Your true colors are revealed. The Confederacy is dead and most of us don't want it back. If there is a president who needs to be stripped of his cult of personality it is Jefferson not Lincoln. I say it again: your argument has been lost and your vision rejected. Any defense of the Confederacy is intolerable. It takes two to tango. Had the southern states not insisted on clinging to the historical abomination of American slavery, the war could have been averted, regardless of Lincoln's alleged machinations. Without a cause such as slavery, the Union would have had a much more difficult time raising the political will or army necessary to defeat the Confederacy. The fact that proponents of "state's rights" chose slavery as the issue on which to make their stand exposes their moral bankruptcy. Go home and count your Confederate dollars. They will buy you as much as your outmoded opinions.
100 Lawmakers Support End Biker Health Insurance Bias
41 - 60 of 82 Posts
Read more closely. My line said "for my state, in my state". Such a policy probably doesn't exist, but as a hypothetical it (along with your observation)shows where the line between the two forms of commerce can be blurred in today's advanced economy.
Be careful when dismissing too many of these arguments as "fourth grade constitutional interpretations". Belittling them in such a manner ignores the power they have with many people. People who may live next to you and who may do something about it. The reality of the threat these people may pose is far too serious to be so casually dismissed.
Be careful when dismissing too many of these arguments as "fourth grade constitutional interpretations". Belittling them in such a manner ignores the power they have with many people. People who may live next to you and who may do something about it. The reality of the threat these people may pose is far too serious to be so casually dismissed.
Joined
·
44 Posts
Interpretation and Amending are 2 different issues, Capn'.
Perhaps you're confusing sheep-like behavior with what's known as a majority -- the concept that this country was founded on.
Poppy*****. The country was founded as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, 6 people can take all of the property of 4, because 'that's what the people want'. In a constitutional republic, 999 people can't take what 1 owns, because it's simply illegal.
Using government intervention to change social conditions where there is equal legal footing may be common practice, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. If 'the people' really don't want bigoted businesses around, they'll stop shopping there. You telling Joe Racist that he has to serve white folks is not better than him telling you that you can't.
-Kawazuki
Poppy*****. The country was founded as a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, 6 people can take all of the property of 4, because 'that's what the people want'. In a constitutional republic, 999 people can't take what 1 owns, because it's simply illegal.
Using government intervention to change social conditions where there is equal legal footing may be common practice, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. If 'the people' really don't want bigoted businesses around, they'll stop shopping there. You telling Joe Racist that he has to serve white folks is not better than him telling you that you can't.
-Kawazuki
Right. That's why that process is there. We aren't talking about intentional, reasoned, and obvious direct change to the Constitution. We're talking about underhanded, wrong-channel, 'interpretive' change to the Constitution.
In fact, I'll see your argument, and raise you 5. Why were those amendments passed? Why didn't the govenment simply 'pass a law', declaring the specified result incarnate with a wave of the magic wand? The answer, or so I believe, is because the government doesn't have the authority to create laws which violate the Constitution. That's why it's there, to provide a framework declaring very clearly what the government's powers are, and what they are not. Unfortunately, the government no longer believes that it is bound to follow that path, and makes regulatory change to the Constitution with legislation all the time. And the Citizens let them get away with it.
So yes, the Framers of the Constitution did believe that there was a need for the Constitution to change with time, and they set up a very clear and specific method for doing so. Why isn't it used?
-Kawazuki
In fact, I'll see your argument, and raise you 5. Why were those amendments passed? Why didn't the govenment simply 'pass a law', declaring the specified result incarnate with a wave of the magic wand? The answer, or so I believe, is because the government doesn't have the authority to create laws which violate the Constitution. That's why it's there, to provide a framework declaring very clearly what the government's powers are, and what they are not. Unfortunately, the government no longer believes that it is bound to follow that path, and makes regulatory change to the Constitution with legislation all the time. And the Citizens let them get away with it.
So yes, the Framers of the Constitution did believe that there was a need for the Constitution to change with time, and they set up a very clear and specific method for doing so. Why isn't it used?
-Kawazuki
Re: Excellent Post
As a fellow NRA member I agree with you I don't agree with everything the NRA stands for but they are the best at protecting our freedom to own guns.
*rotflmao*
Oh dear sweet mother Eris... You are simply too much, KPaul. I swear I don't know where I would get such laughs if I didn't come to the MO forums. As an organization protecting the rights of some hunters to own some guns, the NRA is passing tolerable. As an organization aimed at protecting the rights of everyone to own firearms for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of tyranny, they are desperately overshadowed by organizations such as the JPFO.
-Kawazuki
As a fellow NRA member I agree with you I don't agree with everything the NRA stands for but they are the best at protecting our freedom to own guns.
*rotflmao*
Oh dear sweet mother Eris... You are simply too much, KPaul. I swear I don't know where I would get such laughs if I didn't come to the MO forums. As an organization protecting the rights of some hunters to own some guns, the NRA is passing tolerable. As an organization aimed at protecting the rights of everyone to own firearms for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of tyranny, they are desperately overshadowed by organizations such as the JPFO.
-Kawazuki
James, your utter ignorance of the issues that started the Civil War are inexcusable. If you actually care to educate yourself instead of spouting uninformed drivel, no doubt derived from your woefully inadequate education at which ever government subsidized idiot factory that you attended, I will again offer you the opportunity to peruse Tomas DiLorenzo's fully annotated work on the subject' prior to your making any more ill informed blatherings. Lincoln's much ballyhooed Emancipation Proclamation didn't even occur untill after the war was well underway. VWW
Dude. We should so just pass a law making everybody be nice to each other. That way, when anybody is mean or rude, we can just throw them in jail. And then we should pass a law making insurance coverage free. Cause that sh!t is expensive, yo. And then, when all the insurance companies go out of business, the government can just take over. And everybody will have free health insurance, and vehicle insurance. And the government can pay for it because they make all the money, right? They can just print more when I crash into the side of a schoolbus, and split my head open. And it pisses me off that stuff is so expensive. We should have the government just pass a law making everything free. I bet we could get a lot of people behind that. And hey, Majority Rule! And then we'll eat lots of cake, and go to the circus, all the time. Wouldn't that be great?
-Kawazuki
-Kawazuki
kowalke67, your failure to grasp the salient, and obvious, point made in my diatribe ranks as a new paradigm in the annals of obtuse behavior. The fact that KPaul agrees with you should cause you to rethink your approval of governmental dictates. VWW
Let me get this straight. You are afraid that people that believe in a literal interpretation of the Constituion might sneak up on you, and do you harm, while you're at home in your jammies? You my friend are a complete tool!
It is no small wonder that we have an ever expanding Department of Home Security, with timorous souls such as yourself bleating for protection from imaginary hobgoblins. Hey, open the door. It's safe to come outside and play now. VWW
It is no small wonder that we have an ever expanding Department of Home Security, with timorous souls such as yourself bleating for protection from imaginary hobgoblins. Hey, open the door. It's safe to come outside and play now. VWW
Re: Are you afraid?
KPaul, let me put this in simple terms. If the government were to stick to it's duties outlined in the Costitution, big business would have little need to lobby for special legislation. Without government interference the free market laws of supply and demand would serve to regulate business in a way that would be more equitable to all. If you truely wish to educate yourself on this process you can start by loging on to www.mises.org . After you absorb some of the economic theory of Ludwig von Mises and his acolytes I will be willing to have further discussion with you on this subject. VWW
KPaul, let me put this in simple terms. If the government were to stick to it's duties outlined in the Costitution, big business would have little need to lobby for special legislation. Without government interference the free market laws of supply and demand would serve to regulate business in a way that would be more equitable to all. If you truely wish to educate yourself on this process you can start by loging on to www.mises.org . After you absorb some of the economic theory of Ludwig von Mises and his acolytes I will be willing to have further discussion with you on this subject. VWW
All indications I have (not the least of which is your ringing endorsement) indicate that DiLorenzo's book is is about 25% substance and 75% crap. I have read multiple sources which examine the economic factors (read: non-altrusitic anti-slavery reasons)that contributed to the Civil War. While these factors were siginificant, they by no means were sufficient enough to motivate the majority of northerners to march to war. Any informed analysis of the causes of the Civil War will recognize the myriad of factors at play. People like yourself are much more comfortable digesting a ridiculously simplistic conspiracy theory than actually trying to understand history. For DiLorenzo's position to be advanced, one would have to accept the proposition that Abraham Lincoln was the most inteligent and effective leader in the history of the known world. The over-emphasis on Lincoln one way or the other is ridiculous. I doubt volunteers for the (thankfully victorious) Union Army were moved by the esoteric motives you and DiLorenzo ascribe to Lincoln. These people fought the war and the issue of slavery was a necessary motivator for their particpation and victory. To disregard this factor is convenient ignorance.
Please go back to your bunker and wait for the CIA/FBI/Masons/Luminati/WTO to "come ane get you". Oh yeah, stop posting, "they" can track it....
Please go back to your bunker and wait for the CIA/FBI/Masons/Luminati/WTO to "come ane get you". Oh yeah, stop posting, "they" can track it....
I don't worry too much in the comfort of my own home and what I wear to bed is my business (and that of the the secret agents watching on camera).
I AM alarmed that much of the bogus rhetoric you spout has been used to motivate people to bomb their fellow citizens in Oklahoma City and Atlanta. These sorts of despicable and cowardly actions do worry me and they should worry you even if you are on the side of the cowardly whack jobs.
I AM alarmed that much of the bogus rhetoric you spout has been used to motivate people to bomb their fellow citizens in Oklahoma City and Atlanta. These sorts of despicable and cowardly actions do worry me and they should worry you even if you are on the side of the cowardly whack jobs.
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
It never takes long for you libs to start the personal attacks, does it? Your use of ad hominem attacks only proves that you have lost the argument.
Before you go any further remember that the greatest mass murders of history- Hitler, Stalin and Mao - were all socialists. Left wingers.
Like you.
Before you go any further remember that the greatest mass murders of history- Hitler, Stalin and Mao - were all socialists. Left wingers.
Like you.
Joined
·
17,461 Posts
You are hallucinating. No one here has advocated violence. You really should actually read a post before you answer it, instead of listening to the voices in your head. Your responses are for the most part non-sequitor.
But I guess life is easier for the sub-intelligent if they can have little boxes to put people in. It reduces the need to think.
But I guess life is easier for the sub-intelligent if they can have little boxes to put people in. It reduces the need to think.
41 - 60 of 82 Posts
Join the discussion
