If Lincoln didn't have the issue of slavery...... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If Lincoln didn't have the issue of slavery......


certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 19:41
What other reason would he have used to destroy the Republic?

The Machinist
05-07-2012, 20:03
Oh don't you know? Preserving the union, for the mere sake of preserving the union, was totally worth getting over 600,000 Americans killed. Federal government uber alles!

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 20:04
Jelly beans. He hated the licorice flavored ones?


But seriously, what ????? :headscratch: There is no answer that would not require speculation to your question.

Dukedomone
05-07-2012, 20:20
:popcorn:

IBTL

certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 20:22
Jelly beans. He hated the licorice flavored ones?


But seriously, what ????? :headscratch: There is no answer that would not require speculation to your question.

Speculate away. If he couldn't make the war about slavery, what other reason would he have used?

G23Gen4.40
05-07-2012, 20:46
I would say if slavery was not the issue there probably would have been no civil war. The south would not have tried to withdraw from the union and probably would not have attacked federal forts.

Brucev
05-07-2012, 20:51
Speculate away. If he couldn't make the war about slavery, what other reason would he have used?

Reason? You suppose he wouldn't have just lied. He was a lawyer and a senator from illinois. Lying is the common trait of both.

jeager
05-07-2012, 21:00
Haven't you heard?
It's all about that set of journals from his Lawyerin' days, found sometime in the 1980's.
Something to do with Vampyres (or was it Zombies?)
BTW, John C Fremont was the first R to run for POTUS.

Sam Spade
05-07-2012, 21:23
If slavery hadn't been an issue, the South wouldn't have been terrified of his election, wouldnt have tried to secede and wouldn't have started the shooting.

(PS: Lincoln was a Representative, not a Senator. )

Naelbis
05-07-2012, 21:30
Lincoln never cared about slavery...he only made it an issue to keep France and Britian from entering the war on the side of the South. Notice he didn't push the issue until after Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation only covered the areas he did not control.

CAcop
05-07-2012, 23:04
Get over it. You lost.

Besides I thought you southerners claimed it was about states rights.

CAcop
05-07-2012, 23:08
On a more serious note slavery was an issue that was going to have to be settled with a fight along with establishing federal power over the states. Bloody Kansas proved that. The south was unable or unwilling to fight it out in court or legislative bodies using civilized means.

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 02:27
Get over it. You lost.

WoD: get over it. You lost. Quite sucking at the tax payers teat.

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 02:28
On a more serious note: naw, got nothing ;)

You don't fix slavery, by forcing states to be slaves to the feds. 'Commerce Clause" lol.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 05:31
Speculate away. If he couldn't make the war about slavery, what other reason would he have used?

OK. Since the south would have not seceded, it would never have occurred in the first place.


Lets be honest, slavery was a bad thing. The absolute antithesis of liberty. Had we not participated in it, things would probably have been a lot better today. It was an ethical breach, fed by greed.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 06:45
OK. Since the south would have not seceded, it would never have occurred in the first place.


Lets be honest, slavery was a bad thing. The absolute antithesis of liberty. Had we not participated in it, things would probably have been a lot better today. It was an ethical breach, fed by greed.

Let's be honest nobody is taking up for slavery here.


....

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 07:04
Let's be honest nobody is taking up for slavery here.


....

Not here, but in 1858, there were plenty. If it were not an issue, and the united states had never used slavery, the odds of the civil war ever happening would have been a lot smaller.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 08:06
Not here, but in 1858, there were plenty. If it were not an issue, and the united states had never used slavery, the odds of the civil war ever happening would have been a lot smaller.

So what was Cfunds not being honest about?

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 08:45
So what was Cfunds not being honest about?

I never said he was being dishonest, just overly hypothetical. It was not my intention to imply that he wasn't. "let's be honest" was an invitation to a frank conversation, not a challenge to his character. If that was not clear, I apologize. The support for slavery was, in my humble opinion, the greatest failure of the founders.

If Lincoln hadn't been born, what reason would he have had to Destroy the republic?

But he was born, and if he hadn't been, he probably would not have had much of an opinion on the issue.

If slavery were not an issue, Lincoln probably would not have been elected president, and the odds of there being a civil war in 1860 would have been drastically lower. The relationship with the states and the fed would probably be a lot different today also.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 11:13
Notice he didn't push the issue until after Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation only covered the areas he did not control.


Alternate explanation: Lincoln knew as President that he couldn't take property without process and compensation. Lincoln knew as CinC that he could take contraband of war, which applied to only those areas in active rebellion against the Union.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 11:36
I never said he was being dishonest, just overly hypothetical. It was not my intention to imply that he wasn't. "let's be honest" was an invitation to a frank conversation, not a challenge to his character. If that was not clear, I apologize. The support for slavery was, in my humble opinion, the greatest failure of the founders.

If Lincoln hadn't been born, what reason would he have had to Destroy the republic?

But he was born, and if he hadn't been, he probably would not have had much of an opinion on the issue.

If slavery were not an issue, Lincoln probably would not have been elected president, and the odds of there being a civil war in 1860 would have been drastically lower. The relationship with the states and the fed would probably be a lot different today also.

Understand now. I mistook you post for something else sometimes things don't come across clear in a post.

maxsnafu
05-08-2012, 11:51
Alternate explanation: Lincoln knew as President that he couldn't take property without process and compensation. Lincoln knew as CinC that he could take contraband of war, which applied to only those areas in active rebellion against the Union.

Lincoln was never constrained by legalities.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 11:55
Understand now. I mistook you post for something else sometimes things don't come across clear in a post.

No sweat, happens to me all the time. :wavey:

CAcop
05-08-2012, 13:18
WoD: get over it. You lost. Quite sucking at the tax payers teat.

Its not my fault you didn't make the hiring standards.

CAcop
05-08-2012, 13:21
Lincoln was never constrained by legalities.

It always amazes me how long restrictions on liberty lasted in this country. It really wasn't until Vietnam that the press could report things without a censor. Then there was pre emptive detention of people up to and including WWII.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 13:26
WoD: get over it. You lost. Quite sucking at the tax payers teat.

Now I get the fact that you are trying to be intentionally offensive, but how is it that a guvment job is suckling at a teat, and a private one isn't? If you have an employer are you suckling at his teat? If you are self employed, are you suckling at your customer's teats? A welfare bum would seem to fit your description, but a person that enters into an agreement to provide a service for a salary does not. It's almost as if you are being intentionally dishonest.

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 14:35
Now I get the fact that you are trying to be intentionally offensive, but how is it that a guvment job is suckling at a teat, and a private one isn't? If you have an employer are you suckling at his teat? If you are self employed, are you suckling at your customer's teats? A welfare bum would seem to fit your description, but a person that enters into an agreement to provide a service for a salary does not. It's almost as if you are being intentionally dishonest.

Hmmm, you accuse me of being intentionally dishonest.

A gov welfare job is far different than a private sector job. One holds the taxpayer hostage, the other doesn't.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 14:48
Hmmm, you accuse me of being intentionally dishonest.

A gov welfare job is far different than a private sector job. One holds the taxpayer hostage, the other doesn't.

Well, you seem to be ignoring the fact that as a result of division of labor, that most people do things for others to make money. If a service is provided, and compensation is received, it's a trade. No one is suckling in that scenario. Now if you're sucking money out of the system and not providing a service for that, I could see your point. I've felt like a hostage when dealing with repairmen too. But I needed something done, they knew how to do it and had the stuff to do it with and I didn't, but that is how business is done. If you're in a profession that no one needs, you got problems.

Oh well, you have a right to your opinion, even if it is based on flawed logic and intentionally discriminatory. Just wondered if you could see the difference between gettin paid for a job and welfare check for nothing.

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 15:32
Just wondered if you could see the difference between gettin paid for a job and welfare check for nothing.

Of course, I also recognize a 3rd option: getting a welfare check for doing something. Like fighting in the WoD. :)

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 16:30
Of course, I also recognize a 3rd option: getting a welfare check for doing something. Like fighting in the WoD. :)

Right, cause those guys are just sitting at home doing nothing.

You are either unable to discern the difference, or just pretending not to be able to do so. Someone doing a job that you don't agree with does not make it welfare. It might be reprehensible from your perspective, but that would be different if you could articulate that. Instead, you intentionally misrepresent it as welfare.

It's OK. Just wanted to let you know it was noticeable.

JohnnyReb
05-08-2012, 17:21
How can a state voluntarily join a union, but can't voluntarily leave when the interests of that union no longer benefit the state?

Seems like the 10th amendment has been dead since 1861.

But to answer the OP, I really have no idea.

G-19
05-08-2012, 17:38
Now I get the fact that you are trying to be intentionally offensive, but how is it that a guvment job is suckling at a teat, and a private one isn't? If you have an employer are you suckling at his teat? If you are self employed, are you suckling at your customer's teats? A welfare bum would seem to fit your description, but a person that enters into an agreement to provide a service for a salary does not. It's almost as if you are being intentionally dishonest.

Doc, you are fighting a continuing battle. I am a State Correction Officer, and have been pretty much been told by RP supporters that I am scum. They have a strange hatred for all public employees. However, some of them will excuse cops, firemen, and the military. Selective discrimination, I guess. I also used the example you used about sucking off their employers teat, it was totally lost on them.

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 20:38
Now I get the fact that you are trying to be intentionally offensive, but how is it that a guvment job is suckling at a teat, and a private one isn't? If you have an employer are you suckling at his teat? If you are self employed, are you suckling at your customer's teats? A welfare bum would seem to fit your description, but a person that enters into an agreement to provide a service for a salary does not. It's almost as if you are being intentionally dishonest.

The welfare bum provides a valuable service also as a guaranteed vote for the democrats. They also raise broods of future democrat voters.

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 20:41
Doc, you are fighting a continuing battle. I am a State Correction Officer, and have been pretty much been told by RP supporters that I am scum. They have a strange hatred for all public employees. However, some of them will excuse cops, firemen, and the military. Selective discrimination, I guess. I also used the example you used about sucking off their employers teat, it was totally lost on them.

Private sector workers make a profit for their employers in a mutually beneficial relationship.

steveksux
05-08-2012, 20:41
On a more serious note: naw, got nothing ;)

You don't fix slavery, by forcing states to be slaves to the feds. 'Commerce Clause" lol.Equal treatment under the law. If you can't get rid of slavery for some, make all slaves. :tongueout:

Randy

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 20:47
How can a state voluntarily join a union, but can't voluntarily leave when the interests of that union no longer benefit the state?

Seems like the 10th amendment has been dead since 1861.

But to answer the OP, I really have no idea.

Exactly.

Slavery or any other reason, if the conditions of remaining in the union became unacceptable to the people of a state, they should be allowed to exit any voluntary agreement they made.

The south should have been left alone to secede.

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 20:51
Doc, you are fighting a continuing battle. I am a State Correction Officer, and have been pretty much been told by RP supporters that I am scum. They have a strange hatred for all public employees. However, some of them will excuse cops, firemen, and the military. Selective discrimination, I guess. I also used the example you used about sucking off their employers teat, it was totally lost on them.

No, RP supporters believe that you defend the WOD b/c you benefit from it.

We also believe that public unions, of which I'm guessing you are a member of, should be eliminated.

We also know that some public employees are necessary but should be kept to a minimum and paid the minimum amount necessary to fill the jobs because public employees are a drain on resources and create no wealth.

We also know that private employees make a profit for their employer or their job wouldn't exist.

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 20:54
OK. Since the south would have not seceded, it would never have occurred in the first place.


Lets be honest, slavery was a bad thing. The absolute antithesis of liberty. Had we not participated in it, things would probably have been a lot better today. It was an ethical breach, fed by greed.

The southern states, like all states, joined the union under terms of legalized slavery. Then, the union changed the rules.

The union should have expropriated the slaves, compensated the owners for their loss, and moved on.

Instead, Lincoln shed the blood of his "friends"

G-19
05-08-2012, 21:01
Why should they have paid for the slaves? Are you saying you believe they were property?

HexHead
05-08-2012, 21:03
Lincoln was a Whig and a Federalist. He wanted a strong central government, national bank, high protectionist tariffs and large federally funded projects.

He wanted us to be the United States, not these United States. He couldn't care less about the black man until it became politically expediant to him.

HexHead
05-08-2012, 21:06
Why should they have paid for the slaves? Are you saying you believe they were property?

They were.

The British eradicated slavery in their ountries by finncially compensating the owners for their losses. That approach wasn't even considered here. Would have been a hell of a lot cheaper than the war was.

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 21:09
Why should they have paid for the slaves? Are you saying you believe they were property?

It doesn't matter what I believe in 2012, under the law in 1861, they were property.

lancesorbenson
05-08-2012, 21:13
Doc, you are fighting a continuing battle. I am a State Correction Officer, and have been pretty much been told by RP supporters that I am scum. They have a strange hatred for all public employees. However, some of them will excuse cops, firemen, and the military. Selective discrimination, I guess. I also used the example you used about sucking off their employers teat, it was totally lost on them.

The example of private versus public is ridiculous on its face and it's surprising Doc would make the argument. It's not surprising from but from him?!

Private employees are paid by employers voluntarily. Public employees are paid with money coerced from taxpayers ultimately under threat of force. Since it's my money being taken you damned well better believe I can pick and choose which public employees I "discriminate" against.
I'm looking at you ATF and IRS.

In your case I believe too many people are locked up for breaking laws we don't need. You may be a great prison guard and maybe you'd still be employed if we ended the bizarre, mathematically ridiculous war on drugs. However, you advocate for more laws, including renewing prohibition of alcohol, a position that would benefit your sector of government employment at further taxpayer expense.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 21:14
Seems to me that draging someone in chains from Africa, or taking a child from a mother so treated, and making them a slave is a distinct violation of the 5th Amendment.

In my brief look at penal law from slave states, I don't see any exemption for blacks in the kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment statutes.

So what legal basis did those guys have for enslaving humans anyway?

HarlDane
05-08-2012, 21:33
The south should have been left alone to secede.Even if one believes the South had a right to secede and become it's own nation and the North was an invading army sent to conquer them with force (and for the record I don't).

Why should we give them any more pity or concern than the long list of other peoples who's land was acquired by us through the use of force, or the threat of force, throughout the history of our country? Even if your argument is correct, it's no better than those who run around whining about Aztlan.

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 22:03
The welfare bum provides a valuable service also as a guaranteed vote for the democrats. They also raise broods of future democrat voters.

How is that different than a government Union worker voting for whomever will keep their gravy train running?

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 22:07
Right, cause those guys are just sitting at home doing nothing.

You are either unable to discern the difference, or just pretending not to be able to do so. Someone doing a job that you don't agree with does not make it welfare. It might be reprehensible from your perspective, but that would be different if you could articulate that. Instead, you intentionally misrepresent it as welfare.

It's OK. Just wanted to let you know it was noticeable.

You intentionally misrepresent what I said, then claim I misrepresent what you said.

Funny.

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 22:59
Right, cause those guys are just sitting at home doing nothing.

You are either unable to discern the difference, or just pretending not to be able to do so. Someone doing a job that you don't agree with does not make it welfare. It might be reprehensible from your perspective, but that would be different if you could articulate that. Instead, you intentionally misrepresent it as welfare.

It's OK. Just wanted to let you know it was noticeable.

I know it hits close to home for you Doc but that was truly beneath you. It might not be welfare but as long as the federal government wages an unconstitutional WoD the demand for law enforcement and correctional employees is artificially inflated and so is their pay. As a tax payer I take issue with that.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 06:27
I know it hits close to home for you Doc but that was truly beneath you. It might not be welfare but as long as the federal government wages an unconstitutional WoD the demand for law enforcement and correctional employees is artificially inflated and so is their pay. As a tax payer I take issue with that.

There is a difference between doing a job for a salary, and the term welfare, which implies money for nothing.


I'm not big on the WoD either, and have proposed terms for a truce, without many takers.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 06:38
The example of private versus public is ridiculous on its face and it's surprising Doc would make the argument. It's not surprising from but from him?!

Private employees are paid by employers voluntarily. Public employees are paid with money coerced from taxpayers ultimately under threat of force. Since it's my money being taken you damned well better believe I can pick and choose which public employees I "discriminate" against.
I'm looking at you ATF and IRS.

In your case I believe too many people are locked up for breaking laws we don't need. You may be a great prison guard and maybe you'd still be employed if we ended the bizarre, mathematically ridiculous war on drugs. However, you advocate for more laws, including renewing prohibition of alcohol, a position that would benefit your sector of government employment at further taxpayer expense.

Someone argued for prohibition of alcohol? Where was that? Must have missed it.

JohnnyReb
05-09-2012, 09:48
Kind of frustrating even a thoufght provoking thread on Lincoln can drift to a war on drugs debate.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

holesinpaper
05-09-2012, 12:03
There is a difference between doing a job for a salary, and the term welfare, which implies money for nothing.


I'm not big on the WoD either, and have proposed terms for a truce, without many takers.

Is this a real job, or welfare? http://blog.oregonlive.com/o_impact/2009/03/large_wilson.river.jpg
Most gov jobs are no different today, than new deal jobs during the depression. Welfare plain and simple, welfare for 'doing something' like fighting the WoD or the WoT (i.e. TSA).

http://blog.cheapoair.com/image.axd?picture=2010/1/screening_airport.jpg

http://www.doobons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/medical_marijuana_dea_raid621.jpg

Modern welfare ala New Deal busy work -- only vastly less productive than Roosevelt's New Deal jobs.

holesinpaper
05-09-2012, 12:06
Kind of frustrating even a thoufght provoking thread on Lincoln can drift to a war on drugs debate.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

The two are related. States rights versus Fed. Fed use of income tax to extort states into doing the Fed's bidding. Et cetera.

CAcop
05-10-2012, 01:40
How is that different than a government Union worker voting for whomever will keep their gravy train running?

What if you like the politicians the union members vote for?

holesinpaper
05-10-2012, 02:59
What if you like the politicians the union members vote for?

CA unions got exactly what they paid for. Now there's democracy in action.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/03/brown-hands-out-more-union-gifts/

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/11/local/la-me-jerry-brown-20111012

I'll let you know if unions buy a politician I like.

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 04:33
Is this a real job, or welfare? http://blog.oregonlive.com/o_impact/2009/03/large_wilson.river.jpg
Most gov jobs are no different today, than new deal jobs during the depression. Welfare plain and simple, welfare for 'doing something' like fighting the WoD or the WoT (i.e. TSA).

http://blog.cheapoair.com/image.axd?picture=2010/1/screening_airport.jpg

http://www.doobons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/medical_marijuana_dea_raid621.jpg

Modern welfare ala New Deal busy work -- only vastly less productive than Roosevelt's New Deal jobs.


Tell you what, start a new thread on the subject. I'll show up. This thread is about the civil war.

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 05:43
What if you like the politicians the union members vote for?

Every time I find myself agreeing with public spending I know that's probably an area government shouldn't be spending money in.


....

eracer
05-10-2012, 05:50
Seems to me that draging someone in chains from Africa, or taking a child from a mother so treated, and making them a slave is a distinct violation of the 5th Amendment.

In my brief look at penal law from slave states, I don't see any exemption for blacks in the kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment statutes.

So what legal basis did those guys have for enslaving humans anyway?They were not considered citizens, thus not of 'The People.' This meant they did not enjoy the protections afforded by the BOR. The founders were quite clear about who they wished to protect.

steveksux
05-10-2012, 06:39
Is this a real job, or welfare? http://blog.oregonlive.com/o_impact/2009/03/large_wilson.river.jpg
Most gov jobs are no different today, than new deal jobs during the depression. Welfare plain and simple, welfare for 'doing something' like fighting the WoD or the WoT (i.e. TSA).

http://blog.cheapoair.com/image.axd?picture=2010/1/screening_airport.jpg

http://www.doobons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/medical_marijuana_dea_raid621.jpg

Modern welfare ala New Deal busy work -- only vastly less productive than Roosevelt's New Deal jobs.
Private enterprise is always better than the Govt at doing stuff (http://www.threatmanagementcenters.com/PHOTO-GALLERY.html). If that isn't convincing enough, s a visit to any mall in America that has security guards will confirm it for you.

Randy

holesinpaper
05-10-2012, 10:48
Seems to me that draging someone in chains from Africa, or taking a child from a mother so treated, and making them a slave is a distinct violation of the 5th Amendment.

In my brief look at penal law from slave states, I don't see any exemption for blacks in the kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment statutes.

So what legal basis did those guys have for enslaving humans anyway?

I dunno. It just comes down to "US versus THEM," and those with power making the rules based on the desire for more power and money. Why do LEO and government workers get special consideration on so many levels? What legal basis is there for discrimination? Oh yeah, "the law" says it is ok-- there ya go.

Or ask the Africans that question... they enslaved other Africans and then sold them to the English and Dutch... who then dragged them to American and sold them.

Or ask the Native Americans (who also kept slaves prior to contact with Europeans, and after colonization too).

Slavery was necessarily doomed in the United States from the get go. They didn't need to ruin the republic and kill 630,000+ Americans to end slavery. Slavery was not necessarily doomed in Africa or Native American tribes.

holesinpaper
05-10-2012, 10:55
Private enterprise is always better than the Govt at doing stuff (http://www.threatmanagementcenters.com/PHOTO-GALLERY.html). If that isn't convincing enough, s a visit to any mall in America that has security guards will confirm it for you.

Randy

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/09/leaked-dhs-memo-pornoscanners.html

Well, at least a mall security company doesn't waste $306,000,000 of taxpayers dollars on invasive and offensive technology that does_not_work.

holesinpaper
05-10-2012, 11:02
Tell you what, start a new thread on the subject. I'll show up. This thread is about the civil war.

Seriously? You just don't like me showing the consequences of America losing the civil war huh.

WoD, WoT, BoR as toilet paper, Commerce clause rules them all, GCA 1968, bankrupt nation living on deficit spending, etc.

Welcome to the post Antebellum reality. It only gets worse over time.

longhaulcop
05-10-2012, 11:20
Really, guys it was because of VAMPIRES!!!!

lancesorbenson
05-10-2012, 22:14
Someone argued for prohibition of alcohol? Where was that? Must have missed it.

Yeah. G19 said he'd be all for it in one of the countless other threads that began with one topic, morphed into a dozen other topics and finally settled on the war on drugs.

certifiedfunds
05-10-2012, 22:25
Yeah. G19 said he'd be all for it in one of the countless other threads that began with one topic, morphed into a dozen other topics and finally settled on the war on drugs.

Yeah, right, like that ever happens.

G-19
05-11-2012, 14:02
Yep, I am all for banning alcohol. It serves no good purpose, but has been the cause of lots of tragic situations.

lancesorbenson
05-11-2012, 14:20
Yep, I am all for banning alcohol. It serves no good purpose, but has been the cause of lots of tragic situations.

There you go Doc. Man G19, you mean to tell us you've never had a good time while hoisting a few? I know I have. Never had any problems other than a few bar fights. Had a great time back in my drinking days and I for one found alcohol pretty useful.

Tragedies? Absolutely. But then again people drown in swimming pools all the time and I don't hear anyone talking about banning them. They have already taken away the high dives. I loved those.

holesinpaper
05-11-2012, 15:30
Yeah, screw that limited federal gov crap and states rights... Ban alcohol!

RC-RAMIE
05-11-2012, 15:58
Yeah, screw that limited federal gov crap and states rights... Ban alcohol!

The new conservatives.

certifiedfunds
05-11-2012, 17:18
Yep, I am all for banning alcohol. It serves no good purpose, but has been the cause of lots of tragic situations.

Because it worked out so well the first time.

Why can't you be free and let others be free? Doesn't your God want man to be free?

Heck, even Jesus drank wine, made wine and gave it to his people.

CAcop
05-12-2012, 16:47
I have a question for the Confederates here.

You say that states since they volunteer to join the union can leave any time can any of the states in the Confederacy leave whenever they want?

I ask because with the industrial revolution beginning shortly before the civil war and going into full swing a generation later there were likely to be states, especially border states, that would want to cast their economic lot with the industrial north vs. the agrarian south. At some point wouldn't the Confederacy just dwindle down to slave states that are primarily agriculturally based? Would they be able to survive?

Was the Confedracy's rebellion the last thrashing of a doomed economic plan?

holesinpaper
05-12-2012, 17:02
Was the Confedracy's rebellion the last thrashing of a doomed economic plan?

Slavery was doomed. hundreds of thousands didn't have to die to give the Fed more power. All the fed had to do was... nothing... and slavery would have necessarily ended.

It's just cheaper, post industrial revolution, to buy people by the hour and then let them pay their own way when off the clock -- than to be 100% responsible for their health and welfare 24/7.

Yes, "doomed economic plan" and a friggen idiot could have seen that. But hey, whatever pretext to make slaves of states.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:59
Slavery was doomed. hundreds of thousands didn't have to die to give the Fed more power. All the fed had to do was... nothing... and slavery would have necessarily ended.

It's just cheaper, post industrial revolution, to buy people by the hour and then let them pay their own way when off the clock -- than to be 100% responsible for their health and welfare 24/7.

Yes, "doomed economic plan" and a friggen idiot could have seen that. But hey, whatever pretext to make slaves of states.

Always a good idea to let the majority decide when to stop taking advantage of a minority when it is no longer to their advantage. God given inalienable rights can wait for a convenient time to be implemented.

God forbid the bill of rights be imposed on anybody but the FED govt. Rights are to be given by God, and taken away by the state. As long as it's the right branch of govt taking them away.

Randy

juggy4711
05-12-2012, 18:20
Slavery was doomed. hundreds of thousands didn't have to die to give the Fed more power. All the fed had to do was... nothing... and slavery would have necessarily ended.

It's just cheaper, post industrial revolution, to buy people by the hour and then let them pay their own way when off the clock -- than to be 100% responsible for their health and welfare 24/7.

Yes, "doomed economic plan" and a friggen idiot could have seen that. But hey, whatever pretext to make slaves of states.

Yeah but slavery might have gone on for a few more decades and it had to be ended right then. Much better that hundreds of thousands of folks be killed and the Federal government be empowered with supreme authority over the States allowing redress only when it felt like it.

CAcop
05-12-2012, 19:24
Would the Confederacy tried to have prevented states from leaving?

Even when it got down to a handful of states?

Or if Virginia had crossed over?

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 20:20
There you go Doc. Man G19, you mean to tell us you've never had a good time while hoisting a few? I know I have. Never had any problems other than a few bar fights. Had a great time back in my drinking days and I for one found alcohol pretty useful.

Tragedies? Absolutely. But then again people drown in swimming pools all the time and I don't hear anyone talking about banning them. They have already taken away the high dives. I loved those.

I'd give a thoughtful answer, but I have to go grab a beer while the pillow fight is happening during the roller derby match I'm at.

lancesorbenson
05-12-2012, 20:52
I'd give a thoughtful answer, but I have to go grab a beer while the pillow fight is happening during the roller derby match I'm at.

Roller derby serves no useful purpose and people could get hurt, therefore it should be banned. Same goes for hockey, football, NASCAR, etc.

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 21:05
Roller derby serves no useful purpose and people could get hurt, therefore it should be banned. Same goes for hockey, football, NASCAR, etc.

and the 9mm

Ruble Noon
05-12-2012, 21:17
and the 9mm

Blasphemy

lancesorbenson
05-12-2012, 21:29
and the 9mm

Why stop at just one caliber? G19 employs the same reasoning as the gun grabbers so I guess conservatism is anti-gun now. Since he's the "real" conservative and all.

G-19
05-12-2012, 21:34
Why stop at just one caliber? G19 employs the same reasoning as the gun grabbers so I guess conservatism is anti-gun now. Since he's the "real" conservative and all.

Man, you guys sure can twist things around. Just like good liberals.

certifiedfunds
05-12-2012, 21:34
Why stop at just one caliber? G19 employs the same reasoning as the gun grabbers so I guess conservatism is anti-gun now. Since he's the "real" conservative and all.

Could be that Israel needs the 9mm?

G-19
05-12-2012, 21:37
Could be that Israel needs the 9mm?

Nah, they need nukes.

lancesorbenson
05-12-2012, 22:02
Man, you guys sure can twist things around. Just like good liberals.

Not twisting anything. Just applying your "logic" to something besides evil booze.

CAcop
05-13-2012, 05:05
Interesting thought. Some Confederate states get more fed tax money back than they send in. Are they better off under a strong federal system?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

More importantly if the Confederacy had survived would they be in worse shape now?

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 06:36
Interesting thought. Some Confederate states get more fed tax money back than they send in. Are they better off under a strong federal system?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

More importantly if the Confederacy had survived would they be in worse shape now?

Second thread you made this point in so I'll respond again.

How about Louisiana just put a meter on the oil and gas pipelines crossing our coast and you guys can keep your tax money? Deal?

Think carefully because the leftist wackos in CA won't allow drilling off your coast.

CAcop
05-13-2012, 13:56
Second thread you made this point in so I'll respond again.

How about Louisiana just put a meter on the oil and gas pipelines crossing our coast and you guys can keep your tax money? Deal?

Think carefully because the leftist wackos in CA won't allow drilling off your coast.

Funny. Every time I go to Tahoe I see a refinery in Martinez with tankers pumping out the crude oil. Do you guys ship it in boats?

certifiedfunds
05-13-2012, 14:00
Funny. Every time I go to Tahoe I see a refinery in Martinez with tankers pumping out the crude oil. Do you guys ship it in boats?

There is production, not exploration. Exploration requires drilling.

But, yes, oil comes on ships from overseas. Big ones. Like the ships you see. Big steel boats with tanks. Tankers. You folks have to get your fuel from somewhere.

Interestingly enough, if you folks were to open up your coast to drilling you'd enjoy an economic boom that would wipe out your fiscal problems, and unemployment.

Even you could find a wealth producing job in the private sector, even if it was just guarding oil equipment at night.

fortyofforty
05-14-2012, 09:23
Interestingly enough, if you folks were to open up your coast to drilling you'd enjoy an economic boom that would wipe out your fiscal problems, and unemployment.

Even you could find a wealth producing job in the private sector, even if it was just guarding oil equipment at night.

NO NO NO!!! It's about raising taxes. Don't try to apply economic logic when the Natsos are in charge. Tax your way to prosperity. Spend your way out of poverty. Yeah, that's the ticket. :supergrin: It's always worked before, right?

certifiedfunds
05-14-2012, 09:39
I'm in the oil patch obviously. Heard on the radio yesterday that local UE is >5%.

Talked to an electrician over the weekend who has 30 temp meters out at new construction sites.

Can't help but laugh at California with all that oil and gas sitting off their coast and their terrible economic problems.