Sorry for not editing my post.
1
2
3
-
Jan. 9, 2012 6:39 p.m. Sultan Reader
-
Jan. 9, 2012 7:11 p.m. mguar Reader
Sultan wrote:
Conservatives do not like progress. States rights is an issue resolved by 1865. It cost 600,000 Americans lives to resolve that issue alone. Progressive taxes was resolved by Lincoln (a republican ) to finance the civil war..mguar wrote:
ThePhranc wrote:
Liberals aren't liberals any more. That name became too toxic so now they are called "progessives" because they want progress. The progress that has been tried before and failed every time kind of progress.
So what is wrong with progress?
it depends on what you are progressing towards. For folks who call themselves progressives you who do good to learn how the movement got started and then ask yourself if you want to support that. Liberals and progressives are very different.
-
Jan. 9, 2012 7:18 p.m. ThePhranc Reader
In reply to mguar:
Conservatives like progress just fine as long as its real progress and not the "progress" of "progressives".
You do understand what that means right?
States rights was not resolved by the War of Northern Aggression. The outcome of that war as far as states rights is concerned is that states have no rights unless they fight for them and that the federals will kill to keep power. Lincoln was a scum bag. His hero whoreship is disgusting, but they say he who wins writes the history. John Wilkes Booth is an America hero who saved many from the tyrany on old Honest Abe.
-
Jan. 9, 2012 8:27 p.m. HiTempguy SuperDork
ThePhranc wrote:
Conservatives like progress just fine as long as its real progress and not the "progress" of "progressives".
Exactly, change for the sake of change isn't good, in fact, it is detrimental.
-
Jan. 9, 2012 8:29 p.m. Curmudgeon SuperDork
Conservative = liberal who's been mugged
Liberal = conservative arrested for DUI
-
Jan. 10, 2012 12:20 a.m. mguar Reader
ThePhranc wrote:
In reply to mguar:
Conservatives like progress just fine as long as its real progress and not the "progress" of "progressives".
You do understand what that means right?
States rights was not resolved by the War of Northern Aggression. The outcome of that war as far as states rights is concerned is that states have no rights unless they fight for them and that the federals will kill to keep power. Lincoln was a scum bag. His hero whoreship is disgusting, but they say he who wins writes the history. John Wilkes Booth is an America hero who saved many from the tyrany on old Honest Abe.
The south lost the war they started because they were foolish enough to believe that war is about nobility and heroics.. They apparently couldn't count because they were behind in everything important.. Cannons, men, guns, railroads, telegraphs, and leaders..
Say what you wish about Lincoln but at least he didn't runaway in a dress like Jefferson Davis did.. Oh, and he won..
-
Jan. 10, 2012 6:47 a.m. ThePhranc Reader
mguar wrote:
ThePhranc wrote:
In reply to mguar:
Conservatives like progress just fine as long as its real progress and not the "progress" of "progressives".
You do understand what that means right?
States rights was not resolved by the War of Northern Aggression. The outcome of that war as far as states rights is concerned is that states have no rights unless they fight for them and that the federals will kill to keep power. Lincoln was a scum bag. His hero whoreship is disgusting, but they say he who wins writes the history. John Wilkes Booth is an America hero who saved many from the tyrany on old Honest Abe.
The south lost the war they started because they were foolish enough to believe that war is about nobility and heroics.. They apparently couldn't count because they were behind in everything important.. Cannons, men, guns, railroads, telegraphs, and leaders..
Say what you wish about Lincoln but at least he didn't runaway in a dress like Jefferson Davis did.. Oh, and he won..
They didn't actually start the war. Your ignorance about the war astounding but not surprising.
-
Jan. 10, 2012 6:52 a.m. Curmudgeon SuperDork
I was bred, born and raised Southern. I was told almost from the cradle that the Yanks cheated to win and the South was on the side of nobility and 'states rights', slavery had nothing to do with it. I was also told Abe Lincoln as the schoolbooks taught him was wrong, he was actually a thief and a crook etc.
When I got old enough to make up my own mind, I read the Articles of Secession and saw that preserving the institution of slavery was mentioned as a proximate reason.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina
Excerpt:
'The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.'
'The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'
'These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.'
'We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. '
'For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.'
Dislike Abe, Sherman, Grant etc all ya want, but slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War and the South was on the wrong side of the question then. Period. Along with the whole couldn't count guns etc thing.
I see living down here the same way I do Brit cars: love it but honest enough to admit the faults, both past and present.
-
Jan. 10, 2012 7:32 a.m. 93EXCivic SuperDork
Curmudgeon wrote:
I see living down here the same way I do Brit cars: love it but honest enough to admit the faults, both past and present.
Plus +1000. The South sure isn't perfect but there is no where I would rather live.
-
Jan. 10, 2012 8:03 a.m. Otto Maddox Dork
Good lord. Leave this place overnight and we've dragged the Civil War into it.
-
Jan. 10, 2012 8:05 a.m. 93EXCivic SuperDork
Otto Maddox wrote:
Good lord. Leave this place overnight and we've dragged the Civil War into it.
But no goose stepping Nazis yet.
-
Jan. 10, 2012 9:11 a.m. mguar Reader
ThePhranc wrote:
mguar wrote:
ThePhranc wrote:
In reply to mguar:
Conservatives like progress just fine as long as its real progress and not the "progress" of "progressives".
You do understand what that means right?
States rights was not resolved by the War of Northern Aggression. The outcome of that war as far as states rights is concerned is that states have no rights unless they fight for them and that the federals will kill to keep power. Lincoln was a scum bag. His hero whoreship is disgusting, but they say he who wins writes the history. John Wilkes Booth is an America hero who saved many from the tyrany on old Honest Abe.
The south lost the war they started because they were foolish enough to believe that war is about nobility and heroics.. They apparently couldn't count because they were behind in everything important.. Cannons, men, guns, railroads, telegraphs, and leaders..
Say what you wish about Lincoln but at least he didn't runaway in a dress like Jefferson Davis did.. Oh, and he won..
They didn't actually start the war. Your ignorance about the war astounding but not surprising.
The rebels wanted to keep slavery. Lincoln didn't want a war and did as much as possible to prevent war.. (up to and including a willingness to allow them to retain slavery)
Too bad you've listened to so much revisionist history that the facts are lost to you.. -
Jan. 10, 2012 9:23 a.m. mguar Reader
Curmudgeon wrote:
Well said! All Men are created equal.I was bred, born and raised Southern. I was told almost from the cradle that the Yanks cheated to win and the South was on the side of nobility and 'states rights', slavery had nothing to do with it. I was also told Abe Lincoln as the schoolbooks taught him was wrong, he was actually a thief and a crook etc.
When I got old enough to make up my own mind, I read the Articles of Secession and saw that preserving the institution of slavery was mentioned as a proximate reason.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina
Excerpt:
'The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.'
'The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'
'These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.'
'We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. '
'For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.'
Dislike Abe, Sherman, Grant etc all ya want, but slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War and the South was on the wrong side of the question then. Period. Along with the whole couldn't count guns etc thing.
I see living down here the same way I do Brit cars: love it but honest enough to admit the faults, both past and present.
I do understand those who insist on revising history to suit their own agenda. Doing so may not make them bad people even.. Almost every family has someone or knows someone who revises history to suit their needs. We humor the widow who needs to think her husband died rather than admit he ran off with a younger woman. Or honor the supply soldier like a hero.. Only rarely do their delusions cause serious problems. So we take pity on them and kindly allow them their delusions. -
Jan. 10, 2012 9:23 a.m. mguar Reader
Curmudgeon wrote:
Well said! All Men are created equal.I was bred, born and raised Southern. I was told almost from the cradle that the Yanks cheated to win and the South was on the side of nobility and 'states rights', slavery had nothing to do with it. I was also told Abe Lincoln as the schoolbooks taught him was wrong, he was actually a thief and a crook etc.
When I got old enough to make up my own mind, I read the Articles of Secession and saw that preserving the institution of slavery was mentioned as a proximate reason.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina
Excerpt:
'The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.'
'The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'
'These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.'
'We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. '
'For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.'
Dislike Abe, Sherman, Grant etc all ya want, but slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War and the South was on the wrong side of the question then. Period. Along with the whole couldn't count guns etc thing.
I see living down here the same way I do Brit cars: love it but honest enough to admit the faults, both past and present.
I do understand those who insist on revising history to suit their own agenda. Doing so may not make them bad people even.. Almost every family has someone or knows someone who revises history to suit their needs. We humor the widow who needs to think her husband died rather than admit he ran off with a younger woman. Or honor the supply soldier like a hero.. Only rarely do their delusions cause serious problems. So we take pity on them and kindly allow them their delusions. -
Jan. 10, 2012 10:19 a.m. oldsaw SuperDork
mguar wrote:
I do understand those who insist on revising history to suit their own agenda.So we take pity on them and kindly allow them their delusions.
I apply this idea to liberals and conservatives.
-
Jan. 11, 2012 8:10 a.m. mguar Reader
oldsaw wrote:
mguar wrote:
I do understand those who insist on revising history to suit their own agenda.So we take pity on them and kindly allow them their delusions.
I apply this idea to liberals and conservatives.
You are absolutely correct in that.. In fact out of the millions of different viewpoints held in this country . None are wrong.. That's what freedom is really about..
-
Jan. 11, 2012 12:32 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork
mguar wrote:
Governing is really the art of compromise.
Which is something we seem to have forgotten
-
Jan. 12, 2012 9:24 a.m. mguar Reader
mad_machine wrote:
mguar wrote:
Governing is really the art of compromise.
Which is something we seem to have forgotten
I suspect politicians would except extremest groups (on either side of the aisle) think compromise is a dirty word..
Iowa is a classic example of the power of extremest groups.. 29,000 votes cast shove the whole republican party towards the Tea party.
Elections are won in the middle. not with tree huggers and tea partiests. Yet 300 million people respond to the agenda that a relative few hold..
-
Jan. 12, 2012 9:44 a.m. Curmudgeon SuperDork
There's a saying: 'a good decision pisses off everybody'.
-
Jan. 13, 2012 6:35 a.m. mguar Reader
In reply to Curmudgeon:
Yeh! I think too many shallow tinkers feel that if they don't get their way then politicians must be corrupt..
People who expect simple answers to complex questions.. like the drug problem..Just say no.. (and then bury your head in the sand while spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stop less than 2% of the drugs smuggled into the country..
That's not a deterrent, that's a tax! A relatively small percentage of the population uses drugs. That same small percentage exists no matter what we do.. So should our tax dollars be spent trying to keep a small percentage of the population in line or should we accept that that small percentage might be better controlled by simply giving drugs away?
Maybe that's not the solution.. But until we examine other solutions we will never know..What I do know is 90% of the prison population (about 2 million people) are there because of drug problems.. They break into houses and steal things to sell for drug money.. Since it costs about $65,000 a year to keep prisoners in a medium security prison perhaps it's time to rethink the response to the drug problem..
We spend about 400 billion dollars a year fighting drugs and another 12 billion a year keeping druggies in jail. That's your tax dollars at work..
If instead Uncle Sam went and bought a few million dollars worth of drugs at wholesale and a few more millions a year hiring nurses to go around giving the required doses to anybody with a drug problem.
Without a profit motive gangs would dry up and the tax payers would save a serious chunk of money..
