Black college student hangs Confederate Flag in his dorm room

[georg jetson]

No, I believe that my family, and your family, genetically, descended from chimps. Get it right

Now why ya gotta bring my family into it??!!

I respect everyone's beliefs... as long as they're not trying to pass them of as proven truth. Cause ya know... that's against the teachings of the GSSM.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Now why ya gotta bring my family into it??!!

I respect everyone's beliefs... as long as their not trying to pass them of as proven truth. Cause ya know... that's against the teachings of the GSSM.

I would never do that--Truth is one of two things: (1) Truth does not exist but, only as a concept; (2) Truth does exist but, it is beyond the human capacity to realize beyond a general concept. I am not stating that there is a Divine source of Truth, if it does exist but, it is beyond our finite capacity.

 

[georg jetson]

I would never do that--Truth is one of two things: (1) Truth does not exist but, only as a concept; (2) Truth does exist but, it is beyond the human capacity to realize beyond a general concept. I am not stating that there is a Divine source of Truth, if it does exist but, it is beyond our finite capacity.

Well... this is something you believe.

I agree that some truth is beyond our finite capacity. It is the belief that all things are NOT knowable. It is a limitation of our powers of observation/comprehension which is what we call science.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Chimps?

I'll tell you what was I descended from.... Primordial awesome sauce!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I gave TWO reasons. I think you're number 2.


Of course Pearl Harbor could have been prevented... as could have the 9/11 attacks. That's not proof that they were INTENTIONALLY not prevented.

There's no more evidence that FDR "threw" Pearl Harbor than there is that Tojo "threw" the Doolittle Raid. There was plenty of incompetence on both sides, at all levels. Fortunately for us, there was more on the other side, and it got worse over time.



War WAS the only answer with Lincoln in charge of the North and militant slave holders driving secession in the South. ABSOLUTELY the only meaningful reason for secession was the PRESERVATION OF SLAVERY. Given that secession was NEVER going to be accepted by Lincoln, and that secession was the principle means to the end of the PRESERVATION OF SLAVERY, war was virtually guaranteed. No slavery = no secession. The idea that the South seceded for any reason besides PRESERVATION OF SLAVERY, and that secession was going to be tolerated by Lincoln is simply laughable.

Yes I understand your position just disagree it was the only answer and no I am not number 2 either. I don't think state rights are stronger than slavery. And have stated that if that is why the north invaded the south I would agree with it. I am not a pacifist if they were invading to secure the fundamental rights of an oppressed people it would have been a righteous war.

Its like praising an arsonist as a hero because he burnt down a house full of vermin the arsonist is still a criminal the north and the feds were still criminals. Even if there were benefits from his action.

I never said Lincoln was going to tolerate secession. I said it was simply feel it's unconstitutional for him to do it. But he would have tolerated slavery , even promoted a 13th amendment that banned government from interfering in it, to have saved the union. Which tells me that there where other reasons along with slavery for the south to secede.

The south had 1/3 of the U.S. white population yet had 4 times as many abolitionist than the north. Just an interesting thought.

I don't believe the twin tower attacks were not intentionally prevented. I do believe a Japanese attack was.

"There the President...brought up entirely the relations with the Japanese. He brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked, perhaps [as soon as] next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning and the question was what should we do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

FDR's Secretary of War, Henry Stimson

 

[Daylen]

now why ya gotta bring my family into it??!!

i respect everyone's beliefs... As long as they're not trying to pass them of as proven truth. Cause ya know... That's against the teachings of the gssm. :d

aha! Another convert!

 

[Daylen]

Chimps?

I'll tell you what was I descended from.... Primordial awesome sauce!

eh? you're too old to be descended from my sauce!:uhoh:

 

[KBCraig]

I think you're number 2.

SVG, I think he just called you a turd.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG, I think he just called you a turd.

LOL...now that was funny.

Nah we just disagree that it was the only answer. I like Deanimator one thing I like is his passion for what he feels strongly about. And his ability to present actual arguments for his stance.

 

[Deanimator]

And his ability to present actual arguments for his stance.

Yeah, I've been rejected by BOTH Occupy Wall Street and the Bradys for that...

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yeah, I've been rejected by BOTH Occupy Wall Street and the Bradys for that...

Now that is something I would have liked to see. You know the rule video or it didn't happen!

 

[Brass Magnet]

Which, again, the states of the CSA fail to maintain or explain. It's one of the largest arguments against the view that the CSA was "revolutionary war" like. In that, the Declaration of Independence explained what the US Government has done wrong, and then constructed a government that did not contain within it those wrongs.

Yet if you read the CSA's "declaration" and compare it to their articles, they do not do so in large part. More than that, the CSA quoted a document that was overwritten by a later one, it was like they weren't even trying. More than that, they spend a lot of time explaining that they want to maintain slavery, and that it is hte issue that was really important for them.

I agree that they failed to maintain or explain it. However; many things were "self evident" then and aren't so much today. I'm not really interested so much in the CSA's reasoning behind what they did but whether or not the states have legal authority, implied or otherwise to secede.

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere in the thread but isn't being able to call an Article V convention the ultimate proof of the states superiority over the federal government?

 

[Tawnos]

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere in the thread but isn't being able to call an Article V convention the ultimate proof of the states superiority over the federal government?

Only when the supermajority whole agrees to such. In this case, the seceding states were a bunch of petulant children saying "we want to keep owning slaves, and you can't tell us no."

 

[Brass Magnet]

Only when the supermajority whole agrees to such. In this case, the seceding states were a bunch of petulant children saying "we want to keep owning slaves, and you can't tell us no."

Like I said, for my line of thought I'm not concerned with the why. I'm concerned with whether or not they had the right.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP> In this case, the seceding states were a bunch of petulant children <SNIP

...So you have something in common with the seceding states...

Just keep your head in the sand.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Like I said, for my line of thought I'm not concerned with the why. I'm concerned with whether or not they had the right.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

If you read any of the founders thoughts on it they all thought of the Union as a voluntary one with the right to secede.

They also thought general welfare and commerce clause didn't give the government any more power than the specific enumerated ones in the constitution. But you can see how the courts have ruled themselves and the political elite they rely on more power in destroying that idea.

 

[Tawnos]

If you read any of the founders thoughts on it they all thought of the Union as a voluntary one with the right to secede.

Can you make a citation, rather than merely an assertion? Read which thoughts of the founders? From what sources? Were they of a unified mind, or in conflict?

 

[Tawnos]

Like I said, for my line of thought I'm not concerned with the why. I'm concerned with whether or not they had the right.

I think you merely need look at the federal supremacy clause to see that the nation was founded with the federal government as enacted and amended having penultimate control of the states. Ultimate control came only via two thirds/three fourths consent of the union to make modification to or removal of the federated system of government. The "more perfect union" part of the preamble largely speaks to the intent to more tightly unify the states, and a state which adopted the constitution took with that Article IV Section 3, which states that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", of which these states were a part. No matter how you dice it, the right or power to secede is not found in the constitution as written, and it would take significant agreement to dissolve the union, agreement that did not exist pre-CSA. The secession was unilateral and, ultimately, illegal.

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP> No matter how you dice it, the right or power to secede is not found in the constitution as written, and it would take significant agreement to dissolve the union, agreement that did not exist pre-CSA. The secession was unilateral and, ultimately, illegal.

This is incorrect. It is the power of the federal government to prevent succession that is lacking. It assumed that power unconstitutionally.

It would be foolish, considering the obvious intention of the constitution to be a LIMIT on fed power, to ASSUME that just because the states were NOT given(left?) the power to succeed that it was not one of the powers retained by the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Succession prevention was NOT delegated to the US nor is it prohibited the states.

 

[Tawnos]

Since I have georg jetson on ignore, and the ignore functionality's "show post" is broken, I'm just going to assume he's responding to me and responding in a way that indicates total lack of reading comprehension. Even if he isn't, the few people who have quoted him make me all the happier I no longer see his inane babble on every post he types.