Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,869
25%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 25% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Brass Lamp

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Secrets Behind John Wayne's Many Names

    03/31/2014 9:52:27 AM PDT · 39 of 50
    Brass Lamp to nathanbedford
    There are actors who were real heroes in World War II like Jimmy Stewart or Lee Marvin and, certainly, Audie Murphy. I would include David Niven. But it is Wayne who is held up as the iconic image of the American who won World War II. Wayne himself, not only his screen portrayals, are held up as the ideal American heroic image or at least the two have become so intertwined in the American mind that they are inseparable.

    And this is part of why I don't like Marion. The other part is that he would insist on top billing in any movie featuring actual heroes. Men of real accomplishment are secure enough in their self-image to exercise restraint and express humility. "Wayne" could appear in a war film featuring men who had bravely fought in the very war depicted and he, a career actor, would always get lead credit. He could have, occasionally, taken a step back and allowed better men to have the limelight. It's a credit to Jimmy Steward's character that he would continue to work with The Duke and just that matter slide. Steward could have absolutely humiliated Marion if he had wanted that guy out of the way.

    Besides that, "Wayne" was a lousy actor. "The Conqueror" is example of his prowess.

  • Obama Surgeon General Wants Doctors to Ask Patients About Guns in Home–Part of Obamacare Database

    03/09/2014 12:09:46 AM PST · 48 of 75
    Brass Lamp to lbryce
    The only way to make them understand what its like to have your name added to an enemies list (which is really what this is) is to list their names as well. FR could keep a current thread open detailing these experiences for future consideration.
  • Why Can’t College Students Write Anymore?

    02/23/2014 8:55:56 AM PST · 186 of 187
    Brass Lamp to rey
    Have you ever seen the article diagramming the second ammendment and explaining its meaning grammatically?

    I've had the pleasure of watching Modern Language Association commies choke on their bile while admitting that the dependent "militia" clause was merely explanatory to, and subordinate to, the fully independent "right of the people" clause.

  • Why Can’t College Students Write Anymore?

    02/23/2014 7:22:48 AM PST · 184 of 187
    Brass Lamp to rey
    Shouldn’t it be anylonger?

    You're correct. "Anymore" is a quantitative continuation whereas 'anylonger' is a temporal continuation. The whole excerpt demonstrates poor writing and composition skills.

    Is it just me, or are student competencies like basic writing skills in serious peril today? Granted, I am about a decade in to my teaching career, but even within this fairly short span, I have noticed a startling decline in the quality of written work turned in by my students, regardless of which institution (community college, private, four year school) the papers are coming from.

    Did a professor just end a sentence with a preposition?! I supposed that professing psychology entitles her to correct language. My corrections in bold:

    "Is it just me, or are student competencies[,] such as ('like' suggests a simile, not a part of the matter itself) basic writing skills, lately imperiled? Granted, I am about a decade into (a single preposition, 'in to' requires a transitive verb) my teaching career, but even within this fairly short span, I have noticed a startling decline in the quality of written work turned in by my students, regardless of institutions (colleges public and private, two and four year schools) (because, in listing related items, a writer should introduce the object class common to all items in the list and differentiate in the progression) from which the submissions issue (because the papers are not 'coming from' colleges, as the sentence dictates, but are rather from students in college).

    It’s not just that students aren’t demonstrating critical thinking skills in their writing, basic competencies like proper syntax, spelling, and even proper structure like paragraph indentation and how to cite sources are being done very poorly. Teachers have been reporting anecdotally that even compared to five years ago, many are seeing declines in vocabulary, grammar, writing, and analysis (e.g. Westin, 2013; Bloomberg News, 2012). Moreover, on an international scale, our standards in literacy is similarly on the decline (McGuire, 2014).

    Not only is the first sentence merely a repetition of the introduction of the first paragraph, but it is, itself, introduced by the repetitive use of "it's just". A good writer will vary their sentence structure. This writer likes "like" so much that one like clause is embedded in another. Perhaps that's how they've come to overpopulate the article. The predicate "are being done very poorly" seems to take "proper structure" as its object, in which case they don't match. Since "Teachers have been reporting" that "many are seeing", I have to wonder if the "many" are teachers or whether teacher know of many who who are seeing this. The comma between "years ago" and "many are" would only make sense if there were also a comma between "ancedotely that" and "even compared" thus isolating the complete thought 'teachers are reporting ancedotely that they are seeing declines in...' from "even compare to five years ago". The author complains about student citation, apparently unaware of the great many citation formats which have currency among the various disciplines, and completely unaware that her own citations are improper.

    There are only so many times you can correct a “their” that is meant to denote “there” before wondering, when was the last time this college student’s writing abilities were actually assessed? As a psychology professor, I am starting to feel like an English instructor, because so much of my feedback on these papers is focusing on such basic writing skills, that the coherency or theoretical merit behind the content is getting lost in the shuffle.

    If "wondering" is supposed to introduce an inner monologue, the expressed thought should be contained in quotes. It should read as either:

    "There are only so many times you can correct a 'their' that is meant to denote 'there' before wondering, 'when was the last time this college student’s writing abilities were actually assessed?'"

    Or

    "There are only so many times you can correct a 'their' that is meant to denote 'there' before wondering when was the last time this college student’s writing abilities were actually assessed."

    "As a psychology professor, I am starting to feel like an English instructor" would only make sense if feeling like an English instructor were part of professing psychology. Perhaps she meant to write "Despite being a psychology professor...". She should try responding to a Psychology Today article through a clunky Free Republic html console.

    In considering her question "why can't college students write anymore?", I would think that the proliferation of worthless psychology degrees, and the consequential overabundance of psychology professors, has a great deal to do with it.b

  • Obama's 'big breakthrough' coming by end of year - Leaked: Official declaration of Palestinian state

    02/18/2014 7:04:19 AM PST · 21 of 50
    Brass Lamp to E. Pluribus Unum
    There is already a “Palestinian” state, and its name is Jordan.

    Correct! Jordan really was supposed to be the final carve-out for this completely invented group of people.

  • Hennessey now selling a 707 hp street-legal Corvette

    02/14/2014 12:24:18 PM PST · 60 of 64
    Brass Lamp to nascarnation

    I was referring to the tail lamp array. The traditional four rounds are gone.

  • Hennessey now selling a 707 hp street-legal Corvette

    02/13/2014 6:49:00 PM PST · 22 of 64
    Brass Lamp to smokingfrog
    But can they put an actual Corvette rear end on these ugly things?
  • Holder: New media guidelines in weeks

    01/30/2014 7:02:20 AM PST · 39 of 49
    Brass Lamp to BenLurkin

    Now, if only the media would respond with its own guidelines for monitoring the Justice Department.

  • Ruth: Slavery's reality contradicts Sons of Confederate Veterans, Civil War revisionists

    01/25/2014 1:25:03 PM PST · 130 of 207
    Brass Lamp to Brass Lamp

    I should have also pointed out that, if the axe-grinders were really all that interested in the subject of joint ownership of slaves, they could also look into the very real issue of corporate ownership which was, unlike “family ownership” a genuine legal object of study. They probably won’t like where it leads, though.

  • Ruth: Slavery's reality contradicts Sons of Confederate Veterans, Civil War revisionists

    01/25/2014 1:16:49 PM PST · 129 of 207
    Brass Lamp to BroJoeK
    These numbers are based on average family sizes of only four members = husband (owner), wife and two children -- clearly an overly restricted estimate of Southern families.

    It's a nonsense term, linguistically, which refers to more acts of enslavement (as an grammatical transitive verb issuing from a subject) than incidents of enslavement (as a transitive verb directed toward a grammatical object). It's also a nonsense unit of measure from a method which detaches the performance of the act from the occurrence of the same act and which, mathematically, is not even a function of the number of people being held in slavery, as demonstrated by the fact that it creates varying numbers of slavers while the slaves remain the same in numbers and situation. The "slave-owning family" is a useless gauge of measure which is only being used to conflate the participation rate to some more desirable figure.

    If I really had it out for Washington state residents and wanted to shame them with their depravity, I could cheaply quadruple the frequency of cannibalism by denouncing them in terms of "cannibal bridge clubs".

  • Ruth: Slavery's reality contradicts Sons of Confederate Veterans, Civil War revisionists

    01/24/2014 10:23:32 AM PST · 50 of 207
    Brass Lamp to Sherman Logan
    Not really accurate. Here's a link to the percentage of slaveowning families in southern states per the 1860 census. MS was 49% and SC 46%.

    What you have is a link to a knuggle-dragger's best groping, pawing attempt to seize upon statistical data cloaked behind the impenetrable veil of basic illiteracy. The information is supposedly extracted from census records, but the problems are; one, there is no such thing as familial slave ownership (as evidenced by probate and inheritance records in which slaves are treated in the same fashion as the usual sort of individual property) and no such thing as a "slave-owning family" to be counted; two, it was not the purpose of the census to ascertain who owned whom but rather, for the purpose of proportioning representation, to determine how many whites (counted as a whole person) and blacks (counted as three-fifths a person) resided at an address; three, the census was not conducted on a family-to-family basis, but rather door-to-door.

    According to the author of the cited material, a collection of white tenant farmers, if they happen, according to the arrangement of their landlord, to cohabitate and having been surveyed by census-taker, not only have all been drafted into a family unit, but have all become the joint owners of any blacks their employer may have quartered among them. I would suppose that this misinterpretation of raw data was deliberate, if I were generous enough to credit the writer for having sufficient intelligence to construct a purposeful deception.

    By the way, the UVA database referenced by the cited website actually gives the free population of Mississippi in 1860 as 354,674, and the number of slave-owners as 30,943, which would support a claim that nearly 9% of the free population held slaves. For South Carolina, it's 301,302 to 26,701 for just about 9%, again.

  • GOP to alter rules for presidential nominating process, early-voting states protected

    01/23/2014 10:54:04 AM PST · 33 of 77
    Brass Lamp to Cincinatus' Wife
    Tougher penalties for states violating the GOP's primary plan. States with 30 or more delegates, like Florida, would be allowed to send only nine of those delegates -- and any RNC members in the state -- to the nominating convention. Any state with 29 or fewer delegates would be allowed to send only six delegates plus RNC members. The reduction in convention delegates would seriously reduce the influence those states would otherwise hold in the nominating process.

    That's right. They just continue to punish the very states upon whose patronage they depend. Gotta protect all those precious little irrelevant eggshells in Iowa, you know, because they've been doing such a great job selecting our candidates for us.

  • Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

    01/20/2014 5:12:21 AM PST · 133 of 166
    Brass Lamp to Brass Lamp
    as claim Arthur

    should be "claiming"

  • Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

    01/20/2014 5:10:52 AM PST · 132 of 166
    Brass Lamp to oh8eleven
    Claiming that Lee betrayed American because he fought yankees makes about as much sense as claim Arthur betrayed Britain when he fought Saxons.
  • Judge, Citing Extreme Facts, Tosses Arrest of NYC Professor

    01/18/2014 9:57:37 AM PST · 65 of 114
    Brass Lamp to null and void
    If the department’s retirement fund had to pay them, the whole department might be inclined to make sure Officer O’Roidrage worked elsewhere

    I like your idea better.

  • EyeOn College Basketball UNC stops research of academic whistleblower Mary Willingham

    01/18/2014 9:33:14 AM PST · 20 of 24
    Brass Lamp to Uncle Chip
    Can we expect the NCAA to suspend UNC for this cover-up???

    Only if you're expecting integrity from the very corruptive influence that is ruining American education.

  • Judge, Citing Extreme Facts, Tosses Arrest of NYC Professor

    01/18/2014 9:27:53 AM PST · 59 of 114
    Brass Lamp to Behind Liberal Lines

    This sort of thing would end if all training academies had to have certification which judges could pull.

  • The "New" John Birch Society

    01/13/2014 4:59:29 PM PST · 131 of 163
    Brass Lamp to searching123
    Lastly, I am the first and only person in our country who obtained the entire FBI HQ main file

    How, exactly, do you know that you are the "first and only"?

  • Angry Female Alabama Fan Jumps an OU Student in the Sugar Bowl Stands (VIDEO: Hell Hath No Fury)

    01/04/2014 7:49:56 AM PST · 45 of 92
    Brass Lamp to Mount Athos
    I am, unfortunately, quite familiar with that class of people who attend OU games. If you've never seen them before, you'd never believe that Americans could act somehow worse than English soccer hooligans. Sooner fans are absolutely the lowest sort of low character. I'll take just about anyone’s side against those people and I'm sure she was more than fully justified in beating up that crowd from the lower Midwest.
  • Lincoln's Tariff War

    12/30/2013 6:45:11 PM PST · 11 of 84
    Brass Lamp to cicero2k

    Well, but could you, in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the citation, locate the original Denny’s place-mat from which BOR sourced the information?

  • Temple Mount Activist: Only the People Can Stop Desecration

    12/25/2013 4:39:39 AM PST · 5 of 9
    Brass Lamp to reg45
    What further proof would the world need to understand that the muslim mind is deranged by powerful cognitive dissonance. There is a whole engineering corps dedicated to the industrial-scale destruction of something the existence of which they, themselves, deny. They necessarily handle materials which absolutely disprove their religious world view. Yet they neither repent or convert.

    Islam is a damnation.

  • Cancer Patient Forced To Remove Hat at Nashville Restaurant

    12/17/2013 8:17:04 AM PST · 68 of 282
    Brass Lamp to ontap
    I am ashamed for you that you would so quickly take the low road and resort to insults

    He was trying to show you what sort of person he wants to be, but unintentionally demonstrated what sort he really is. That is the hazard of pretense.

  • Interactive Graphic: The Story of Every Pope In History, From Saint Peter To Pope Francis

    12/16/2013 6:17:19 AM PST · 119 of 140
    Brass Lamp to NotTallTex

    Do you believe that accepting Peter as the initial official authority is a necessary condition for receiving the grace of forgiveness? Will denying the primacy of Peter condemn an sinner? I invite any professing Catholic to answer because I’ve never, in my life, gotten anyone to answer these questions.

  • EXPLAINED: Why Texas will Secede from Union

    12/12/2013 10:56:31 AM PST · 220 of 269
    Brass Lamp to zeugma
    Is this it?

    Correct. It wasn't the Court's purpose to decide the legality of secession, as that was not the issue at hand, and the majority did not entertain any argument that it should not be legal. It just proceeded from the a priori assumption that the wartime government of Texas was illegal while deciding the disposition of the bonds in question. Chase, himself, just made blunt and unsupported claims about Texas' "indissoluble" membership.

    Chiles (appearing with White) argued that the then-current State of Texas was trying to forward a legal paradox by claiming itself, for the purpose of nullifying the sale of bonds, to have been invalidated whilst at the same time also claiming to be a valid complainant party for the purpose of establishing standing.

    In order to preserve his desired outcome, Chase had to concoct that argument that the legal term "state" was a vagary which could refer to any combination of three things: the territory in which a legal state resides, the people who compose a the political body of a legal state, or the legal institution of a state's government. Chase separated these three things and addressed only the subject of the legality of the seceded government.

    By claiming that the seceding government had exited all legal reality while leaving all corporeal and terrestrial matter behind (in a weird, twisted, backwards rapture), Chase presented a sort of "Goldilocks" zone within which the US could have legally conducted otherwise unconstitutional measures within its constitutional domain, or constitutional measures beyond its constitutional domain, or, basically, just whatever.

    Chiles had argued that it was an either/or legal dilemma; that either Texas had been in (and the bond sale was legit), or that Texas had been out and then conquered (and therefore not recognizable). Chase found a third way that doesn't really precisely address popular secession or the removal of territories by arguing that, it this particular case, the people and the land of Texas just happened to still be within the United States because the seceding government had delegitimized itself, voiding the ordinance of secession. This allowed him to rule against the party actually claiming that secession was illegal while preserving an outcome which depended upon it being so.

    The Supreme Court did not FIND secession to be illegal, it derived a conclusion from the prior assumption that it just WAS.

  • EXPLAINED: Why Texas will Secede from Union

    12/11/2013 7:05:22 PM PST · 68 of 269
    Brass Lamp to donmeaker
    Why don't you be the first anti-secessionist in the history of Free Republic to actually read Texas v. White instead just stupidly parroting a psuedo-fact originally started by a forum creep who was exiled years ago.
  • DOJ Warns Anti-Muslim Comments on Social Media Can Be Considered Felony

    12/05/2013 11:35:52 AM PST · 90 of 103
    Brass Lamp to RaceBannon
    Here's an opportune reminder: Muhammed was a thief, murderer, rapist, pedophile, and ravenous homosexual who founded the world's most backward, jackass religion. That is all.
  • Lee County Sheriff: Knockout game attacks happening in SWFL

    11/27/2013 3:34:41 PM PST · 18 of 23
    Brass Lamp to 2ndDivisionVet

    Where is SW Florida? The Gulf?

  • The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 with Scripture Proofs [2 of 34]

    11/07/2013 6:04:26 PM PST · 15 of 27
    Brass Lamp to one Lord one faith one baptism
    i think you have an incorrect assumption about my “denominational stripe”

    Oh, no. I nailed it.

    i absolutely REJECT the 16th century doctrinal innovations that were introduced, 1500 years after the Resurrection and Ascension.

    Do you reject all innovations after the foundation? If not, then under what criteria do you accept them? Do you think them essential and necessary? Do you deny the Christianity of those you reject late innovation?

    examples of such 16TH century tradition of men which must be rejected would include sola scriptura...

    Ah, the very innovative notion of, uh, non-innovation. very innovative, that non-innovation.

    ...sola fide...

    I have more hope for those faithful who are also powerless.

    ...baptism as a meaningless ceremony...

    Meaning is found in intention. "To mean" is "to intend", which is why someone will say they "meant" do that which they intended to do. Infants intend nothing. An understanding adherent demonstrates his intentions and can explain what the "meaning" is.

    ...the 66 book Bible...

    Because, apparently, the composition of scripture is important when denying its authority.

    ...and rejection of Apostolic Succession...

    Most denominations do not deny Apostolic Succession.

    i also would reject anyone who would claim the first generation Church was “insufficient”, just as i reject anyone who would claim the Church was insufficient in the 2nd century, 5th century, 11th century, 16th century or 20th century.

    Well, if the first generation church was sufficient, then I could safely lose the updates. That which is more than sufficient is superfluous while also remaining sufficient. I don't deny the Christianity of those who believe in a continuing revelation, even when they deny mine.

    Just imagine, though, the terror of a time-lost Christian of the first century, being deeply committed to the beliefs indoctrinated by the Apostles themselves, lying on his deathbed and awaiting ascension, who finds himself suddenly transported to a later century to find that there is a new sufficient doctrine which he must embrace before his imminent demise.

    as the Holy Spirit tells us thru Paul in Ephesians 3:21 “to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus TO ALL GENERATIONS, for ever and ever Amen.”

    I think that, if pressed, you would display a slidey usage of "church".

    this passage tells us the true Church will be here in all generations, which would mean those that teach there was an apostasy and the church needed to be “restored” ( i.e. Joseph Smith )must be rejected.

    Can we agree that all these violent and promiscuous "prophets" are committing the sin of adding to the scriptures?

  • The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 with Scripture Proofs [2 of 34]

    11/07/2013 3:52:44 PM PST · 11 of 27
    Brass Lamp to one Lord one faith one baptism
    are you saying that God revealed truth outside of the written Scriptures? if yes, you deserve a prize!

    Why don't you be the first poster of your denominational stripe in the history of FR to give an example of late doctrinal innovation, explaining just how you know it to be truly and correctly inspired. To actually make the point that your people try to approach through suggestion alone (the insufficiency of the first generation church), you would have to defend a doctrine invented well after the Resurrection and Ascension. Official rubber stamping will not be recognized.

  • Gun Talk Radio 10/27/13

    10/27/2013 5:12:14 PM PDT · 2 of 53
    Brass Lamp to mylife
    Two mind-blowing stupid things I heard claimed by Gresham today:

    #1 If you use a laser, you have to adjust it so that you don't see it when looking down your gun in a firefight -- it will distract you from the iron sights!

    #2 The mini-14 is a really accurate rifle!

    I'm sure I would have heard other, stupider claims but there is only so much of this ass I can stomach.

  • The Republican Party's Dead: Racist rhetoric since Obama took office & everyone's taking notice

    10/19/2013 11:36:17 AM PDT · 83 of 104
    Brass Lamp to 2ndDivisionVet

    The fix for this is to criminalize clearly false and harmful slanders of racism.

  • Shocking moment woman shoved face-first into a concrete jail cell bench by cop (Warning: Graphic)

    10/12/2013 6:16:55 PM PDT · 37 of 62
    Brass Lamp to servo1969
    This sort of thing will continue until the courts start tapping departmental pension funds before passing the balance of liability costs over to the taxpayer. The police will “self-police”.
  • DA won’t charge bike assault thugs

    10/03/2013 8:42:12 AM PDT · 208 of 224
    Brass Lamp to FreeAtlanta

    A NY Post forum poster called them “The Sons of Obama”. Perfect!

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/21/2013 12:48:02 PM PDT · 304 of 345
    Brass Lamp to BroJoeK
    In fact, our Founders never used words like "secession", "withdrawal" or "disunion" in relation to their status as colonies of the British Empire.

    I'll take it as a settled matter that you believe that the appearance of the word "secession" itself is a necessary component of the action. You can't really claim otherwise when you attempt to prove that a separation event is not secession because you don't see the word.

    The reason is obvious: because those words only apply in cases of voluntary political (or otherwise) units such as the new American constitutional republic.

    I think it's funny that you claim it's "obvious" that the secession label is misapplied because that usage varies from a definition of the term you just made up. I'll take this, too, as one your criteria for determining true secession.

    For Founders, the word "independence" itself necessarily implied Revolutionary War, but in 1776 there was nothing theoretical about it -- war was already upon them, long before they even considered declaring independence.

    There is nothing about the appearance of the word "independence" which implies war. Every English-speaking member of the Commonwealth of Nations has had its independence recognized without war with Britain. But let the record show that BroJoeK also considers the absence of the precondition of war to be yet another defining point of secession.

    Indeed, for our Founders, their Declaration of Independence was a response to the war already being waged on them by the British Empire. So I'll say it again: in 1776 the Declaration of Independence did not create something new -- independence -- but simply formally acknowledged what had already happened as a result of Britain's war on its American colonies.

    And here is proof positive that you can be backed into any position, no matter how ridiculous, because there is nothing you would not claim if you thought it suited to your purpose.

    The signers were actively declaring their independence, not passively receiving it as aggrieved victims. The document clearly begins with the position that they who would sever a political union with others are obligated to state their cause for separation. The document then proceeds to give a litany of colonial complaints, which pretty much identifies them as the separatists, and then concludes with the very act itself being executed in record by self-identified signatories ("We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America"). They were certainly not claiming that they just found themselves in the condition of independence, having been left there by the British. They weren't claiming that the abuses of the Crown created independence circumstantially, they were claiming that they were "impelled" by the abuses "to dissolve the political bands" themselves.

    By stark contrast, in 1860 there was no "war" on the Slave-Power, no breaches of constitutional contract, no "oppressions" or "usurpations" by the Federal government. Therefore, the Slave-Powers' Declarations of Secession (not "Independence") were strictly "at pleasure", and therefore not according to our Founders Original Intent.

    I note that you require more preconditions before recognizing a true secession. You now also require an absence of oppressions or usurpation, meaning, apparently, that seceding parties had better not have any real reason to secede or else, according to your ever-changing definition, it ceases to be secession at all.

    In fact, you are playing "word games", hoping to equate the 1776 Declaration of Independence with 1860-1 Declarations of Secession. Aside from the fact that both intended to announce political separations, they are quite different.

    Secession is the act which produces independence just as stepping produces a footfall. Besides, my argument this whole time was that an act of "secession" could also be an act of "rebellion".

    Brass Lamp: "Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit." BroJoeK: But never correctly used to refer to colonies seeking independence from their imperial masters.

    And here is another refinement for your mutable definition of secession. It must now also exclude colonial and imperial parties. This definition is looking less natural or "obvious" by the second.

    Actually, one of our slave-holding Founders, to his eternal credit, tried to condemn slavery in the Declaration of Independence. Yes, Jefferson's efforts were overruled by others, but he at least understood that slavery was morally wicked, and should be gradually abolished. So did other slave-holders of that generation, including George Washington.

    And you can't deny that had Washington and Jefferson somehow lived to see the 1860s, you would have to call them members of the "Slave Power" for no other reason than that it suites your purpose to call them so at that time in history. If I push you into a discussion of THAT term, you'll likely slide around as freely as you do in trying to define secession.

    Why would you claim that the existence of unrepresentative governments is somehow a matter of debate, rather than a statement of fact?

    I am the one who stated their existence as a matter of fact and I was incredulous that 0.E.O would debate the matter by asking for examples. This is recorded in the body this thread, so you're not going to get away with some verbal sleight-of-hand in suggesting that I thought it debatable at all.

    Your dispute with O.E.O. is not over the existence of unrepresentative governments, but whether such governments can be called "political unions" from which one might "secede" -- for example, the American colonies then subject to the British Empire.

    Another nip and tuck in tailoring a designer definition of secession (can now only secede from representative governments)...another game of word-find since TJ wrote "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", and not "dissolve the political union"...and another slippery definition for a previously understood word if "political bands which have connected them with another" isn't very meaning of the word "union".

    In normal American usage, the word "union" implies a voluntary representative organization, which the British Empire was certainly not really ever, and by 1776 becoming ever less so.

    The premise of this statement is that how Americans supposedly feel about a word informs its real meaning, but I reject both that premise and the claim about normal usage. Americans never expressed any skepticism about the use of the word "union" when referring to either labor unions or the Soviet Union, even when acknowledging that both feature forced membership. The "union" part wasn't and isn't really challenged because there is such a thing as forced union.

    Deny that what happened? The full "reentry" of former Confederate states into normal political processes took some time. So what?

    The historical facts simply are what they are, and if you wish to claim that former Confederate states took some years before electing their own representatives and other government officials, that in fact is what happened. So what?

    The significance of it is that this was an example of forced union. That's what so. It unexpectedly lead to the following logical syllogism:

    If "Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate";

    And if "such government" = "political union without representation";

    And if you admit that "political union without representation" = "The Union" (by way of apologetics);

    Then a simple substitution of terms produces: "Americans have never considered [The Union] as entirely legitimate". Unless that is how you want that line of argument to conclude, you do have a problem with your argument.

    Sorry, but as long as words have real meanings, you will never get to redefine this one to suit your pro-Confederate secessionist agenda, FRiend.

    Words have real meanings which exist beyond us and our (mis)usage in an unassailable fortress of truth in some principle plane of ideal existence (I'm just little Scholastic Realist). But let's have a look at how you've defined one word, "secession", through the course of this thread.

    According to you, secession is (conditions counted): The separation of one party from a voluntary union (1), within a representative government(2), excepting those involuntary unions in which non-consenting parties may be eventually enfranchised (3), in which there is no war (4), no oppression (5), no usurpation or any other reason to seek separation (6), to create a wholly new entity (7), unless the new entity was formerly a colony (8), and unless the former union included an imperial power (9), in which the seceding party must actually use the word "secession" (10) to describe its departure from the union it shared with the remaining party which, itself, must be called "union" (11).

    I accused rockrr of concocting a definition out of whole cloth. You, however, have created a patchwork with which to clothe your naked emperor (to continue the metaphor).

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/20/2013 12:30:33 PM PDT · 250 of 345
    Brass Lamp to BroJoeK
    Remember this: our Founders in 1776 declared neither secession nor rebellion.

    What they declared was a course of action which constituted a secession from a larger political realm. Because the Crown forbade this, they were rebelling against the authority of the larger political unit.

    Instead, they declared their "United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States." Free from British imperial military rule, Independent of oppressive British laws. The word "secession" was not used, because it did not apply.

    It isn't a game of word-find. This is the same little game 0.E.O tried to play in the football thread, in which he demanded that the word "explicit" appear to demonstrate explicit language. Secession is just the withdrawl and separation of a component of a larger political unit. The very clause, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved" is secession boldly written. Claiming that it doesn't describe the act of secession is like claiming that a gruesomely detailed murder confession just ain't so because the perpetrator didn't use the word "homicide" when narrating his latest ax killing.

    By stark contrast, in 1861, Slave Power secessionists both started war (at Fort Sumter) and formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).

    Well now your trying what rockrr tried earlier, employing a double-standard in condemnation of slavery. Slave-holding Virginians in 1776 are "Founders", casting off the shackles of British tyranny. Slave-holding Virginians in 1860 are the "Slave Power". The institution had hardly changed at all. Maybe you just feel differently about them, for some reason unrelated to the plight of the enslaved.

    Brass Lamp: "most people in this world today are in some political union without representation."

    BroJoeK: Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate.

    Firstly, I thank you for admitting that they exist, legitimacy not withstanding, as that was the point.

    Secondly, the issue of their legitimacy is not withstanding because "legitimacy" is a matter of manifesting something in law and the word is used to mean that something is given legal existence. A despotic government is quite a bit more likely to give itself legal sanction and less likely to critically review its own actions in court. Corrupt governments tend to grant themselves legitimacy as a matter of coarse. Maybe you meant that they should be seen as invalid on philosophical grounds.

    Thirdly, you IMMEDIATELY followed that line with:

    BroJoeK: States which had previously been in rebellion against the United States were required to meet certain standards (i.e., slavery abolished) before being fully readmitted after the war.

    Apologia is confession. When you explain why a thing is done, you admit that a thing was done. In attempting to justify the non-consensual inclusion of a political section into a larger unit, you've merely forfeited the ability to deny that it happened.

    When compared to the claim "Americans have never considered such governments as entirely legitimate" -- the such being "political union without representation", the sort of which you just admitted (by way of justification) the Union to have been -- it can be see that you have a problem with your argument. Surely, you don't mean to allow it conclude with a general American condemnation of the United States.

    Finally,

    ...your arrogant and condescending comments...

    ...about binary thinking and poor reading comprehension referred to a line in post #142 in which I was challenged to determine whether 'rebellion' and 'secession' were synonymous terms simply because I denied that were exclusive. That false dilemma demonstrated some pretty rigid thinking. It also seemingly ignored the point of the previous post. So I dinged him on those two counts.

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/18/2013 7:53:08 PM PDT · 159 of 345
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?

    If they were, in fact, one and the same, then your (and rockrr's) need for subjects to have only one describable attribute would finally be satisfied. Alas, the world is just complicated enough to allow things to be multifaceted. The difference between the two is that it is possible to be in rebellion against an authority about matters other than secession. The difference between the colonies rebelling AND seceding and the colonies JUST rebelling is that the first case potentially produces a group of independent states while leaving the authority of the crown unchallenged within its own shrunken dominion, whereas the second case has no potential for separation and challenges the power of the king throughout his realm.

    Compare King John's baronial rebellion, which forced him to sign Magna Charta in 1215, to Robert the Bruce's war for a separate Sottish kingdom a century later. They were both rebellions against the English Crown, but only one sought separation from it.

    It is with some humor that I note that the original full text to which you were responding above accused you of binary thinking, and that your immediate return was to demand that I answer a yes/no question.

    The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.

    Examples please?

    Really? I am going to have to ask whether you don't accept Tibet as an example because you truly believe they are represented in the Chinese government, or because you don't believe that the Chinese are running Tibet? But since the original statement was about separating from a unrepresentative government of late Eighteenth Century, I'm going ask if you think contemporary Blacks were represented within their political unit? Proceed to squirm.

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/18/2013 7:52:55 PM PDT · 158 of 345
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    But are they synonymous, yes or no? If not, what is the difference?

    If they were, in fact, one and the same, then your (and rockrr's) need for subjects to have only one describable attribute would finally be satisfied. Alas, the world is just complicated enough to allow things to be multifaceted. The difference between the two is that it is possible to be in rebellion against an authority about matters other than secession. The difference between the colonies rebelling AND seceding and the colonies JUST rebelling is that the first case potentially produces a group of independent states while leaving the authority of the crown unchallenged within its own shrunken dominion, whereas the second case has no potential for separation and challenges the power of the king throughout his realm.

    Compare King John's baronial rebellion, which forced him to sign Magna Charta in 1215, to Robert the Bruce's war for a separate Sottish kingdom a century later. They were both rebellions against the English Crown, but only one sought separation from it.

    It is with some humor that I note that the original full text to which you were responding above accused you of binary thinking, and that your immediate return was to demand that I answer a yes/no question.

    The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation.

    Examples please?

    Really? I am going to have to ask whether you don't accept Tibet as an example because you truly believe they are represented in the Chinese government, or because you don't believe that the Chinese are running Tibet? But since the original statement was about separating from a unrepresentative government of late Eighteenth Century, I'm going ask if you think contemporary Blacks were represented within their political unit? Proceed to squirm.

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/18/2013 5:41:43 PM PDT · 152 of 345
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    Are you saying that the two are synonymous?

    The above question being evidence of an unfortunate combination of binary thinking and poor reading comprehension, it falls to me to point out that secession and rebellion are obviously not mutually exclusive. Imagine, if you can, that there was once a controlling authority which did not sanction withdrawl from its influence. In fact, it expressly forbade it! To secede in spite of a directive to not do so would be, necessarily, an act of rebellion against the issuing authority.

    How could the colonies have been in a 'political union' with the Crown when they were denied any representation in the legislative body?

    The same way most people in this world today are in some political union without representation. The same way the conquered states were forced back into a political union actually called "The Union" during reconstruction without representation. The history of the world beyond your echo chamber is full of examples of non-represenative governments controlling people.

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/18/2013 8:34:11 AM PDT · 121 of 345
    Brass Lamp to admin

    Screwy forum...been trying to post for an hour now.

  • History of Liberty: Judge Napalitano on the Civil War and the Gilded Age

    08/18/2013 8:32:36 AM PDT · 120 of 345
    Brass Lamp to rockrr
    Good questions. Let's start with the last one first. I think that a lot of folks are emotionally invested in the War Between The States.

    Well, that would explain rockrr's posting history.

    Personally I don't understand how they can be so wrapped up by events that ended 150 years ago, but I accept that there are those who are.

    Good! Accepting that there is a problem is really the first step on the path to recovery. Don't try to rush understanding. The breakthroughs will just come when you are really good and ready.

    The Revolution was secession from England. No it wasn't.

    Partial credit: The Revolution resulted in secession from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, as so named in the 1707 Acts of Union. I predict that you will, in short order, inform us that "Union" and "United..." somehow don't count, in this particular case.

    The Revolutionary War was a rebellion against the British crown.

    You see, HMS Surprise, this fellow has a problem common among leftists; his worldview is so simplistic that he believes that things can only posses one quality at a time. Because of this, he thinks that any attribute assigned to an object of study disproves all remaining properties. Observe: 'the soup is hot, and so cannot also be salty', 'the dog is tired, and so cannot also be shaggy', 'the shoes are matched, and so cannot also be leathern', 'the Revolutionary War was a rebellion, and so cannot also have been an act of secession'. See how it works?

    The colonials tried for years to make their case for a representational seat at the table and were subjected to true acts of subjugation and tyranny for their efforts. When the Brits attempted to impose the tea tax shipments of tea sat unloaded, rotting at the piers and on the ships because Americans refused to accept the cargo with its poison pill. When the Boston Tea Party occurred the Brits responded by quarantining the harbor. When Americans responded by smuggling supplies into Boston the Brits sent out scouting parties to intercept and arrest them. Then the Brits advanced on Lexington to disarm the colonials. We know what happened next.

    They declared their intent to secede from the political union which bound them to the Crown based, not on any legal right recognized within the applicable courts, but rather, on the natural right of self-determination from which all developed political power (theoretically) flows.

    By contrast the southern slavers agitated a violent separation from the union thinly wrapped in the pretense of a secession.

    So, the arguement is that the Revolution was not an act of secession because it is dislike the Civil War which, according to you, was also not an act of secession.

    The orthodox definition of secession is the formal separation from an alliance or federation.

    I'm pretty sure that is a definition you just spun out of whole cloth and tailored to suit your purpose. "Secession" is just a latinate word for 'withdrawl'.

    But that is not how the slavers proceeded. Unlike the colonials, the slavers didn't avail themselves of their constitutional right (and duty) of redress. They didn't take their grievances to congress or the Supreme Court. Instead they turned their back on the United States Constitution and rebelled against their own country.

    Note well, HMS Surprise, the ridiculous double standard rockrr employs here. It is his usual method. The "slavers" are called such because they maintained the SAME slavery practiced by their colonial ancestors. Besides, to be both 'slave holder' and 'colonist' at the same time would violate the rule-of-singular-quality described above.

    They used the circumstance of the election of Lincoln to begin their insurrection. They began to steal everything and anything that wasn't nailed down and seizing territories - and states - in the name of their confederacy. They openly and defiantly declared their separation and dared the unionists to stop them. And they made war against their neighbors and erstwhile allies. They incited and perpetuated a war that literally tore our country apart.

    Finally, he caps his proof of dissimilarity with a list of things common to both. The harder he tries, the harder he fails.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/15/2013 9:31:45 AM PDT · 159 of 167
    Brass Lamp to Brass Lamp
    "you even used the word "specific" incorrectly in describe the very non-specific language"

    And I just mispelled 'describing'. in the above.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/15/2013 9:29:55 AM PDT · 158 of 167
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    Show me were either amendment says that only powers explicitly delegated to the United States exist and I may agree with you. Show me where the word 'explicitly' or any of its synonyms appears in the Constitution anywhere and you might have a case.

    AND

    The Tenth Amendment is pretty specific in saying all powers not reserved to the United States or denied to the states are reserved to them. But again nowhere does the Constitution say that only explicit powers are reserved to the United States. That doesn't mean that it's an open book. Powers that are implied are identified through a fair reading of the Constitution. For example, the Constitution explicitly authorizes an army and a navy. Under your interpretation the U.S. Air Force is an unconstitutional organization since it is not explicitly authorized. But the Constitution also says that it's the duty of the United States to provide for the common defense so implied in that is the power to create additional armed forces if the need arises. Cabinet posts are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution but the President has the power to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, public ministers and counsels so implied in that is the power to create a Secretary of State or a Department of the Interior. Yet according to you since they are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution then they are illegal as well.

    Firstly, it is not the appearance of the word "explicit" within a statement which makes for explicit language. 'Explicit' is a word used to describe a statement. Embedding the word itself in the body of a sentence in an effort to convey a sense of exactness comes across, stylistically, much like saying "I'm being really emphatic, right now" in an attempt to impress someone with a sense of seriousness. Most genuinely explicit statements will not contain the word itself, unless the author is engaged in some sort of strange self-commentary.

    Secondly, I don't really know why the members of your hive mind have chosen that one particular word to be the magic word of power which, once inserted into a string of text, enables all the other, lesser words to finally come into effect and fulfill their grammatical destinies. I wonder if you'd also accept "exclusively", "absolutely", "wholly", "gosh-darn it, I really, really mean this", and "I'm being really emphatic, right now".

    Thirdly, you employ a double-standard in determining the validity of a statement with regard to explicitness in consideration of the subject. You not only require more explicit language in proposing state powers, you even want the inclusion of the word "explicit" to certify the author's intent. But federal powers...not so much.

    Fourthly, you employ a double-standard in determining the validity of a non-statment with regard to implicitness in consideration of the subject. You not only require less explicit language in proposing federal powers, you accept the absence of "explicit" denials as certification of the author's intent. But state powers...not so much.

    Fifthly, you even used the word "specific" incorrectly in describe the very non-specific language of the Tenth Amendment.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 6:15:48 PM PDT · 145 of 167
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    It's implied. Permission is needed for every other change in status. Leaving entirely as well.

    For one, "No, it's not."

    For another, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments logically disallow implied federal powers.

    I challenge you to show me where it says only powers explicitly stated in the Constitution are reserved to the United States.

    Show us an example of any power reserved to a state under the Tenth amendment which is also "explicitly" given. You won't be able to do it, because the Tenth doesn't list any specific powers. Instead, it requires that a power be explicitly withheld from a state in order to reserve it the central government.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 6:05:42 PM PDT · 144 of 167
    Brass Lamp to donmeaker
    Alas, they often didn’t always limit their enforcement to that which would be permitted by an impartial government official. Private owners would arrange private rapes, private whippings, and pay private parties to pursue excaped slaves, and make private sales of ‘recovered persons’, even when the person recovered had never been a slave.

    So, your strong feelings for government leave you with only the private sector to blame?

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 5:46:40 PM PDT · 142 of 167
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    Can you elaborate on this a little more?

    It was a "third way" line of practical political thinking which arouse to handle the complexities of dealing with all the conflicting legal claims which resulted from secession. It basically dealt with seceding states the way Schroedinger handled cats. It just held that the legal identities enjoyed by states within the Union disappeared when they passed beyond constitutional jurisdiction, making the issue of their sovereignty a legally moot point.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 5:32:30 PM PDT · 141 of 167
    Brass Lamp to 0.E.O
    The power to admit a state to the Union and to approve any change in its status once admitted is a power reserved to the United States. That includes leaving the Union altogether.

    No, it doesn't because there is no language in the constitution which includes it. That's how the constitution works. I challenge you to quote the passage which includes this, unless all you have is an emanation from the penumbra of a power actually included in the language of the document.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 5:15:17 PM PDT · 139 of 167
    Brass Lamp to donmeaker
    And the states are required to resolve controversy per Article III as has been pointed out many times. Which is why Texas v. White found that secession as attempted by the insurrection of 1860-1865 was invalid with no legal effect.

    There is no definition of secession which would leave a departing state under the jurisdiction of the federal courts, so reviewing secession in the courts is a legal impossibility. Besides, it wasn't the seceding states which failed to drag themselves before the court. It would be the burden of contesting parties to make own their case against secession. Parties do not take themselves to court to check the permissibility of law.

    In Texas vs. White, the court ruled according to the "states suicide" theory, which does NOT actually hold that secession is illegal, but rather that there is no legal reality either way regarding the continued sovereign existence of a state outside the legal framework within which the court operates which the court, itself, must recognize within its own jurisdiction. The side that argued against the legality of secession actually LOST that case. I've enjoyed watching the other side guzzle that poisoned kool-aid for a long time, apparently believing it to be some cure-all remedy for every argumentative wound they receive.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 4:40:04 PM PDT · 135 of 167
    Brass Lamp to rockrr
    I’m sorry to hear that you believe your ignorance unconquerable - I hold hope that reason will prevail and you come to accept the truth

    It's not a shouting match. The language of the constitution itself proves you wrong and there is nothing you can do about it. You guys can claim that Amendments IX and X don't exist or that they don't say what they quite plainly do, but you are utterly impotent against immutable truth. Everyone can reference the constitution and clearly see that you are lying about what it says.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 2:57:08 PM PDT · 131 of 167
    Brass Lamp to rockrr
    You know as well as I do that the US Constitution is silent on the specific act of secession. That alone neither makes it illegal nor does it allow it.

    Whether silence infers denial depends on which government is in question. The central government is only allowed to exercise powers transferred to it by the constitution. According to the Tenth Amendment, however, a state is allowed to do anything not denied to it by the constitution.

    This has been pointed out MANY times on this forum and the necessity of continually repeating it in response to the posting of unconquerable ignorance is the reason why these threads never get anywhere.

  • Football, Confederate flag and The Band Played Dixie

    08/14/2013 2:14:53 PM PDT · 130 of 167
    Brass Lamp to donmeaker
    With nonconsentual compliance enforced by.....

    While the proximity of enforcement was determined by the scope and degree of a supposed infraction, slave-owners ultimately relied upon whichever scale of government was applicable. The wider the scope of government, the wider the net from which people non-consenting folk must escape to evade forced participation. Can we agree that forcing the non-consenting to participate is the essence of slavery?