 user created polls & quizzes |
Don't forget the binge drinking. ...But, give the Irish their due, their per capita income has surpassed the British, and that *must* feel so very good to the citizens of Eire. At least, they can run an economy successfully, even if the words "Irish military" still may cause peals of laughter in many circles. Oh, and if I could have any president in office right now it would be Republican Theodore Roosevelt, because I *know* he could both run a foreign war to good effect *and* shut up the critics at home. Hell, he might even show up armed on the battlefield himself if he thought the troops were slacking. Plus, he'd beat the living daylights out of Howard Dean, just for the thrill of it and to see him cry. "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick." I figure that since Clinton did a hell of a job in office, why not bring him back? Shit I'd give my right foot to have him reinstated as President.
by Guest_597cc
[+]
Ken_from_Dublin, why are YOU so concerned about OUR president? Maybe, as usual, there's nothing do to in Ireland but complain. Maybe, Felix, just maybe people around the world get a bit itchy when a complete daddy thumbsucker gets behind the steering wheel of the, for the time being, only superpower DARN! Didn't get a bite fromm _AM_. The incandescent pyrotechnics have fizzled. Never mind. They'll always be new spotfires on this site i can fuel.
by HeresJohnny
[+]
Hang on, i skimped on something. Could it be Ken v Togglebox & Bostonian? I'll keep an eye out for this!!
by HeresJohnny
[+]
Ha Ha! Ya mad bastard Jack, btw, no offence meant Bostonian,I'm just playing devil's advocate, and airing my personal opinion at the same time, and sure you know us Irish - we're only happy when we're complaining, bring back Bill Clinton I say. .. Felix, re Irish military and peals of laughter, would this be the same Irish military that fought the British at the height of their powers and drove them out of the 26 counties, or today's peace keeping forces recently described by Kofi Annan as the best in the world. Or the Irish Republican Army, thee most sophisticated and powerful Guerrilla army the world has ever seen. Dont count the IRA, they should be seen as an embarresment to both nations in the british ilse, just like any other terrorists operating in northan irland. The UK nos that the republick dosnt want northan irland as it is, as the 2 factions there do nothing but kill eachother, destroying the surroundings in the process. When the people of northan irland learn tolerents, then finally it mite become part of the republick, as it is, no one wants it. And the IRA probably isnt the most powerful and sophisticated, but its probably in the top 10.
by Lazy_N_Crazy
[+]
Founded by Michael Collin's, they were the seminal urban guerrilla war machine and their battle methods were, and are still,copied all over the world, and they are universally accepted as having been the greatest guerrilla army in the history of warfare. Bullseye Togglebox, could'nt have been said better. "Maybe, Felix, just maybe people around the world get a bit itchy when a complete daddy thumbsucker gets behind the steering wheel of the, for the time being, only superpower" Togglebox--you made the wrong nab: it was my pal Bostonian who made that comment. However, I'll stick up for him: even if we choose a flawed leader, it's still our choice and not the rest of the world's. You have every right to make comments or take us to task, but not to attempt to dictate whom we'll choose next time out or make donations to the opponents (as some Canadians had apparently been trying to do). *s* "Felix, re Irish military and peals of laughter, would this be the same Irish military that fought the British at the height of their powers and drove them out of the 26 counties, or today's peace keeping forces recently described by Kofi Annan as the best in the world. Or the Irish Republican Army, thee most sophisticated and powerful Guerrilla army the world has ever seen." Ken--first of all, don't get me wrong: I have a lot of sympathy for and respect for the Irish & their culture. I think I made that plain on a number of other threads. Also, the Irish have made a tremendous contribution to American culture--political, economically, and socially. That would be a long post in itself. Neither will I take the bravery of the individual Irish to task. However, you have to admit, Ireland's never been known for its standing army or air force or the like. I'm not touching the IRA issue with a ten-foot pole (to use an Americanism), as that would be a long, long digression that would probably overtake this thread easily. You lost me with that "drove the Brits out of 26 countries" business. Did you mean the Irish insurgency weakened British military resolve? I can't recall a ground war between convention Brit and Eire forces in 26 nations, so I'm a little confused. Insurgency which culminated in the 1916 rising. You must understand Felix that Ireland is a peaceable race of people having never been officially at war with any country ever, today, the Republic of Ireland has a population of less than four million, how in God's name could we be a world player or even be of significance with those kind of demographics? Oh! This has to be said! Al Gore was elected to be your president, but because of republican orchestrated shenanigans in Florida, and Fox News and nepotism, he was- along with the American people deprived of his rightful presidency by nothing less than.... CHEATS! Ken: If you ever rounded up all of your brother and sister Irish in America (and I think that's something like 20 million), you could probably take on France or, on a good day and with luck, Britain. Now, I know all of you Irish will treat the English very well when you ride into London. Just show them the same kindnesses they showed you. (-; "Oh! This has to be said! Al Gore was elected to be your president, but because of republican orchestrated shenanigans in Florida, and Fox News and nepotism, he was- along with the American people deprived of his rightful presidency by nothing less than.... CHEATS!" Ken: The electoral system isn't perfect, and it does have its own quirks, but this weird "coin on edge" scenario had only happened once before in U.S. history. With all of the "conspiracy" talk following the election, there were no less than half a dozen independent inquiries into voter fraud in Florida, but no smoking gun was ever found. Additionally, the margins were quite close in an number of other states. It was a highly contentious election, to say the least. However, it was the U.S. Supreme Ct. that truly made the call on this, & you should read Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000), in order to understand exactly how they decided as they did and why. One fact noted by the court: "Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot." The judicial branch--the Justices--are in for life. They can't be ordered about by the executive branch--the President--if they have no wish to be ordered about. That's part of "separation of powers." All of that said, I do feel Dubya has been a crashingly mediocre President. The only problem's that the Democrats appear hellbent on nominating the most left-wing member of the U.S. Congress (recently statistically demonstrated, as based on his voting record), and I feel no will to rush out and vote for him as alternative. The sad part's this--all moderation and compromise have been purged from *both* of the two main U.S. political parties. We have a grudge match, a shouting match, and real need for some viable 3rd parties (q.v. my poll on that subject! *s*). It would definately would be the "silent member" of the Congress, Thomas Jefferson, who at 33, drafted the Declaration of Independence. Plus you'd know Condoleeza Rice would be getting f*cked at night. "Maybe if you Americans weren't so brainwashed by the goverment controlled media, and so pig-ignorant about the rest of the world people would like you instead of despising your sick fixed elections followed by dictatorship intent on destroying the world." Lie down and wait for the meds to take effect and recall that the nice doctors said you should limit your net access to 30 minutes per day. FDR FDR FDR
by TheArchitect
[+]
"FDR FDR FDR" He wouldn't do a thing to really improve the economy, but he'd find well-propagandized ways to distract us all and cheer us up. That's half the battle, I suppose. I picked James K. Polk so he could have They Might Be Giants play his theme song at his inauguration.
by fondablaster
[+]
it's amazing how Americans have spent the last 3 years squealing about the war on terror, yet openly praise the IRA, whose hands were - and still are - covered in the blood of innocents. shame on you. I can't believe they've chosen that fat mediocrity Bill Clinton as best replacement for Two-Gun Dubya, Texas Ranger. FDR or Lincoln or Washington or Jefferson I can definitely see, but you've got to be deranged or very ill-informed to pick Clinton as top choice. Crap, why not just go grab one of those equally tubby late 19th century nonentities (like Grover Cleveland) or Warren Harding while you're at it. Clinton, while probably not reviled, will just be a small blip on the radar screen of historians in 100 years, unlike FDR or Truman. Me ofcourse I voted for Clinton. Not because he was a good president but becasue it would really piss off the moronic Bush supporters.
by cretin_slap
[+]
FDR, baby. Far left Liberal Ballot,GET A LIFE I would choose Clinton because he created a strong and fruitful economy,strenghten the military and improved relationships between America and the rest of the world. Bill clinton was the worst president in history
by jakesnake5
[+]
BILL CLINTON- a liar, gave our secrets to china, did nothing significant in his reign of presidency, if anything weakened our military. I hope you all get well soon ill-mannered clinton voters
by jakesnake5
[+]
BILL CLINTON- a liar, gave our secrets to china, did nothing significant in his reign of presidency, if anything weakened our military. I hope you all get well soon ill-mannered clinton voters
by jakesnake5
[+]
Bill Clinton is one of the greatest presidents in US history.
by CouchGnome
[+]
Bush isn't the worst President. John Adams actually had two acts that were so illegal that to prevent any backlase he simply put a deadline and repealed them when he left office, they were the Alien and Sedition act. He used them to try to prevent Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonains tfrom taking control of the whire house and the congress. Another one, Andrew Jackson. He was so corrupt that he has a system that was coined after he left office, it was the Spoil system. He bought off votes for jobs in his presidency. This is just one of many mistakes that poeple forget to mention when they talk about Bush and previous presidents. I'm no Bush supporter but please come with some back ground before you bad mouth him. And what the person does before he comes into office shouldn't be a judgement as he does in office. Funny no one has disputed my claims that Bush isn't the worse President when I bring in some facts. George Bush actually got better grades than John Kerry in Yale. So I don't understand why people think he's so dumb.
by danny_mack
[+]
There are plenty of presidents who were much worse than GW. Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst, if not the absolute _worst_ president and dictator this nation has seen.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Fuck You Ken! Bring Reagn back. Clinton was a scared bitch and he didn't make the economy strong. If you look at what it takes to consider an economy strong, it's 3 quarters of GDP growth. We had the 4th as he entered office. He came in on the upside. Do your homework. Fuck Clinton. Let the Irish have him. There are plenty of presidents who were much worse than GW. Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst, if not the absolute _worst_ president and dictator this nation has seen. How was Lincoln a Dictator. Yes they do weaken the powers of the individual during war time and boost up the presidents during wartime also but Lincoln was one constant during the war. To further dispute the claim of dictatorship Lincoln wanted little punishment for the sucessors, all he wanted was the solidears to sign on the line to drop arms against the Union and swaer alligence. Would a dictator do this? Did Hitler or Stalin show such compansion, NO! Lincoon is one of the best if not thee best President, no, one of the best human beings that ever lived! "Bush is fighting terrorism" ha haa ha. Bush aint fighting a god-damn thing. That guy would rather let a guy beat the crap out of his wife then step in and risk getting popped in the eye. Doen, I wrote that last comment to you. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
by anti_yankee
[+]
The President has certain extened rights during wartime. This is supported by Case laws that occured during W.W.1 & 2. THe confederates were never given reciginition from the U.S. as a nation. If you remember it was the South that attacked Fort Sumter and started the war. As for atrocities and mass murder have you ever heard of the civil war confederate P.O.W. prison Andersonvill. It was the concentration camp of its time. Lincoln wasn't perfect however he isn't the war criminal that you make him out to be. "George Bush actually got better grades than John Kerry in Yale. So I don't understand why people think he's so dumb. " He probally hooked his professors up with weed and coke for all of those grades, if you're a rich daddy's boy like Bush you can get whatever grades you want. If he is so smart how come he ran so many companies into the ground? Seriously, how are people so brainwashed by this retard, you'd follow him off a cliff if he went there. WAKE UP AND THINK FOR YOURSELF!! doen5167, YOU SAID The President has certain extened rights during wartime. This is supported by Case laws that occured during W.W.1 & 2. Based upon what Lincoln did. YOU SAID: THe confederates were never given reciginition from the U.S. as a nation. They voted to join the union and they voted to leave. While the Constitution was being signed, some states made it abundantly clear, by placing in their state constitutions, the right to leave at any time. Furthermore, the Constitution gave states the right to secede. As well did the Declaration of Independence. As a final point, after the war of Northern Agression, the Confederate States were not recognized as states until they voted to pass the 14th Amendment. So, during the war they were states, but after the war they weren't? YOU SAID If you remember it was the South that attacked Fort Sumter and started the war. Yes, and if you remember, there was a delicate truce between SC, FL, and the government under VanBuren. It was agreed that the North would not try to reinforce their forts and the South would not attack. Lincoln knew this coming in, but attempted to slip additional men into Sumter, thereby invading SC and forcing them to fire in defense of their freedom. YOU SAID As for atrocities and mass murder have you ever heard of the civil war confederate P.O.W. prison Andersonvill. And Fort Delaware, the Immortal 600, Rock Island, etc. YOU SAID Lincoln wasn't perfect however he isn't the war criminal that you make him out to be. Lincoln did everything I said he did. He made himself out to be a dictator. Fortunately for him and his memory, he was martyred. History would not have been half as kind if he were not.
by anti_yankee
[+]
That is a flat out lie that Bush got better grades. The truth is that Bush was a C average student. He only passed because of his fathers influence. In fact many of Bush's professors wanted to fail him. Bush also failed to be accepted to UT law school.
by CouchGnome
[+]
Couch, Where did the respective candidates go to grad school and for what?
by anti_yankee
[+]
That is not the point, I was refuting the lie that Bush got better grades in undergrad. As for grad school, do some research on your own, I can't do everything for you.
by CouchGnome
[+]
By the way Bush was rejected from Law School, that is why he went to business school. John Kerry went to law school.
by CouchGnome
[+]
Couch, YOU SAID As for grad school, do some research on your own, I can't do everything for you. So much for being Socratic, eh? I guess you knew that was the point. Bush- Harvard- MBA Kerry- Boston College Law School- Law Degree
by anti_yankee
[+]
good job anti_yankee, one day you will leave the shelter of my wings.
by CouchGnome
[+]
By the way anyone knows that even a decent law school is 10 times harder to get into than the best of business schools.
by CouchGnome
[+]
Couch, Was never beneath your wing. YOU SAID By the way anyone knows that even a decent law school is 10 times harder to get into than the best of business schools. Ha. And had it been the other way around, you would likely say the opposite. This is simply your speculation that you try to pass as fact. I'm sure everyone who applies gets into the Harvard MBA program. They are both highly selective schools.
by anti_yankee
[+]
I win agian. ; )
by CouchGnome
[+]
I win agian. ; ) by CouchGnome on Oct 28, 2004 Yes. No reach into the commode right there and pick up your prize. ;-)
by anti_yankee
[+]
"Now reach..."
by anti_yankee
[+]
George Washington was the very best President that we've ever had. Only Abraham Lincoln and FDR can match him.
by Cassini90125
[+]
Cassini, I'll agree with you on the George Washington bit, but Lincoln was a tyrant. He arrested nearly everyone who opposed him and tossed them in jail or deported them. He destroyed many newspapers that disagreed with him. He outlawed free speech and suspended habeas corpus.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Lincoln was justiifed by suspending Hapeas Corpus, look in the Constition Section 9 Clause 2. The privlege of the writ of Hapeeas Corpus shall not be suspened, UNLESS when in cases of REBELLION or invasion the public saftey may require it. No where in the constition does it give the right to succeed from the union. Further more the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the confederates and there right to suceed, it was written in 1775 and the constition was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789. The colonies broke away from England by the Declaration but the were brought togather to from America by the Constition. The states were not allowed back in for a simple reason, the contry had jsut freed all the slaves with the 13th amendment and the states now had to give them there rights. Yes, and if you remember, there was a delicate truce between SC, FL, and the government under VanBuren. It was agreed that the North would not try to reinforce their forts and the South would not attack. Lincoln knew this coming in, but attempted to slip additional men into Sumter, thereby invading SC and forcing them to fire in defense of their freedom. It was also said that if Lincoln was elected that South CArolina were going to suceed than it really did not matter waht Lincoln did. I bleive that you forget that Lincoln had the least harsh reentry into the union for confederate soldiears, all he wanted was for them to sign an oath and lay down there arms, compare that to the Radicals and Lincoln didn't seem too bad. Sorry it tok so long to comment bakc forgot about this one. Doen, YOU SAID: Lincoln was justiifed by suspending Hapeas Corpus, look in the Constition Section 9 Clause 2. The privlege of the writ of Hapeeas Corpus shall not be suspened, UNLESS when in cases of REBELLION or invasion the public saftey may require it. This is in Article I. It refers to the powers of Congress. It was not in Lincoln’s power to suspend or permit Habeas Corpus. His action was a violation of the US Constitution (USC). Civil-Liberties.com says: “ the Peace Democrats… publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. “ YOU SAID No where in the constition does it give the right to succeed from the union. I disagree. Men like Horace Greeley, who was a Republican, helped get Lincoln elected, was anti-Slavery, etc. also disagree with your understanding. He argued the South had a right to secede. More than this, let us look at the USC: Amendments IX and X state: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “ and “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.” As such, it is clearly written that those rights not expressly given to the federal government remain the rights of the people. More than this, the rights of secession were discussed prior to adoption of the USC (which was, of course, secession), and several states agreed to ratify the USC only if they maintained their right to leave at any time. It is important that we also look at our primary document, the Declaration of Independence (DOI). In it, we are told: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” When 10 million people decided jointly that they no longer consented to be governed by the government in the North, that government lost its right to rule over them. If that is not enough, directly following the above quote, you will find “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” So, they were within their rights. YOU SAID: Further more the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the confederates and there right to suceed, it was written in 1775 and the constition was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789. The DOI is very much a part of our history and a declaration of human rights as we understand them. Either it is right or wrong, but it cannot possibly be conditional. Either governments are instituted by the consent of man or they are not. Either man has the right to form his own government or he does not. Is it your position that we should no longer look at the DOI as a part of our rights and freedoms? As for ratification of the USC, it was not agreed to by all states when it was ratified. This was, in fact, secession from the Articles of Confederation (AoC). The AoC was written to form a perpetual union. It also required unanimous consensus to make any changes. When it was written and debated, Rhode Island wasn’t even present. More than this, two of NY’s three deputies left the Convention (the third abstained from voting) and NH’s delegates didn’t arrive until after the vote. So, the USC could have been viewed as rebellion, treason, or secession. YOU SAID The colonies broke away from England by the Declaration but the were brought togather to from America by the Constition. No. The colonies were brought together by the DOI and then the AoC. The AoC created a “perpetual union” between the states. This phrase is noticeably absent from the USC. It is likely it is absent because they realized they could not force a perpetual union. YOU SAID The states were not allowed back in for a simple reason, the contry had jsut freed all the slaves with the 13th amendment and the states now had to give them there rights. The 13th Amendment was not ratified until December 1865, a full eight months after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. By this time, the slaves in the South were all freed. There existed only slaves in the northern states. Also, the curious thing about the 14th Amendment is this: if a state must agree to the Amendment to be allowed entry into the Union, it would mean that they were indeed, not a part of the Union. That would validate their claim to sovereignty and independence from the US. One cannot be in “rebellion” to its government, if it is not a part of that government. That would be like saying Mexico is in rebellion to the US by claiming Fox as its president. Also, if a state is not part of the union, then their vote cannot be required to pass an amendment, nor can it count. Imagine if we demanded Ontario approve all our laws. That would be rather silly, wouldn’t you agree? YOU SAID: It was also said that if Lincoln was elected that South CArolina were going to suceed than it really did not matter waht Lincoln did. Of course it mattered. That would be where diplomacy comes into play. There were other points in history prior to this, where secession was a possibility. At those times, diplomacy kept the union intact. YOU SAID I bleive that you forget that Lincoln had the least harsh reentry into the union for confederate soldiears, all he wanted was for them to sign an oath and lay down there arms, compare that to the Radicals and Lincoln didn't seem too bad. It does not matter what he wanted as prerequisite for re-admission. That is like saying Hitler was not so bad because he initially tried to deport the Jews. Or that he was actually kind in comparison to Stalin who murdered between 25 and 60 million people. What is important is that Lincoln took it upon himself to deny 10 million people their human rights. One-quarter of the population openly withdrew their consent to be governed by the Republican government; More than one-third of the states. More were likely to secede, but Lincoln had their legislators and politicians arrested and thrown in prison. His war killed over 620,000 soldiers and countless women and children thanks to men like Sherman. He had no right to drag people back under his iron fist. The idea he did is offensive to the nature of our Constitution and concepts of basic human rights. YOU SAID: Sorry it tok so long to comment bakc forgot about this one. No problem. Seems to happen around here. Hope you have a great New Year.
by anti_yankee
[+]
You Said: This is in Article I. It refers to the powers of Congress. It was not in Lincoln’s power to suspend or permit Habeas Corpus. His action was a violation of the US Constitution (USC). Civil-Liberties.com says: “ the Peace Democrats… publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. “ Does it matter who suspends the right, Lincoln suspends it but with no out cry from the congress or the courts it might as well of been an action taken by the Senate. You Said: I disagree. Men like Horace Greeley, who was a Republican, helped get Lincoln elected, was anti-Slavery, etc. also disagree with your understanding. He argued the South had a right to secede. More than this, let us look at the USC: Amendments IX and X state: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “ and “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.” As such, it is clearly written that those rights not expressly given to the federal government remain the rights of the people. More than this, the rights of secession were discussed prior to adoption of the USC (which was, of course, secession), and several states agreed to ratify the USC only if they maintained their right to leave at any time. There is NO written words in that document that expressly written down allowing rebellion. Therefore to take a strict interputiation of the constitution it is not allowed. As for the agrument that some states have a written right of leaving the Union written in their own state constitution. THe federal government has made acts of rebeliion illegal hence any such provisions in the state law is then made null/void with fedaralism. As I said before I don't feel that the DoI has any bearing on the souths cailms for independence, and that it has little to no bearing on the Constitution. It was a document written to a King in 1776 and the constitution was written more than a full decade later. It wa an important document one that reminds us as what our country was rebeling from, but not a reason for the south to rebel. However the DoI says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," than isn't the north justified to enter states that had slaves and makt those men equals? YOU SAID: It was also said that if Lincoln was elected that South CArolina were going to suceed than it really did not matter waht Lincoln did. Of course it mattered. That would be where diplomacy comes into play. There were other points in history prior to this, where secession was a possibility. At those times, diplomacy kept the union intact. No other president had an open voice of Rebellion if he was elected president. I beleive and I may be wrong that Lincoln in diplomacy would of had little to no luck changing the minds of the south. Eight Months for an Amendment to be made from idea into law is very good, plus the ideas of no slavery and the other amendments that followed such as the 14, 15 needed to be put into writting. True we wouldn't let them back in, but they had no legal arument to say that they legally left. I bleive that you forget that Lincoln had the least harsh reentry into the union for confederate soldiears, all he wanted was for them to sign an oath and lay down there arms, compare that to the Radicals and Lincoln didn't seem too bad. It does not matter what he wanted as prerequisite for re-admission. That is like saying Hitler was not so bad because he initially tried to deport the Jews. Or that he was actually kind in comparison to Stalin who murdered between 25 and 60 million people. What is important is that Lincoln took it upon himself to deny 10 million people their human rights. One-quarter of the population openly withdrew their consent to be governed by the Republican government; More than one-third of the states. More were likely to secede, but Lincoln had their legislators and politicians arrested and thrown in prison. His war killed over 620,000 soldiers and countless women and children thanks to men like Sherman. He had no right to drag people back under his iron fist. The idea he did is offensive to the nature of our Constitution and concepts of basic human rights. It's very important to show the merit and the morals of the man. A person that you have openly blasted for being a war crazed maniac and a villain wouldn't be easy on a returning enemy, would he? Doen, You said: Does it matter who suspends the right, Lincoln suspends it but with no out cry from the congress or the courts it might as well of been an action taken by the Senate. That's absolutely ludicrous. That's like saying if GW declared all non-Whites must leave the US and Congress didn't protest, that his actions would not be acceptable. more later. gotta run to dinner
by anti_yankee
[+]
Doen, Regarding Amendments IX & X. You said: There is NO written words in that document that expressly written down allowing rebellion. There are no words written allowing for automobiles, either. If it is legal to secede, then it cannot be considered "rebellion." It must be considered secession, or the revocation of consent to be governed by a particular government. If our gov't is founded on the principle that it derives its just power from the consent of the governed, then it stands to reason when that body no longer consents, the gov't has lost its power of rule. If it maintains power, though the people do not consent, the gov't is despotic. YOU SAID: Therefore to take a strict interputiation of the constitution it is not allowed. That is ludicrous. That's very Lincolnian (or Draconian) of you. It impliies that the framers didi not know what they meant, and iit means our government must suffer at the hands of any tyrant who would care to abuse it... Or the courts who abuse it. Similar to the current case of judicial activists overstepping bounds, and violating the USC by creating laws through imagiinitive interpretation. YOU SAID: As for the agrument that some states have a written right of leaving the Union written in their own state constitution. THe federal government has made acts of rebeliion illegal hence any such provisions in the state law is then made null/void with fedaralism. Yes, thanks to Lincoln. However, before the gov't was centralized under his dictatorship, those rigihts were generally recognized. The bound between the states and the federal gov't is a contract. No one enters a contract and then adds clauses to their copy afterwards (which is what you are suggesting).
by anti_yankee
[+]
Doen, Regarding the DoI and the Rights to Life, Liberty, etc. YOU SAID than isn't the north justified to enter states that had slaves and makt those men equals? It would almost stand to reason if not for the facts. Slavery persisted in the North throughout the War. Also the Declaration of Emancipation (DOE) did not free northern slaves. Had the DOE not singled out *only* those slaves in territories currently held by Southerners, I might think there was some validiity to the myth of yankee superiority. But the DOE even excluded those slaves held in parts of northern Virginia and Louisianna occupied by yankees.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Doen, YOU SAID No other president had an open voice of Rebellion if he was elected president. No, but some had to contend with the threat of secession prior to Lincoln. YOU SAID I beleive and I may be wrong that Lincoln in diplomacy would of had little to no luck changing the minds of the south. Then he could not have been a good president. Buchannan was keeping the peace in spite of the secession of seven states. Diplomacy and negotiation could have saved the lives of more than 620,000 people. And if not, what should it matter to the gov't if 1/3 of the coutry formed a new one? Didn't 9 states do the same thing from the Articles of Confederation only 70 years earlier? YOU SAID: Eight Months for an Amendment to be made from idea into law is very good The point is that after slavery was outlawed in the Confederacy by Lincoln, slavery persisted in the yankee land. Even after the war was over, it persisted 8 months more. It is not 8 months from conception to reality, but 8 months of prolonged slavery in yankee states and areas. YOU SAID plus the ideas of no slavery and the other amendments that followed such as the 14, 15 needed to be put into writting. These came 4 and 5 years after the War. And they failed to grant rights to women, such as suffrage.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Doen, YOU SAID True we wouldn't let them back in, but they had no legal arument to say that they legally left. If we (the US) would not let them "IN" they must have been "OUT." If they were "OUT" of the federal gov't, they could not have been in rebellion. They would have simply been another country on the face of North America. If they were still a part of the US, then those Amendments requiring the states of the Confederacy to vote "yea" are null and void because a corrupt gov't resorted to extortion and strong-arm tactics to pass its agenda. Hardly the mark of a "free" government.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Doen, YOU SAID It's very important to show the merit and the morals of the man. A person that you have openly blasted for being a war crazed maniac and a villain wouldn't be easy on a returning enemy, would he? Who knows what plans Lincoln had for the next three years? Is it possible Reconstruction could have been worse under him? Yes, it is. And what of his plan to ship all Blacks off to Africa or Central America? Is that also the mark of a benevolent emancipator?
by anti_yankee
[+]
Sorry for the late response. It's been a busy couple of weeks. Doen, You said: Does it matter who suspends the right, Lincoln suspends it but with no out cry from the congress or the courts it might as well of been an action taken by the Senate. That's absolutely ludicrous. That's like saying if GW declared all non-Whites must leave the US and Congress didn't protest, that his actions would not be acceptable. Everyone is to blame when something goes wrong. You for one blame Lincoln for the war when he wasn't the one who succeeded, so in your logic everyone was at fault, so I simply applied that logic to Hapeuas Corpus. You said: There is NO written words in that document that expressly written down allowing rebellion. There are no words written allowing for automobiles, either. If it is legal to secede, then it cannot be considered "rebellion." It must be considered secession, or the revocation of consent to be governed by a particular government. If our gov't is founded on the principle that it derives its just power from the consent of the governed, then it stands to reason when that body no longer consents, the gov't has lost its power of rule. If it maintains power, though the people do not consent, the gov't is despotic. In a strict interputation the idea of buying Land to expand isn't in there but it didn't stop Thomas Jefferson the writer of the DoI from buying the land. The constitution must be interputed and I feel that something as a way out of the Union would of been something the founders would of wanted to be written down, hence that there is nothing in it they must not of wnated a succesion or better put rebillion. Precedent that rebellion and succession is illegal is the Whiskey Rebillion during the Washington Administration. More coming soon. YOU SAID: As for the agrument that some states have a written right of leaving the Union written in their own state constitution. THe federal government has made acts of rebeliion illegal hence any such provisions in the state law is then made null/void with fedaralism. Yes, thanks to Lincoln. However, before the gov't was centralized under his dictatorship, those rigihts were generally recognized. The bound between the states and the federal gov't is a contract. No one enters a contract and then adds clauses to their copy afterwards (which is what you are suggesting). The idea of Federalism isn't made under Lincoln's administration but with the court case McCulloch V. Maryland. Saying that the Federal system is the highest court in the land. As for the powers being our of control today then the poeple are to blame since they are the ones voting them into office and if the majority of Americans had a problem with it the issues would of been addressed. Since they haven't than it's safe to say that the majority really does not care if the words "Under god" is in the Pledge of Alligance or another trivial liberal movement. YOU SAID than isn't the north justified to enter states that had slaves and makt those men equals? It would almost stand to reason if not for the facts. Slavery persisted in the North throughout the War. Also the Declaration of Emancipation (DOE) did not free northern slaves. Had the DOE not singled out *only* those slaves in territories currently held by Southerners, I might think there was some validiity to the myth of yankee superiority. But the DOE even excluded those slaves held in parts of northern Virginia and Louisianna occupied by yankees. The fact is that the North was on an abolishness path and was going to outlaw slavery in the next decade or so. Many nothern states, New York to name one already outlawed slavery. The Emancapation Documentation was not ment to free the slaves, it was namely a politiacal move and not forceing Slave owning states in the North to get rid of the slaves was one of strategic importance to the war and therefore wasn't done. The slave were really freed with the 13th Amendment. As for any previous presidents Presidents. It does not matter what they did because they didn't face a mandate of if electedwe will committ rebellion. Doen, YOU SAID Everyone is to blame when something goes wrong. You for one blame Lincoln for the war when he wasn't the one who succeeded, so in your logic everyone was at fault, so I simply applied that logic to Hapeuas Corpus. It is not the same. One cannot preserve freedom by doing away with it. Nor can one equate peaceful exodus with violent attack. Secession is a peaceful action, it should be rectified or accepted through peace, not violence. YOU SAID: In a strict interputation the idea of buying Land to expand isn't in there but it didn't stop Thomas Jefferson the writer of the DoI from buying the land. The constitution must be interputed and I feel that something as a way out of the Union would of been something the founders would of wanted to be written down, hence that there is nothing in it they must not of wnated a succesion or better put rebillion. And yet, it was a voluntary action to "join" the Union, so secession must also be voluntary and done as a free and sovereign state. If it was understood states came together of their free will, it stands to reason they are bound only by their free will.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Doen, YOU SAID Precedent that rebellion and succession is illegal is the Whiskey Rebillion during the Washington Administration. Not quite the same. We are talking about a handful of farmers who did not want to pay a liquor tax. Consider this from whiskeyrebellion .org: " While the country we know as the United States of America existed on paper, citizens of all states considered themselves part of their state first, and associated with their country second. When roll was called in the Continental Congress, the question was always, whether the state was at hand, not whether a particular person was present. State rights was considered a natural right by most, and people hesitated to surrender their state rights to a union of states because of the danger of giving the "control of the purse and sword" to the single group. " and also: " Although the Whiskey Rebellion did mark the supremacy of the federal government, it also made the citizens of the states wary of this power. The question of states rights versus the powers of the federal government was not to be fully resolved until after the Civil War. " ( wa. essortment.com/ whiskeyrebellio _rzjj.htm ) During the War of Northern Aggression, 10 million people withdrew their consent to be governed. Quite a difference. Moreover, some states, such as TN and KY did not secede until after the US (north) waged war. At that point, they believed the yankee gov't was violating the constitutional and human rights of Southrons.
by anti_yankee
[+]
Few Politicans are straight forward about their agenda and most will say anything to get votes, or to please the masses. I would say that none are good enough, but Dennis Kucinich would have been an okay choice. I would have said Howard Dean originally, but he keeps changing his mind too much just to please others. Ken_from_Dublin, he is only THEE WORST AMERICAN PRESIDENT EVER in your opinion. There were far worse presidents. Herbert Hoover or Millard Fillmore anyone? I do not concur with your assessment of GB as the worst U.S. President. I think that distinction belongs to Ronald Reagan. Still GB is in the running. I would replace GB with Roosevelt.
by griffon007
[+]
Voted : A great president who never made it Adlai Stevenson
by forgetmenot
[+]
|