Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $81,858
93%  
Woo hoo!! And now over 93%!! Less than $6.2k to go!! Let's git 'er done. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Brass Lamp

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • How Amazon's growth causes retailers to close stores

    05/09/2016 5:27:17 AM PDT · 76 of 88
    Brass Lamp to FrankR; hadit2here
    The reason I have turned to on-line shopping more recently is so that I don't have to mix with all the unemployed (usually old) white trash who tend to berate the working staff for services for which they will not pay and to which they are not entitled.
  • Texas governor calls for constitutional convention

    01/08/2016 9:59:08 PM PST · 17 of 44
    Brass Lamp to E. Pluribus Unum
    A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution.

    Which is, of course, why we continue to operate under the Articles of Confederation to this very day!

  • Lee Circle no more: New Orleans to remove 4 Confederate statues

    12/18/2015 8:57:29 AM PST · 74 of 97
    Brass Lamp to jmacusa
    Educate yourself. Communism didn’t exist in 1861.

    Hilarious conjunction of sentences given that Marx had written the Communist Manifesto in 1848 and there were "48er" communist revolutionaries receiving high appointment in Lincoln's army.

    If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery? And if the South had won we certainly would not be The United States of America. We’d look like some Balkanized mish-mash, if we had survived that long. Would you be happy with that outcome?

    Brass Lamp's Second Rule of arguing with Yankees: All pro-union arguments eventually reference fantastic alternative time lines.

  • Top 10 engines of all time

    10/02/2015 5:51:11 AM PDT · 46 of 102
    Brass Lamp to eCSMaster
    No mention of the Ford 289 V-8?

    Indeed, this higher-compression version of the 302 preformed far better back in the carburated era. Mustangs wound up with 302/5L because of prevailing emission regulations, but the 289 was what made the the pony (originally envisioned as a casual 6-cylinder cruiser) into THE essential V8.

  • HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

    08/04/2015 10:05:06 PM PDT · 952 of 1,087
    Brass Lamp to EternalVigilance
    Your post makes no sense. Of course there is a difference between personally leaving the country, which you’re perfectly free to do, and laying claim to a non-existent “right” to arbitrarily take some portion of the national territory away from the people of the United States. You’d have to be a blithering idiot not to recognize the difference.

    You think that property is collectively owned by "the people" but not actual persons. You think "the nation" owns private land. You think that any person who attempts to keep their private property is exercising a "non-existent" right. Of course I recognize the difference...I called you a socialist the first time.

  • HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

    08/04/2015 9:26:07 PM PDT · 949 of 1,087
    Brass Lamp to Brass Lamp
    And in all foundational documents the term "United States" is grammatically plural, not singular. No, there was not a single sovereign political entity called "the People of the United States". The idea is anachronistic and revisionist. It is an indestructible fact of history that the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to define a type of super-national citizenship which had not previously existed.

    I don't know why the editor clipped and pasted that fragment like that.

  • HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

    08/04/2015 9:23:26 PM PDT · 948 of 1,087
    Brass Lamp to EternalVigilance
    And here you are.

    The idea that private property ownership entails a “natural right” to secede from the nation in which that private real property is physically located is just pure nonsense. And to suggest that anyone who doesn’t believe that nonsense is a socialist or a communist is just plain nuts.

    In your previous post, you unintentionally conceded that the difference between secession and immigration is the withdrawal of the physical property. I won't let you take the back. I've only proposed that someone who is ideologically defined as a socialist should be nominated as one as well.

    There is a political entity called the sovereign people of the United States.

    It is an indestructible fact of history that the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to define a type of super-national citizenship which had not previously existed.

    Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were executed in their name, and ultimately, by their will and authority.

    And in all foundational documents the term "United States" is grammatically plural, not singular. No, there was not a single sovereign political entity called "the People of the United States". The idea is anachronistic and revisionist. It is an indestructible fact of history that the whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to define a type of super-national citizenship which had not previously existed.

  • HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

    08/04/2015 9:10:04 PM PDT · 946 of 1,087
    Brass Lamp to EternalVigilance
    What a load

    What a well-reasoned reply. I wonder if you'll go walk around your room some, shake your fist, and then come back to attempt a more composed response.

  • HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

    08/04/2015 9:06:23 PM PDT · 945 of 1,087
    Brass Lamp to Sherman Logan
    It seems fairly obvious the CSA, had its secession succeeded, would have demanded some large portion of the territories, with threat of war if not ceded.

    There's nothing obvious about the history of an alternate time-line, except that, being ALTERNATE to true history, it's obviously fictional.

    Usually, one only turns to hypotheticals after one has exhausted all reference to factuals. But you've started your argument with hypotheticals. So, really, I guess this is a usual sort of argument, after all.

    They also planned to expand south into the Caribbean and elsewhere in Latin America.

    My first honest impulse was to respond 'totally unlike you-know-who', but I then it occurred to me that this was probably some intentionally vague reference to the old Knights of The Golden Circle conspiracy theory, our own version of the Elder Protocols libel. I now have to ask: Illuminati much?

    They didn’t think that out either.

    I graciously accept all your evidence at face value. Too bad you offered none.

    Given the logistics of the time, the only way such expansion could be supported was by sea.

    Is there a bridge to Cuba in our own time that I don't know about?

    The US Navy and Royal Navy would have had something to say about seaborne invasions into Mexico, Cuba or Central America.

    Ok, as someone who has actually read a book, I just have to ask, "what did the British say when the US got involved in Mexico, Cuba, and Central American?" I already know what the US would say: "Stop copying us!" Hypocrite.

    In general, the South didn’t think thru much about what it would do after secession.

    You JUST accused them planning the same campaign of expansion which the US itself would undertake. Now you're saying they didn't plan for afterward? Am I expecting a hypocrite to be consistent? Was that last question rhetorical?

    They firmly believed slavery would die if it didn’t expand, but they had no realistic way for it to expand. Which meant the logical thing to do would have been to negotiate a gradual emancipation.

    Ah, the old cotton-farming-caused-soil-exhaustion-and-required-ever-expanding-cultivation chestnut. I'll leave that one right here next to the first-shot-at-Sumter-started-the-war factoid like two components of logic bomb ready to go off. It will get used later, a sort of argumentative Chekhov's gun.

    But logic was in short supply in the South in 1860/61.

    Says the guy who just attempted to use logically contracdictive claims to accuse the South of wanting to act like the North.

  • HISTORICAL IGNORANCE II: Forgotten facts about Lincoln, slavery and the Civil War

    08/04/2015 8:19:45 PM PDT · 942 of 1,087
    Brass Lamp to EternalVigilance
    Sure they can leave. There's the border right over there. --> But they can't take the territory of the sovereign people of the United States without their consent.

    Firstly, it is the central foundational premise of socialism/communism is that private ownership of property is not a natural right but rather one virtualized within the framework of community law. In expressing that exact sentiment, you've just unintentionally revealed your true ideological self.

    Secondly, there was not a single political entity called "the sovereign people of the United States" prior to the rump passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sovereignty had previously been vested the in peoples of the several States. I'll help you out a little: The Fourteenth Amendment was recorded AFTER the war.

    It's that whole "consent of the governed" thing, you know. Right there in the Declaration as well.

    Ah, the Declaration of Independence, my most favorite act of secession (that you secretly hate).

  • A new book, but an old conspiracy theory: Who really wrote "To Kill a Mockingbird"

    07/14/2015 7:03:13 PM PDT · 63 of 69
    Brass Lamp to Mollypitcher1
    Well, I wrote on the same subject about twenty years ago and the then-current science of plagiarism detection, when evaluating the folio of claimed works for word choice and frequency, determined that only Titus possessed aberrant or unique use of language.
  • Pro-Life People: When Debating Abortion, Avoid This Embarrassingly Common Logical Mistake

    07/01/2015 5:34:02 PM PDT · 65 of 70
    Brass Lamp to kathsua
    Reading this Tim's attempt to utilize logical terms is as amusing as watching a child play with his father's power tools. His belief that he is in any position to lecture anyone on methods of argument is laughable. It's clear to anyone with any instruction in classical, rigid, formal logic that he is misusing and misapplying terminology.

    Firstly, the Continuum Fallacy isn't even a formal fallacy of either deduction or induction (which is funny, since much of what is fallacious in deduction is considered correct for induction). It is only listed as an informal fallacy because it fails to perfectly establish the falsehood of a contrary position. Like all informal fallacies, it is actually logically sound and its products argumentatively valid, if unpersuasive. If Tim knew this and knew the difference, he would probably not have written this article (notice how I used the word "probably", that suggests "induction", Tim).

    Secondly, he incorrectly identifies the argument. The pro-lifer who challenges a pro-abortionist to explain and defend an arbitrary moment of transition into being is highlighting the moral uncertainty of abortion. It allows us to dust off philosophy's third-favorite object of thought experiment, the killer box-with-a-big-red-button, and ask one of Baal's neophytes if he or she is willing to MAYBE take a life. Since they are all still operating under the necessity of deception, they will forced to modify their position with feigned concern for innocent life.

    And it is this strategic retreat which draws attention to this writer's third big mistake; he incorrectly identifies the agency of fallacy. The pro-abortion position requires staking out an indefensible position, agrumentively speaking. The pro-abort crowd find themselves having to either claim that a fully developed and clearly living child comes very suddenly into existence at just the moment that a previously unimportant mass passes beyond boundary of the mother's body, or else admit that there is no compelling moral concern about killing a child outright. Both positions are ludicrous and scandalous, but there are also intuitively wrong and, more importantly, they may serve as the premises of further argument aimed at eroding the moral support for their agenda. But according to Tim, pointing out the fallacy of the other side is somehow, itself, a fallacy.

  • Why are Congressmen Signing Non-Disclosure Forms on Obama’s Secret Treaty?

    06/10/2015 4:21:09 AM PDT · 65 of 79
    Brass Lamp to SWAMPSNIPER
    This can’t be constitutional.

    It's not:

    Article I, Section 6:

    "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." (emphasis mine)

  • Remaking of Alexander Hamilton

    05/18/2015 2:24:23 PM PDT · 41 of 42
    Brass Lamp to ek_hornbeck
    Hamilton and other Federalists wanted to keep much of the British political system intact, minus the monarch, including the British mercantilist system (central banking, Corn Laws and other tariffs).

    So...they paid their tea-tax? You see, that's a product of a centralized merchantilist government.

    Hamilton's goal in centralization wasn't the creation of a welfare state, it was in turning America into an industrial and military power.

    ...through a type of welfare. I use the word here, consistently, to mean 'forcing those who can and will support themselves to also support they who cannot or will not support themselves'. It does not cease to be a welfare program because you feel differently about the recipient.

    The debates at the time weren't pro or anti-welfare state, which didn't exist.

    Of course not. That's not how Fabian socialism works. They were still debating the principles of government and whether we should proceed from those principles which, as it happens, allow and necessarily develop welfare schemes. Hamilton strongly promoted ideas which are essential and foundational to the modern welfare state without any teleological reference to EBT cards and Section 8 housing.

    It was a debate between agrarians vs. supporters of industrialization.

    Were it as simple as that, there might have been two factions clamoring for the same all-powerful, centralized government to collectivize and distribute all the goodies, the only difference between the two being their intended recipient. Would you have supported the same program of national socialization to support the farm industry?

    Hamilton was an heir to William Pitt, not a precursor to Franklin Roosevelt or LBJ.

    [1]There is nothing about the first clause which supports the second clause. [2]FDR and LBJ couldn't have done it without him.

    A Social Security system or food stamps weren't on anyone's radar screen at the time, and to retroject the Great Society policies onto Hamilton and Washington is beyond absurd.

    Calling the Hamiltonian agenda of the late 18th century "conservative" because it would eventually lead to something you happen to like at a later time is absurd.

  • Remaking of Alexander Hamilton

    05/18/2015 12:39:01 PM PDT · 38 of 42
    Brass Lamp to ek_hornbeck
    The Federalists wanted to use the centralized state to pursue essentially conservative ends,...

    What previously existing thing, exactly, were they conserving?

    ...the Anti-Federalists opposed the centralized state for the purpose of what were (for the time) essentially radical ends.

    Well, the Antis were led by a fellow who knew that "radical" actually meant 'getting back to the root' of something. So, yeah.

  • Remaking of Alexander Hamilton

    05/18/2015 12:29:55 PM PDT · 37 of 42
    Brass Lamp to ek_hornbeck
    I don't think that the word "conservative" means what you think it means.

    Hamilton's legacy has been hijacked by the Left in America. Essentially, Hamilton wished to use the power of the state to help achieve basically conservative ends: using tariffs to protect nascent industries from being undersold by established foreign competitors, investing in infrastructure, urban planning projects, establishing a national bank to help fund emerging industries, etc.

    Conservatism seeks to protect the gains of the past whereas progressives see no value in the past and would sacrifice all previous achievement for any fanciful chance future advancement. Everything you describe here is essentially 'progressive'. True conservatives would let the market naturally decide which industries, in which locations, would prosper without government interference. If industries elsewhere are already established, it's hardly very conservative to use the power of government to promote the supposed progress of industry elsewhere. A true conservative doesn't believe that the public should have to pay for private infrastructure or even nominally public infrastructure which is really only meant to serve a private interest. Progress at the expense of that which could be conserved ain't conservative.

    One may disagree or agree with any one of these policies, but none of them had anything to do with the establishment of a welfare state in any form.

    How is using a system taxation and forced loans to subsidize building and industry which can't profitably support itself NOT welfare?

    Nor was it the goal of the Federalists to use Federal coffers to prop up failing banks and industries in the long-term, as the article mentions.

    So, you think that, when they proceed to communize the economy, they will only seize successful banks and industries? My, how conservative of you!

    Both liberals who claim Hamilton as a precursor to the New Deal and the Great Society, and conservatives who attack him for the same are either misinformed or dishonest.

    I am honest and well-informed, and I can say with some great confidence that Hamilton was a very important early influence in the eventual formation of American economic 'progressivism'. Even your own apologetic description of his agenda sounds like the sales pitch for the New Deal or the Great Society.

  • Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

    05/12/2015 8:11:15 PM PDT · 11 of 13
    Brass Lamp to LibWhacker

    Wow! The authors (going with the byline) of this piece are so non-conversant about the subject matter about which they attempt to write that I can truly find error in every single stupid paragraph. It is stunningly bad.

  • Ron Paul: “Good News” That Secession Is Happening

    02/19/2015 5:32:26 PM PST · 31 of 68
    Brass Lamp to nascarnation
    When they talk about Texas seceding, I always ask “are you gonna deport your 3.2 million Medicare recipients back to the USA?”

    To which I would likely respond: "I dunno. Are you people going to reimburse their payroll deductions."

  • What every Pats fan is thinking about DeflateGate

    01/22/2015 2:51:21 PM PST · 57 of 68
    Brass Lamp to tumblindice
    Assachusettsans pronounce “chowder” as chowdah, but they add ‘r’s to “pizza” and “Cuba”. What’s up with that?

    They're all redistributionists up there.

  • Robert E. Lee, Southern Heritage, Media Bias, and Al Sharpton

    01/19/2015 6:36:38 PM PST · 157 of 342
    Brass Lamp to Sherman Logan
    Up to the point those states declare war on the Constitution, at which point they are no longer under its provisions.

    ...thus invalidating just about every argument you've ever attempted to advance.