secede, he was quoted as having said "But what will become of MY tariff"? No, Lincoln was not interested in peace and unity at all, but rather keeping his industrial northern supporters happy. Even in the 1800's, politicians were whores to their business interests.

The issue of slavery didn't even come into the picture in force until British Abolitionists, bereft of any reason to support the south now that the Tariff made trade with the south unprofitable, began to kick up a storm about slavery. The pressure to end slavery in the south came from abroad more than anywhere else and it was used to leverage other diplomatic issues, which Lincoln ultimately capitulated to because he couldn't handle a civil war at home without giving it some meaning. The slavery issue was the perfect excuse for prosecuting a war to keep the union intact but he didn't go freeing slaves out of his humanitarian interest in the plight of the displaced African at all.

What I have found is that it was about a 70% increase, from 17% overall to 26% overall and 21% to 36% on dutiable items. I can see how that was a major issue.
 
What I have found is that it was about a 70% increase, from 17% overall to 26% overall and 21% to 36% on dutiable items. I can see how that was a major issue.

It wasn't even so much that it was a tariff but that it was aimed only at agricultural exports from the south. Manufactured goods, which basically meant the whole economy of the North, were exempt from the Tariff.
 
It wasn't even so much that it was a tariff but that it was aimed only at agricultural exports from the south. Manufactured goods, which basically meant the whole economy of the North, were exempt from the Tariff.

True, but it was a very high rate also.
 
True, but it was a very high rate also.

Absolutely. And the 1828 tariff was 45%. It was set high to stop the south from trading with Brittain, in particular. Protectionist tariffs aimed at one region to prop up another region of the same country would naturally progress to war in almost any case, I would think.
 
Absolutely. And the 1828 tariff was 45%. It was set high to stop the south from trading with Brittain, in particular. Protectionist tariffs aimed at one region to prop up another region of the same country would naturally progress to war in almost any case, I would think.

History definitely proves that theory to be correct.
 
This is a groos misinterpretation. Captain Anderson could not have "invaded" South Carolina by moving his troops to Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was a US military installation, and therefore US military property. He has every right to move his troops there.

As evidenced by a period map of Charleston Harbor you can see that Captain Anderson invaded South Carolina in his move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, in addition to theft of fishing vessels (owned by citizens of South Carolina) to move his troops. Fort Moultrie is located on Sullivan Island and Fort Sumter sits in the center of the harbor with the harbor waters under South Carolina's control since it is their territorial waters.

Charleston_Harbor_LT.jpg
 
Also, for those who are interested. secession is illegal (though revolution may not be). Madison himself, considered "The Father of the Constitution" agreed that secession was not a constitutional right in a letter to Daniel Webster, and the fact that the language of the Constitution differed from the language of the Articled of Confederation in the US NOT being a "confederation" "a league" or "a contract". with phrases like "in perpetuity" added. The Supreme Court agreed, and validated that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

Secession is perfectly legal under the Constitution of the United States and there is no clause prohibiting it. Here is the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia as written by James Madison.

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

Citing Texas v. White is not a wise move since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was none other than Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, that declared to Lincoln during his presidency that fiat currency was legal then reverse his decision when he presided over a court case regarding foreign investors in order to discharge the debt held by these foreigners. He ruled that fiat currency was unconstitutional and the debt against the federal government in the green backs was discharged. It's a lot like asking Stalin to preside over a trial that pertains to his crimes against humanity.
 
Texas v. White was the ruling. It is wise to cite it. It doesn't matter what Chase's opinions were previously in another job.
 
Texas v. White was the ruling. It is wise to cite it. It doesn't matter what Chase's opinions were previously in another job.

It's not wise to cite stare decisis especially from Chase since he only got the Chief Justice position because he served as Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury and had an axe to grind. How could else could he rule since if he ruled the opposite way would have made the Union victory null and void?
 
It's not wise to cite stare decisis especially from Chase since he only got the Chief Justice position because he served as Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury and had an axe to grind. How could else could he rule since if he ruled the opposite way would have made the Union victory null and void?

He ruled how he ruled. Until the USSC revisits the issue, that's all that matters. Four other Justices ruled that way too.
 
He ruled how he ruled. Until the USSC revisits the issue, that's all that matters. Four other Justices ruled that way too.

Like I said it's not a good cite since the justices were anything but impartial.
 
You don't need SCOTUS to revisit it. The states can determine that for themselves.

The states can determine whether it is Constitutional to secede?

Now that is a conflict of interest.
 
The states can determine whether it is Constitutional to secede?

Now that is a conflict of interest.

Is it a conflict of interest for the United States to secede from the United Nations? Is it a conflict of interest when one spouse divorces another? That's what secession is. It's a separation of a bond between two different parties. The states are all signatories (married to the other states forming the US) and they can leave the compact at any time they wish.

I present the first divorce decree/secession between England and the thirteen colonies.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
 
Last edited:
Is it a conflict of interest for the United States to secede from the United Nations? Is it a conflict of interest when one spouse divorces another? That's what secession is. It's a separation of a bond between two different parties. The states are all signatories (married to the other states forming the US) and they can leave the compact at any time they wish.

Obviously, they can't. Texas v. White is the law. A state can't disagree and render the Constitution meaningless.
 
Obviously, they can't. Texas v. White is the law. A state can't disagree and render the Constitution meaningless.

Actually, Texas v. White isn't a law. It is stare decisis which is case law not legislated law. Here is the legal definition for stare decisis.

It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5.
 
Back
Top Bottom