- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 122,663
- Reaction score
- 27,419
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
your argument has many holes in it.
Good job pointing them out...
your argument has many holes in it.
Good job pointing them out...
but I am not a maker of Swiss cheese.
You implied he was...
I did not make the cheese he did, he made statement to things, but gave nothing for them.
I stated he had holes, let him fill them with truth, by proving info for those statements.
That is what I just said... you implied he made the cheese (statement). Yeah, I got it. The referrence was not lost on me, in fact, I was playing around with it back to you. I think that you got confused due to your love of cheese.
Perhaps so, but still a thousand times less corrupt than your country and most others in the world. Liberalism demands lies, dishonesty and corruption because, in a public referendum of ideas, Liberalism always loses. Hence, Liberalism only survives by corruption and dishonesty.
I am more and more an enemy of liberalism, but I cannot say I favour conservatism either, with its greed driven reality. I in fact do not align to any political standpoint.
As to my country, I was born in the USA and so were both my parents. I think the USA is more corrupt than other lands. I consider moving to southwestern Germany sometimes. Many of my antecedents came from there and the total simplicity of taxing Catholics and banning Scientology is ultimately appealing. I don't really care for the US constitution or freedom of religion. My view on US society is rather cat-like: I dont care if the USA lives or dies, if the government falls or stays up. Its rather a boring society and there are clear alternatives.
I subscribe to the Cat Party and Feline Politics.
What kind of self-respecting American writes 'favor' as 'favour?' You were raised British, weren't you? That's why you are so bitter! 1776!!!
Actually, I use Australian spelling. Its part of my down-home rebellion against the non-sense of American culture. After all, the British invented English. Might as well spell things like they do, otherwise what language are speaking but some sort of pidgin where you spell things like a child that sounds things out literally, not expecting silent letters or letters to sound different than their more obvious meaning might be. American born and raised. No care about the USA at all, even an iota.
Actually, I use Australian spelling. Its part of my down-home rebellion against the non-sense of American culture. After all, the British invented English. Might as well spell things like they do, otherwise what language are speaking but some sort of pidgin where you spell things like a child that sounds things out literally, not expecting silent letters or letters to sound different than their more obvious meaning might be. American born and raised. No care about the USA at all, even an iota.
OP#1--How would we have done with all of those wars through 1945? What would the Western part of the USA have turned into? How about the Native American wars? Would there even have been a Spanish-American war along with those results? How about the Panama Canal? Would we even have the National Park Service? How would that Eisenhower Interstate system be doing right now?
Choose your poison carefully on either World at War. Do you really think that Planet Earth could have stood up to the AXIS Powers?? With a fractured continent of "the Union, the Confederacy, Canada, and Mexico" ?? Would Hitler have stopped at dropping just TWO Atomic Bombs? From what country did the USA smuggle its scientists to make OUR Atomic WMD? And then there's the Born-Haber process to synthesize Ammonia to make TNT during WW I !! How would the proliferation of GUNS be doing right now? Would there be an NRA and the rest of the alphabet soup in government?
Let's continue with San Houston. Why did the Great Man oppose the Civil War? Was it because he was a Texan and/or an American First and not a Southerner first?
Being from Kentucky and having his political roots as a Northern Whig, Lincoln was the antithesis of "radical republicanism". He wanted to "go soft" on the South after the war. We saw what his party did after Lincoln was gone.
What would you have done if you were President Lincoln? Why the huge increase in Lincoln hate by Southern Avengers/Paulites? Is it because of the 150th commemoration of Gettysburg? Are these Paulites the living essence of Ron Paul's letters from two decades ago? Do Southerners not see the economic gains they have made since the civil war? Where would they be without the preponderance of Defense installations per capita compared to the North? Would there governors be able to go to Northern states and poach jobs instead of in-sourcing from abroad or development from within?
This silly meme of repeating what JW Booth supposedly said wouldn't even be out there if Lincoln had not saved the UNITED States so they could complain about everything state's rights. These very same Lincoln-haters, so many professing to be born-again Christians, seem to have dismissed their own Golden rule. That being, things happen in this World for a reason and it is not for Man to reason why in a theological way.
My sorrow goes out to those who can't get past their own feelings of whether Lincoln bent, stretched or broke the rules of the Constitution to save the USA.None of us are. I will remain forever grateful that Lincoln was placed on this Earth when he was. Just as I do that the greatest collection of the greatest Physicists/Chemists to ever live just happened to be the 70 or so years DIRECTLY after the civil war.He was not perfect.
well lets look at things, according to the federalist papers and madison..... states are...... sovereign, and independent.
1) since the south left the union, and no longer under constitutional authority, that would make the fort illegal under the confederacy....the south asked the federal government to evacuate the fort, before shooting ever started
2) if we go by the constitution, then according to article 1 section 8 second to last clause the state has to give its approval for any fort in its state, since approval was given at one time, can that approval be withdrawn......sounds logical.
He destroyed the Constitution and the United States.
You're contradicting yourself here. I don't think that a state can constitutionally withdraw the federal government's right to property that Washington paid for, but for argument's sake let's say it can. Since the CSA was no longer under the authority of the Constitution, it would logically follow that it had no right to demand something from the Union government on a constitutional basis, correct?
BTW Madison did not think that states should be able to secede. He explicitly wrote in his letters that the only acceptable circumstances in which a state could secede are either approval from the other states or excessive tyranny. The Constitution formed a compact, and by ratifying it the states were all bound to each other. The states would then be equally bound to each other and as a result "owe fidelity" (his words) to the compact.
The Union was under zero obligation to kiss the Confederacy's butt. If I buy a house in Quebec, and Quebec secedes from Canada, the house is still my property. States didn't lease the property to the federal government, they sold it. At the very least they should owe financial compensation for basically robbing the Treasury out of its money.i two things it posted...
1) Adams..... states that even though property is under federal legislative control.. its still part of a sovereign state, so since that state left the union ,you might think to resolve any issues, the north would have left the fort, however they stayed and fighting started becuase of it.
The key word is the general welfare of the Union. Since the Southern states were no longer part of the Union, they could not use that (dubious) constitutional privilege to withdraw Washington's title to Ft. Sumter because it only applies to the Union and only relates to the general welfare of the Union, not of any secessionist states.2) here i am asking a question, by using the word "can"......under the constitution, when property of a state is under legislative authority by the federal government it is to benefit the general welfare of the whole union, as stated by Adams, ....so it is benefiting the welfare of those southern states at that time, so can the south withdraw its approval, since they see no benefit to themselves from the fort being under federal control in their sovereign state?
Exactly. They are bound by the voluntary act of signing and ratifying the US Constitution. They don't get to wantonly abandon it at the expense of the rest of the Union.federalist 39--Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
Are you referring to the KT/VA resolutions? If I'm not mistaken, it was Jefferson, who had no role in the writing of the Constitution, who wanted to advocate for secession and nullification against Madison's reservations.Madison in the "resolutions" states nullification and secession are legal.
there are interpretations of the constitution during the lives of the founders, and they state :
that a state may leave the union, but it must be in peace, it cannot be by a overthrow of the state government, but by the people, .......and that if the people of a state change their form of government to anything but republican, they cannot stay in the union and must leave.
And I have the main Founder, on record, stating that secession without approval from the rest of the states is illegal. The Constitution was left intentionally vague at many points so that certain issues, such as slavery, could be resolved later.
can you give me the source, so I can read it myself ,please.
also thanks for the other information, I going to go though my readings of the founders again and post the information I have on this subject.
Actually, I use Australian spelling. Its part of my down-home rebellion against the non-sense of American culture. After all, the British invented English. Might as well spell things like they do, otherwise what language are speaking but some sort of pidgin where you spell things like a child that sounds things out literally, not expecting silent letters or letters to sound different than their more obvious meaning might be. American born and raised. No care about the USA at all, even an iota.
Actually, I use Australian spelling.
Fair dinkum, cobber?
Is that the mythical language of Didjabringabeeralong?
Lately I watched two different movies of a rethinking of confederate history. One was Spike Lee's mockumentary "The CSA", what would have happened if the South won the war. Then, I got around to watching the original "The Birth of a Nation", a silent film made entirely to present the American south as the Victim, which puts the Klu Klux Klan as heroes defending white people from renegade freed slaves that the North had set free as part of a regime change. Interesting is the casting of the villain as a Mulatto!
Well, all that racist crap aside, there are some interesting points about the regime change being not merely philanthropy for blacks from Lincoln. For one, even Spike Lee, the African American film director, presented Lincoln as being sort of phony, not really caring about blacks. Most of the problems with the south have to do more with voting power. They didnt want the north to get the vote, then there is the fact that there was an in-between era where the southerners lived nicely with the freed slaves, before the jim crow laws that instituted segregation, and that too started less about racism and more about fear of black voting power. Today the southerner still fears the power of the black to vote. There are famous leftists from New York who kept going down south helping to register blacks to vote as part of the civil rights era. Texas today continually reroutes its voting districts in snaky patterns to keep Republicans in power.
In the end, I like to see the regime change in the south as being much like any radical regime change instituted by New England and the north east, such as the removal of Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1950s. For a while it worked, but ultimately it led to radical religious right taking over. Basically, if the south had been treated differently, they might not be as religious today. Whenever the northeast operates a regime change, the nation always becomes radicalised in a negative way. The Democrats in the north often work hand in hand with far right Mujahideen type Muslims.
Either way the USA is pretty corrupt. In one sense you can even see a south north conflict with Edward Snowden. He grew up in North Carolina and leaked about the NSA. Then who complained the loudest that they wanted him back from Russia? Obama and John Kerry up in New England. Who does John Kerry support in Syria? The radical Muslim rebels! Many of whom are as questionable as those fighting in the Bosnian war for Bill Clinton.
That's debatable whether they invented it. It was probably invented before there were British. And they went and added that Cockney accent.