Free Republic

I will, once again, ask everybody on this thread to read the cornerstone speech, it mentions all sorts of well thought out principles of limited government and orderly secession, and debases it’s core with a defense of human slavery as a natural order created by god. It’s probably the best single document of the era that codifies all the political elements of the south - and is also the most honest.

You can re-fight the civil war all you want. We can have a philosophical debate about states rights and proper governance. Or we can all take a breath and go read the cornerstone speech, I bet it’s been a while. in my casual reading about the era it is by far the most blunt and straight forward. Alexander Stephens laid it all out for you. That’s the proverbial cross that must be bared.

I’ve read a few things over the years about the various state conventions and general campaigning happening in the south during the initial stages of secession.

The impression I got, to be fair looking back from a much more cynical time – is that those that participated desperately wanted to equate themselves with the American Revolution and the constitutional convention. They wanted to cloak themselves in legitimacy as much as possible.

to draw a modern and I’m sure not at all controversial comparison it reads a little too much like the revolutionary resistance carried out by the peace and freedom loving peoples of the donbass, simply trying to preserve their way of life against a fascist central government. – that last part was mainly troll bait no need to get worked up on the comparison if you had an ancestor fight for the confederacy,.

while we are on a quote kick:

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

—C.S. Lewis

these sorts of arguments get to degrade quickly but wouldn’t the answer to this rather detailed devolution argument be the human appendix and our vestigial tail? clearly they both served a function at some point and no longer do.

as to the more general question to everyone.... which should be interesting... How does one get from some grand designer to a personal god who cares which commandments you obey?

*ducks*

as the Great Christopher Hitchens has said in many debates with the faithful (among many other very brilliant things) just being an atheist proves very little politically speaking. Much like being someone of “faith”. One can in fact be a Communist, Fascist, Anarchist, Liberal, Conservative what have you. Plenty of “ Liberation Theology “ left wingers down south American way. Plenty of Communist rejected the Judeo-Christian god while worshiping the idol of Stalin and Mao, building nations Where all thanks must be on to them, and all good things flow from them.

He also asks an interesting debate question of his opponents. Regarding a baby born today in Saudi Arabia would you rather he be raised an Atheist or a Wahhabist.

as a rudybot from New York City I feel this is a great shame. Unfortunately most of us could see it coming.

His greatest strength as a leader in New York city was that he didn’t care what the New York Times thought. Ever. He didn’t compromise to gain political favor (much more often than not anyway) in the end, this left him with no base locally or nationally.

He also has a terrible tendency (fed by his ego no doubt) to completely mishandle his desire to be a king maker (Endorsing Cuomo over pataki, not running against Hillary) always holding his support and funds till the worst possible moment, by which it was usually too late and poorly timed. This is not the sign of a bad leader, it’s the sign of a poor politician.

At rare moments I have seen the kind of passion and brilliance that can inspire and gain the support of those that might otherwise disagree with him. It was hardly ever visible in this campaign.

The political side is his weakness, and as much as Conservatives and Republicans like to think of themselves above that sort of thing... as we can see with our crop of candidates substance matters for very little.

Planck’s Constant and similar arguments are the last gasps (or grasps if you will) of believers

the entire universe including our daily lives are full of massive random and chaotic actions that can dramatically and completely affect our existence.

I’d rather take the the facts as I can interpret them, that the supposed unalterable word of the creator is clearly written by men for whom the wheel barrel was emerging technology (yes I stole that line), full of glaring omissions, contradictions and plagiarisms

it’s a slow News day, let the flame wars begin

oh and in case there is any doubt on my point of view in general, at the same time, fund the wall and the agents to man it.

In all seriousness I would think the 10th amendment may allow for this.

I don’t see a difference; I have to respect his assessment of the situation as it existed not as he wished it to be. I honestly don’t recall what Clinton + the Republican congress proposed but I am certain it was half hearted feel good legislation at best, and as someone in the trenches he understood it was pointless.

I think we have to accept at this stage of the game is that mass enforcement of existing laws are impossible after a 30 year lapse, you may want some kind of mythical magical deportation process, it’s not happening.

We need to pass some kind of legislation that is ONLY for identification and documentation to actively weed out gang members and so forth, none of this will ever happen unless there is a nationwide, crushing and overwhelming legal crackdown on business. No swat teams raiding construction sites and BS sob stories in the New York Times of families being torn apart. All it takes is a DHS/IRS guy in a suit exercising the legitimate power that the federal government does and should have.

Pick a state, pick the largest employer of illegals, walk in to the HR office, give them 90 days to make sure their employees have said new identification card. After 90 days come back with massive, overwhelming, punitive fines. The first target of this will probably be greatly hurt financially, everybody else will comply, and there goes your sanctuary and immunity.

And if that means more expensive lettuce, so be it.

The 700 threads of Rudy bashing inspired me to comment about one aspect of his politics.

The perception that he somehow made New York a haven for illegals. My friends, as most of you are aware this entire COUNTRY is a haven, and has been for 40 some odd years. No conservative in any position of authority has done jack squat about. Considering his experience at the DOJ nobody knew better than Rudy that the federal government was unwilling and unable to handle illegal immigration in any serious manner. I think he has two choices, Govern the city he was elected in or declare certain areas of the city to be war zones with no law and order. If the local government says that every police officer you see has the power to take away whatever life you built for youself here as an illegal, your ability to maintain any sort of government disappears.

The reason I say this is because if you were a hardass and decided to enforce the laws of this country and told your police (50,000 of ‘em in a city of 8 million) to arrest illegals what magical mystery department and process of the federal government do you think exists to hand them over to. You remember the federal government don’t you? The ones responsible for our boarders? The ones who let the first world trade center bombing ringleaders in through JFK airport via LITERALLY a keystone cops distraction.

I find it admirable and patriotic when little townships declare a no tolerance policy on illegals but it’s not realistic in our large cities, tough luck, that ship sailed a long time ago.

I have seen enough horror stories of this agency or that fining or regulating some business or individual to an obscene degree. Give me a ring when an elected official uses this power of government to fine some business out of existence for willfully abetting illegal immigration. I would feel sorry, but the next business sure would shape up.

I think one of the big issues here is breaking this whole issue down into ADD/ADHD in adults and "children" and I say that in quotes because 11 and 14 and 17 year olds should not be diagnosed in the same way.

Regardless, I can say that I have it, in fact looking back I've had it since at least high school.

One of the classic symptoms is the ability to do well and in fact outshine your peers when under pressure or stress.

for the last 14 years I have done very well professionally, but looking back on those 14 years I realized how destructive the constant pressure and stress was. Not overall life stress but situation to situation. My major success in life was always professional, otherwise I was a classic loner type so I took extra pride in how well I did on the professional side of life.
It got to the point due to age where I simply couldn't get some project done running on stress alone.

I saw a doctor, got a pill and it's night and day. I feel it, my parents see it and every friend of mine sees it.

maybe ADD/ADHD is a chicken or the egg problem, where it's some sort of mental "evolution" (that should cause some fun) due to the way our culture is now structured with massive amounts of media stimulation.

I think a society of say 100 years ago where you could go for a walk or read a book amounted to mental stimulation.

just my $.02

The point I am making is that there are many good conservatives who are non starters because they aren't pro life. and I don't want you to change your position. I also agree with the points made about the legal aspects of roe vs. wade. but again there is no possible combination of voters that you can come up with that can make abortion illegal everywhere in this country. it simple isn't possible. If roe vs. wade is overturned the most you can ever hope to win is forcing people to take a grayhound. In the 20 year politically bloody battle to achieve this dubious victory I can assure you many conservatives will lose and we know what fills that vacume.

well keeping it legal does keep it out of back alleys but the argument about abortion isn't about order vs. anarchy.

my goal and your goal is for zero abortions to occure, so the question is do we create the kind of country where nobody wants one or keep marginalizing otherwise good conservatives over this issue and just stumble along hoping for something to happen?

Heck if Roe V. Wade is gone TOMORROW it's another 20 year of state by state legal battles, probably ending with a 50/50 split of states that do and don't allow abortions, so basically forcing people to take a grayhound who would otherwise not get one locally.

that's some great victory and in the mean time how many conservatives have gone down to defeat (or MUCH more likely gotten nowhere near power to begin with) because of this all or nothing view.

I want to state again that I don't want anyone to "give up" on this issue and that I also want no abortions to occure but I think the conservative movement as a whole and the republican party as a part of that movement will forever hurt it's objectives by dealing with it the way we have.

I do like a drink now and again this is true (but I like to share) exactly what part of my "bilge" do you oppose? you UN Lovin' hillarycare pushin' something something

No I would see otherwise conservative people with a conservative vison home and abroad win.

Let's put it another way, this is an argument I use against liberals when it comes to defending the republican "pro-life" position since say 1981 we had 8 years of the gipper, bush 1 and bush 2, 11 years of a republican house and a total of what, 8 years republican senate. Countless progress on the state level on governors and legislators.


what precisely has been done to reduce the number of abortions?

this is a hearts and minds issue, a MORAL issue if you will, not a legal one. Did Prohibition stop people from drinking?

an well educated person with a good job and a steady life is far far far far far less likely to not only get pregnant or get someone pregnant out of wedlock, they are far less likely to have an abortion.

to put it another way, what good is a RINO if all he manages to do is get the faithful out to vote on election day by promising something that he has no intention of delivering on.

I don't want to view as me winning and you somehow losing, my point I think is that a nation on a good economic footing over the long term (with better education and so forth) leads to fewer abortions vs. whatever kind of insane nanny state hillary envisions.