Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duty. Honor. Confederacy.
The Charlotte Post ^ | July 24, 2008 | Kimberly Harrington

Posted on 07/27/2008 7:52:45 AM PDT by cowboyway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
The second to last refuge of the Southron scoundrel is accusing his opponent of being liberal.

Do you deny it?

The last refuge of the Southron scoundrel is accusing his opponent of being black. I expect that at any moment.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................

101 posted on 07/30/2008 7:51:29 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Let me point out that statements like this one are a big reason why the words 'logic' and 'cowboyway' don't often collide in the same sentence.

Typical NS. Can't defend his illogical position so he weakly attempts to feint.

Pathetic.

102 posted on 07/30/2008 7:53:35 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I gotta go. Me and this young lady

are heading up to the range for a little target practice.

103 posted on 07/30/2008 7:58:47 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Do you deny it?

Yes.

104 posted on 07/30/2008 8:46:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Hey, did you ever figure out that “quotation marks around a google search” thing?


105 posted on 07/30/2008 9:37:19 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; Sherman Logan
Lincoln was a centralist dictator wannabe and if he hadn't got shot he probably would have made himself king.

Considering his performance in office, Davis was the dictator wannabe.

And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

A right claimed by one is worthless if it violates the Constitution. As unilateral secession did.

106 posted on 07/30/2008 9:37:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Your historical basis for blaming Lincoln for the present overweaning federal government is weak.

You are absolutely correct that the federal government grew enormously during the War. That’s what governments do during Wars. Those governments that don’t grow during wartime lose their War and go out of business.

The federal government deflated greatly after the Civil War. Although it never got as small as before the War, it was minimally intrusive on American society up to 1900, when TR started an expansion that was continued by Wilson, and which once again became explosive during WWI.

After WWI, we had a return to “normalcy” during the 20s, with a federal government bigger than ever before but still miniscule by today’s standards. It was the New Deal that started the continuous expansion of the government that has now apparently achieved critical mass and is independent of outside factors.

Blaming Lincoln for today’s federal government makes no sense. There is nothing even vaguely resembling evidence that he planned to continue his invasions of civil rights after the war ended and they were no longer necessary.


107 posted on 07/30/2008 3:01:33 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
(NS claims the South never seceded and the Confederacy never existed because a SCOTUS decision in 1869 ruled that secession was illegal. It's easy to understand why he's in a mental institute.)

NS is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I doubt he claims that the southern states never seceded de facto. I suspect his claim is that their secession was not constitutional and therefore was never in effect de jure.

Or at least that's my position.

108 posted on 07/30/2008 3:06:33 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

What is teh google?


109 posted on 07/30/2008 3:35:37 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
but I doubt he claims that the southern states never seceded de facto.

Ask him.

110 posted on 07/30/2008 3:37:20 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Your historical basis for blaming Lincoln for the present overweaning federal government is weak.

The Quixote-like libertarian constitutionalists are wasting their time because they fail to acknowledge the essential truth about Abraham Lincoln’s war: It overthrew the Constitution of 1789 by destroying the system of dual sovereignty and, in so doing, ended any hope that the citizens would remain sovereign over their own government. Indeed, early twentieth century statists and imperialists like Woodrow Wilson celebrated this fact. As Wilson approvingly wrote in his book, Constitutional Government in the United States (Transactions Publishers Reprint, p. 178), "The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers." Of course, Thomas Jefferson and other founders always understood that if the day were ever to come when the federal government would become the final judge of the limits of its own powers, then it would eventually decide that there were, in fact, no limits to its powers. That day has long since arrived.

Wake up and smell the tyranny, Sherman.

It ain't just the size of the government, dude. It's the control they exert.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."---Vladimir Lenin

Right now, we're controlled by 545 people in the little town of Washington, DC thanks to disHonest Abe and people like you and NS and the rest of the damnyankee coven.

111 posted on 07/30/2008 3:51:23 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

bump,,,, well said


112 posted on 07/30/2008 4:05:39 PM PDT by piroque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Tommy DiLorenzo? Really? I assume that you also believe the war in Iraq to be illegal and President Bush a war criminal, right? Because DiLorenzo does. You have to be consistent. Either you buy DiLorenzo's whole absolute libertarian philosophy, or you're just a hypocrite picking and choosing quotes that support your narrow regional biases with no concern for the philosophical grounding that informs those quotes.

Finally, if that's the way you really feel, why aren't you out blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials? Come on, this is intolerable tyranny! What are you waiting for?

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."---Vladimir Lenin

You have a gun. Or are you just another internet blowhard?

113 posted on 07/30/2008 4:08:47 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The idea of dual sovereignty is one I've not run across before. But I'll play.

I'm sure sovereignty has a number of definitions, but here's one to work with, "supreme authority within a territory." By this definition dual sovereignty is an obvious oxymoron. Two entities cannot both be supreme.

I do understand what you're getting at, I think, the idea that the two sovereignties existed simultaneously but not in competition because they applied in different areas. That could work, and did for 80 years. But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system. It was those who attacked the federal government, quite literally, in its own area of sovereignty at Sumter.

The dual sovereignty could exist only as long as one of the two "supremacies" didn't challenge the other. The southern states challenged and lost. I believe they bear by far the greater responsibility for its destruction. The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Right now, we're controlled by 545 people in the little town of Washington.

True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here. We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.

Nevertheless, if the American people ever decide to, we can replace each and every one of those 545 people in six years.

We don't do it. Why not? Because most of us rather like the way things are going. Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.

The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans. To get such a government you and I would have to impose it on them by force, which sort of defeats its own purpose, doesn't it?

114 posted on 07/30/2008 4:57:30 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Either you buy DiLorenzo's whole absolute libertarian philosophy, or you're just a hypocrite picking and choosing quotes that support your narrow regional biases with no concern for the philosophical grounding that informs those quotes.

BS. I supported Bush on Iraq but I don't buy his amnesty for illegals.

But one must assume that since you're an all or nothing kind of guy and since you support the Iraq campaign then you must also be for amnesty for illegals. Is that correct or are you just a hypocrite?

why aren't you out blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials?

Do you advocate blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials?

Come on, this is intolerable tyranny!

The Founders would agree.

You're pulling out your drama queen act to make it seem as if everything is OK and its not. We're on the cusp of another major change in our form of government and its idiots (the useful type) like you that will enable the Obamas, Reids, Waters, Clintons, Pelosis, et al, to complete their socialization plans.

Have fun in your 're-education' camp, idiot.

Bubba Ho-Tep = NS in drag

You have a gun. Or are you just another internet blowhard?

A gun?

Or are you just another internet blowhard?

You make the most absurd statements of anybody on the interweb. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

115 posted on 07/31/2008 6:10:01 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The idea of dual sovereignty is one I've not run across before. But I'll play.

Did you ever study American history? Read the Federalists Papers?

But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system.

It absolutely was Lincoln and honest historians will agree.

The dual sovereignty could exist only as long as one of the two "supremacies" didn't challenge the other. The southern states challenged and lost. I believe they bear by far the greater responsibility for its destruction. The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Dude, you must have had too much to drink when you wrote that. The dual sovereignty of which we speak was between the individual states and the federal government that was established by the Founders. The Founders wrote the Constitution to LIMIT the federal government. The Southern states didn't challenge the sovereignty of any of the northers states or the federal government. They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown. The Confederacy didn't challenge the sovereignty of the United States any more than the colonists challenged the sovereignty of Great Britain.

The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Quite drinking the Kool-Aid, dude.

True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here.

Well I'm in good company then. Heres a couple of examples:

The Constitution Party

Oklahoma Joint Resolution 1089

We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.

Really? Are you familiar with a recent Supreme Court ruling on an individuals right to keep and bear arms?

Do you realize that we were one freaking vote away from a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment? Think about it. One supreme court justice vote away from registration and confiscation. Do you know why the Second Amendment is even in the Constitution?

Because most of us rather like the way things are going.

Ah yeah. Joe Sixpack. As long as the beer is cold and the signal is clear, every think is just hunky dory. A little loss of liberty here and there doesn't bother Joe.

Jeez.

If you really do like the way things are going, towards socialization (which entails a huge loss of liberty) then you're not even close to being a conservative and I think the mods ought to consider giving you the ban hammer.

Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.

I blame Lincoln for starting the centralization process as much as I give credit to Jefferson, Washington, et al for creating a form of government based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans.

That's because we're reaching that dangerous point where 50% of Americans can vote themselves a raise. This couldn't happen if not for a Lincoln initiated centralized government.

116 posted on 07/31/2008 6:49:22 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
BS. I supported Bush on Iraq but I don't buy his amnesty for illegals.

The issue isn't support for President Bush, but belief in DiLorenzo's absolutist libertarian philosophical grounding, from which he arrives at his positions. You can't accept his conclusions without accepting his premises.

Do you advocate blowing up federal buildings and assassinating government officials?

No, but then I'm not the one prattling on about the intolerable tyranny of the federal government. You are.

The Founders would agree.

Then what are you waiting for? Someone else to go first?

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?

This from the man who doesn't understand the use of quotation marks in a Google search.

117 posted on 07/31/2008 9:39:41 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; cowboyway

You’ll need to explain de facto and du jure to him. Poor lad can barely limp along in English.


118 posted on 07/31/2008 12:55:06 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; Sherman Logan
It absolutely was Lincoln and honest historians will agree

Honest historians like Tommy DiLorenzo?

They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown.

Not quite. In both instances there was a rebellion. But the Southern states lost their's.

119 posted on 07/31/2008 1:00:27 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
The issue isn't support for President Bush, but belief in DiLorenzo's absolutist libertarian philosophical grounding, from which he arrives at his positions. You can't accept his conclusions without accepting his premises.

In the area of Lincoln, he's absolutely right. But let's get something straight, mini-NS, you don't make the rules. That's a good thing because you yankee commie bastards would have us all living in a collective.......except yourselves, of course.

No, but then I'm not the one prattling on about the intolerable tyranny of the federal government. You are.

Are you so stupid that you can't distinguish the difference between a debate and a terrorist act?

Then what are you waiting for? Someone else to go first?

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."--Claire Wolfe

This from the man who doesn't understand the use of quotation marks in a Google search.

So your baseline for intelligence is how adept one is on teh google?

You're stupider than I thought.

120 posted on 07/31/2008 1:17:58 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Honest historians like Tommy DiLorenzo?

Not quite. In both instances there was a rebellion. But the Southern states lost their's.

The withdrawal was the same. The outcome was different.

121 posted on 07/31/2008 1:22:10 PM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I'd Rather Be Historically Accurate...Than Politically Correct.

No chance of either happening with you OR Tommy.

The withdrawal was the same. The outcome was different.

The REVOLUTION was the same. The outcome was different. The Founding Fathers, who you claim to revere, knew that their actions were illegal in the eyes of the crown. They knew that they would have to fight for their freedom. They were not under any illusions at all. The confederate leadership labored under the false impression that their actions were legal, and would up losing their rebellion.

122 posted on 07/31/2008 1:34:10 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
In the area of Lincoln, he's absolutely right.

In other words, you could care less about why someone believes something, as long as they agree with your regional bias, and its only an illegal war when it's your part of the country on the receiving end of it. Pretty much what I figured.

"but too early to shoot the bastards"

Then I guess it's not that intolerable after all, is it? Oh, by the way, as of 2005, Claire Wolfe says it IS time to start shooting the bastards.

So your baseline for intelligence is how adept one is on teh google?

No, what was funny was your adamant and repeated claim that returned Google results didn't have quotes around them, and that everyone was faking them--an entertaining combination of arrogance and ignorance.

123 posted on 07/31/2008 2:45:14 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: fella
The worst whup’n that Custer received during “The War of Northern Aggression” happened when he made his first attempt to destroy a Confederate wagon train being escorted by an all black unit during the retreat from Richmond. The repulse so shocked Custer that he got together an over whelming force to destroy the train and succeeded only after a series of attacks.

Did you ever come up with any documentation on that?

It's a nice story, and I vaguely remember something about Custer having been taught a lesson by Confederate escort troops, but don't recall a Black unit in the story.

124 posted on 07/31/2008 3:05:55 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
If you really do like the way things are going, towards socialization (which entails a huge loss of liberty) then you're not even close to being a conservative and I think the mods ought to consider giving you the ban hammer.

BTW, I never said I like the way things are going. I said most Americans are reasonably happy with things as they are and are therefore unlikely to vote for drastic change, especially a major restriction on governmental power.

I'll take my chance with the mods. If there are conservative principles, one of them is definitely a recognition of reality. I find it odd that one of your first reactions when questioned is to suggest that the questioner should be kicked out of the game.

I am probably in favor of much the same type of governmental system you are. I just don't delude myself that most of my fellow citizens agree with me (or you).

At this point in time, it appears that we will elect a liberal Democrat president, and probably significantly increase liberal Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Which means that by 2012, our first real opportunity to reverse things, there will also be at least a 7 to 2 liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

What exactly is your suggestion for dealing with this? Pretend those who vote for such "change" aren't "real Americans?" Try to prevent them from voting? Start a violent revolution to force the people to favor of the system you prefer? How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?

How do you deal with the dichotomy of your vision of what America is and what the actual country is like?

125 posted on 07/31/2008 7:49:09 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The confederate leadership labored under the false impression that their actions were legal, and would up losing their rebellion.

That's because the Founding Fathers (whom I do respect and admire for their courage and foresight) didn't make secession illegal.


126 posted on 08/01/2008 5:35:48 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
BTW, I never said I like the way things are going.

From your post #114:

Because most of us rather like the way things are going.

When you say "most of us", that includes you.

I find it odd that one of your first reactions when questioned is to suggest that the questioner should be kicked out of the game.

I was perfectly clear in my statement. If you are happy with the way things are going, towards socialization, then you cannot be a conservative, indeed, you must be a liberal and liberals aren't allowed on FR.

it appears that we will elect a liberal Democrat president, and probably significantly increase liberal Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Which means that by 2012, our first real opportunity to reverse things, there will also be at least a 7 to 2 liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

If that happens and the libs get even a 5 to 4 majority on the bench, the RKBA will be tested again and this time we'll lose. That will be the beginning. Once they've taken firearms away from the citizenry, they will be totally fearless and will not hesitate to give full amnesty to the border jumpers, nationalize Big Oil, raise taxes to unprecedented heights, essentially turning the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America.

How is this possible? Because the power base is centralized.

Who centralized it? disHonest Abe and the damn yankee coven.

What exactly is your suggestion for dealing with this? Pretend those who vote for such "change" aren't "real Americans?" Try to prevent them from voting? Start a violent revolution to force the people to favor of the system you prefer? How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?

Quite frankly, if the far left succeed in taking over Washington, DC, the red states should secede.

127 posted on 08/01/2008 6:00:56 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
That's because the Founding Fathers (whom I do respect and admire for their courage and foresight) didn't make secession illegal.

True. But they didn't make unilateral secession legal. As the Supreme Court ruled.

128 posted on 08/01/2008 6:59:16 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

That’s just sad.

When did you abandon reason in favor of hysterical emotion?


129 posted on 08/01/2008 7:09:54 AM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Quite frankly, if the far left succeed in taking over Washington, DC, the red states should secede.

If!, the far left succeeds in taking over Washington DC, it will mean that the people in 5% of the United States land mass have control of the majority of the Electoral College. When this happened in 1860 the relatively new Republican Party figured out the "Gordian" math. Back then it only disillusioned 1 region of the country. Of course now as back then, the opposing party's fractured state is contributory.
130 posted on 08/01/2008 7:30:11 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Pretend those who vote for such "change" aren't "real Americans?".....How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?

Our Constitution was adopted to establish a working rule of law for a limited federal representative republic. It contained a "Bill of Rights" that established further limitations by declaring God given rights that this government could not deprive us of. It is there also that the majority of the citizens cannot deprive the minority of the citizens of those rights as well.

Although it is not part of our legal structure the opening of our Declaration of Independence, states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That word unalienable means that these are God given rights and although they might be stolen from us, we do not have the right to give them away. In other words, it is our duty that we must resist with our lives if necessary any and all attempts of others to take these rights from us.

So I for one would definitely say that any majority or individual that acts in contravention to these principles is either UnAmerican or ignorant of what an American was and still should be. As for the question,How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?
Educate, and motivate the real majority that has become so disillusioned that they no longer care.

131 posted on 08/01/2008 9:00:49 AM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: smug
If!, the far left succeeds in taking over Washington DC, it will mean that the people in 5% of the United States land mass have control of the majority of the Electoral College. When this happened in 1860 the relatively new Republican Party figured out the "Gordian" math. Back then it only disillusioned 1 region of the country. Of course now as back then, the opposing party's fractured state is contributory.

That's kind of a strange standard -- vote by land masses rather than by voters. It may give desireable results, but it can't be justified nowadays.

It's pretty clear though, that the Lincoln vote in 1860 came from more than 5% of the country's land mass, if we go by counties. The Republicans did very well in Northern farming areas.

But will that really happen this year? For the Democrat to win, he'd probably have to win some rural counties from the Republicans, as Clinton did, and that makes the map look different than it did for Kerry or even Gore.

Also, I'd want to know whether you're concerned about tyranny of the majority in all cases, or only when you're in the minority.

132 posted on 08/01/2008 1:30:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
But they didn't make unilateral secession legal. As the Supreme Court ruled.

The Supreme Court that decided Texas v White? You've drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

I suppose when Obama's Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not provide for an individuals RKBA you'll be posting "The Supreme Court says that you can't possess firearms so you, like everybody else, have to surrender your firearms to the authorities. It's a Supreme Court decision from an unbiased body of highly intelligent men! It's ironclad!! It's absolute!!! They're gods!!!!! "--NS

Μολὼν λαβέ

133 posted on 08/02/2008 8:03:11 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
The Supreme Court that decided Texas v White? You've drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

Hardly. The Supreme Court did rule that unilateral secession was illegal. The fact that you disagree with their ruling is meaningless. Constitutionally, unilateral secession is not allowed.

And I should point out that the Supreme Court is not alone in their opinion on unilateral secession. James Madison ridiculed the idea as well. And I would think that he should know.

I suppose when Obama's Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not provide for an individuals RKBA you'll be posting "The Supreme Court says that you can't possess firearms so you, like everybody else, have to surrender your firearms to the authorities. It's a Supreme Court decision from an unbiased body of highly intelligent men! It's ironclad!! It's absolute!!! They're gods!!!!! "--NS"

No, I leave asinine leaps like that to you.

134 posted on 08/02/2008 8:56:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The fact that you disagree with their ruling is meaningless.

Ah, the statement of a true yankee socialist. The individual is meaningless; the collective is all that is important and the collective better adhere to the the whims of the elitist ruling class.

Pathetic.

No, I leave asinine leaps like that to you.

So, if Obama's SCOTUS reverses the recent ruling on the 2A and the damnyankee gubmint issues a firearms confiscation order, what are you going to do? (assuming that even own a weapon, which I doubt given your leftist leanings)

Let's keep in mind everything that you've stated: individual opinion is meaningless, a supreme court ruling is always right and the union should be held together regardless of what form of government it may take.

135 posted on 08/02/2008 10:53:57 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Ah, the statement of a true yankee socialist. The individual is meaningless; the collective is all that is important and the collective better adhere to the the whims of the elitist ruling class.

You truly are a a desperate cuss, aren't you? Anyone who doesn't drink the confederate kool-aid is a liberal or a socialist or some such thing.

Your individual opinion on what is constitutional and what is not is meaningless. The Constitution does not say that something is constitutional because cowboyway says so. It gives that authority to the Supreme Court, and last time I checked you aren't a member of the court. So keep on dismissing the Texas v. White decision, it doesn't impress me at all. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The Court said do. James Madison said so. And I'll put their opinions way above your's on just about any subject you'd care to name.

So, if Obama's SCOTUS reverses the recent ruling on the 2A and the damnyankee gubmint issues a firearms confiscation order, what are you going to do?

Fortunately I give the court more credit for basic intelligence than I do, well, than I do you. So I'm not worried that I'll ever be faced with a decision like that. But you go right ahead worrying yourself sick over it.

(assuming that even own a weapon, which I doubt given your leftist leanings)

Yes, well we all know how seldom you get anything right.

Let's keep in mind everything that you've stated: individual opinion is meaningless, a supreme court ruling is always right and the union should be held together regardless of what form of government it may take.

And let's sum up your position: the Constitution means whatever an individual says it does, the rule of law is meaningless and the Constitution merely something to wipe your behind on, and some states have more rights than others.

136 posted on 08/02/2008 2:20:54 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: x
Also, I'd want to know whether you're concerned about tyranny of the majority in all cases, or only when you're in the minority.

The only tyranny I am concerned about is when our rule of law is not followed. What I believe, might be more easily understood in my post #131.
137 posted on 08/02/2008 4:23:26 PM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: smug
Educate, and motivate the real majority that has become so disillusioned that they no longer care.

Fine with me. I'm on your side in such efforts. I just really doubt they will work, and in fact suspect the trend of history is moving in the opposite direction. At best any such effort will be a long processs, and conducted in the face of direct resistance by the segments of our society best suited to "education and motivation," the media and education monopoly.

Tyranny is the default position of human society, once past the hunter-gatherer stage. Historically, freedom has been fragile and short-lived wherever and whenever it has existed. I see no particular evidence we've outgrown those tendencies.

138 posted on 08/02/2008 4:27:17 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
When you say "most of us", that includes you.

Not necessarily. The "us" in this sentence referred to Americans as a group. The phrase "most of us" implies that "some of us" Americans don't feel that way.

Who centralized it? disHonest Abe and the damn yankee coven.

I've reviewed the history on this, and you've made no real attempt to prove my analysis wrong. The centralization of the Civil War was 90% reversed when the war ended. For decades after the war the government wasn't much more centralized or intrusive in American life than before the war. The Progressive Era, WWI, the New Deal, WWII, the Cold War and the Great Society have been far more important than the transitory centralization established by Lincoln.

In fact, all advanced societies have become more centralized during this period. There is no logical reason to assume the US would have been immune to this trend if Lincoln had never lived, except of course there would be no US today, with at least two independent and quite possibly hostile countries occupying its territory.

While Lincoln established a precedent that was not positive in all areas, by no stretch of the imagination is our present condition something he caused or would have approved.

Let me try an imperfect analogy. Let's assume I have gangrene. Left untreated it will kill me in short order. Antibiotics aren't working, so the docs cut off my leg.

Do you think it would be appropriate for me to harshly criticize the doctors who saved my life because now I am a cripple?

Secession was in the process of killing the United States. Lincoln employed harsh measures to save its life. Arguably some of those measures were overly harsh and some may not have been necessary. But the more I study the period the more I realize how very near a thing it war. The USA survived by the skin of its teeth, although it was a somewhat different society and government that emerged from the surgery.

I truly believe Lincoln was the only man who had what it took to save the USA from disintegration, and I am profoundly grateful that he did.

139 posted on 08/02/2008 4:44:28 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I see no particular evidence we've outgrown those tendencies.

I believe you are right, but I hope and strive against what I fear is coming. I am pretty sure it won't happen the same way it did in 1860, with states taking sides. If this tragedy happens it will be a free-for-all with the small cities, towns and farmlands against the large cities and metropolitan area's. There will be no front lines. I cannot fathom / predict what will start it. But I see all the signs; a polarized society.
140 posted on 08/02/2008 4:55:51 PM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: smug

We’re agreed than. You probably cannot be more in opposition to the centralizing trends of modern society than I am.

I just don’t see any likelihood that our resistance will be effective. As many have pointed out, the expansion of government has a ratchet effect. Democratic governments get more intrusive only gradually, but the trend never works in the other direction. Over time, this can have only one result.


141 posted on 08/02/2008 5:13:37 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: smug

We’re agreed than. You probably cannot be more in opposition to the centralizing trends of modern society than I am.

I just don’t see any likelihood that our resistance will be effective. As many have pointed out, the expansion of government has a ratchet effect. Democratic governments get more intrusive only gradually, but the trend never works in the other direction. Over time, this can have only one result.


142 posted on 08/02/2008 5:13:38 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
there would be no US today, with at least two independent and quite possibly hostile countries occupying its territory.

Well, now I believe your wrong. But I guess that's easy to do in the realm of what might have been. I think had the war ended after say Gettysburg, with the south gaining it's independence the U.S. and C.S.A. would shortly have become sister countries with each having the others back. The south would have been forced to deal with an end to slavery, cause that genie was out of the box never to return. But as for how long the two countries would have remained close allies I cannot imagine. The U.S. without the south's stabilizing influence to offset the communist tendency's of the Northeast goes beyond my poor ability's to imagine.
143 posted on 08/02/2008 5:14:45 PM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The Court said do.

And the court says that we can kill babies from conception until just before breech.

I'm not impressed with your blind allegiance to a small group of elitists. (Our country was founded on the premise of not trusting government. I guess people like you would be considered 'progressive'.)

Fortunately I give the court more credit for basic intelligence than I do, well, than I do you.

Get real, NS. The fact that FOUR of the five justices recently voted that the individual does not have the RKBA doesn't bother you?

Keep sipping that Kool-Aid, NS. Vladimir Lenin loved people like you.

So I'm not worried that I'll ever be faced with a decision like that.

That's it, NS. Don't answer the question. Thats typical of you. When faced with a tough question, you duck and run.

One justice away from a de facto repeal of 2A and these people have your dying loyalty. One justice and perhaps an Obama appointed one at that. And you know what Schumer, Brady, Pelosi, and all the gun control idiots are going to do then, don't you? Is this another court decision that you will blindly adhere to?

Will a future posting from NS go something like, "Give up your guns, cowboyway. The Supreme Court is more intelligent that all of us put together, and, they are the law of the land. And always right. Always. And never politically motivated. Never, never, never. I'm taking mine down to the gun drop off center today. It's right on the way to the re-education center, so I can kill two birds with one stone."

But you go right ahead worrying yourself sick over it.

Some of us have to bear the burden for the head-in-the-sand, useful idiots.

And let's sum up your position: the Constitution means whatever an individual says it does, the rule of law is meaningless and the Constitution merely something to wipe your behind on, and some states have more rights than others.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

144 posted on 08/03/2008 6:42:13 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The phrase "most of us" implies that "some of us" Americans don't feel that way.

Then you should have rephrased it to something like, "The majority of Americans are happy with the way things are going, in my opinion."

I've reviewed the history on this, and you've made no real attempt to prove my analysis wrong.

You must have done your research in the Library for the Politically Correct.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

Let me try an imperfect analogy. Let's assume I have gangrene. Left untreated it will kill me in short order. Antibiotics aren't working, so the docs cut off my leg. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to harshly criticize the doctors who saved my life because now I am a cripple?

Interesting analogy. Let me try to put it in context of the War of Northern Agression.

The USA was sick. The South recognized the sickness and attempted to remove itself from the infected area. But old Doc Abe interceded and refused to let the South cut out the infected areas thereby making the entire body of the USA sick and eventually killing the form of government created by the founders.

There. Fixed it.

I truly believe Lincoln was the only man who had what it took to save the USA from disintegration, and I am profoundly grateful that he did.


145 posted on 08/03/2008 7:13:01 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I have considerable respect for Walter Williams, but the column you point to is a considerable disappointment.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates.

Of course Douglass accused Lincoln of wanting to do bad things. He was campaigning against Lincoln, that's what politicians do in campaigns. As I'm sure you realize, an accusation does not constitute proof of guilt, it is merely an accusation.

BTW, Lincoln and Douglass never debated in a presidential debate. Their debate was during a senatorial campaign in 1858. Also, Douglass fully supported Lincoln once he won the election. This doesn't seem likely if he truly believed Lincoln was an evil man.

I've never quite understood how those who believe Lincoln was a power-mad maniac manage to square this image with his actual life. He served a few terms in the state legislature, a single term in Congress, was unable to run for re-election because he stuck by principle rather than bowing to public opinion, then dropped out of politics entirely for almost 10 years. He didn't re-enter politics until he saw a looming threat that needed to be faced, the advance of the slave power and its threat to American ideals.

This is hardly the resume of a person focused entirely on gaining political power for himself.

146 posted on 08/03/2008 7:30:32 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
And the court says that we can kill babies from conception until just before breech.

Yes they did. And you and I may disagree with that decision until the cows come home and that isn't going to make abortion illegal. Now is it?

I'm not impressed with your blind allegiance to a small group of elitists.

My God! Cowboyway is not impressed. How will I ever learn to live with a stigma like that?

One justice away from a de facto repeal of 2A and these people have your dying loyalty.

Where the hell have you been? The Supreme Court has limited gun ownership rights for decades. And the Heller decision is certainly not the all encompassing ruling on free and open firearm ownership that you seem to think it is. If you read the decision you'll note that Scalia endorsed the idea that 2nd Amemdment rights are not unlimited, and that the government can prohibit ownership of certain types of weapons. So where are we better off than we were before? So D.C. can't outlaw handgun ownership completely. They can, and will, impose laws that will limit it as much as they can. Scalia's ruling is a joke.

But for all that, it is still a valid Supreme Court ruling and it is binding, until D.C. figures out ways around it. But Scalia could have protected gun ownership rights far more than he chose to do, with his narrowly defined decision.

Will a future posting from NS go something like, "Give up your guns, cowboyway.

I doubt it. Future postings to you will probably be a lot like past postings to you - pointing out just how silly your opinions are.

147 posted on 08/03/2008 7:35:37 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: smug
I think had the war ended after say Gettysburg, with the south gaining it's independence the U.S. and C.S.A. would shortly have become sister countries with each having the others back.

Oh come on. You all lost the war and 143 years later you're still pissed. Why do you think the North would have been any more adult about losing? A separation as a result of the war would have left two hostile countried staring at each other. And most likely would have led to future wars.

The south would have been forced to deal with an end to slavery, cause that genie was out of the box never to return.

With all due respect I think that's nonsense. Having fought a costly war to create a country where slave ownership was protected, I don't see the South rushing to get rid of it. What would they have replaced it with?

The U.S. without the south's stabilizing influence to offset the communist tendency's of the Northeast goes beyond my poor ability's to imagine.

So you see a drift towards socialism in the North, and I think the South's rush towards totalitarian fascism would have been rapid and irreversable. Not a pretty picture in either case.

148 posted on 08/03/2008 9:46:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates.

Someone might want to point out to Williams that there were no presidential debates in 1860.

You must have done your research in the Library for the Politically Correct.

And where do buffoons like you and Williams do your research on the rebellion.

Oh, and I fixed your picture for you.

Photobucket

Confederate kool-aid would be grey.

149 posted on 08/03/2008 2:13:27 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You all lost the war and 143 years later you're still pissed. Why do you think the North would have been any more adult about losing?

More adult, hardly. But the North would have lost nothing but size and pride. The South lost their country and their independence.

where slave ownership was protected, I don't see the South rushing to get rid of it.

The number of slaves at that time "off the reservation" so to speak, was substantial in many area's of the south. Humpty was too broken to put back together except by using those men that were in the CS army, and I doubt very seriously they could have been forced to fight to get back another man's property when they didn't believe they were fighting for that against the Lincolnite's. They would have simply replaced slavery then the same way they did 143 years ago.

I think the South's rush towards totalitarian fascism would have been rapid and irreversible.

Hardly, a study of the inner struggle of the Confederate states is one of resistance to federal authority. As Shelby Foote wrote they had no Supreme Court cause they did not need one as State's Rights still took precedence, hence Davis proclamation that if the Confederacy should fail, inscribe on her tombstone; "Died of a Theory".
150 posted on 08/03/2008 10:43:07 PM PDT by smug (smug for President; Your only real hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson