Locutus Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 We have a winner. And if you people are really trying to compare the current situations in America with the late 1700's and the American Revolution, you are more delusional than I could have ever imagined. So sad. You go fire your 12 gauges and see how far that gets you. Please tell, what do you think the situation was in America in the late 1700's? Then what do you think the situation is in America today? Let's look and compare. We know three of the four. We know how things were in America in the late 1700's. We know the result in the late 1700's. We know the situation in the 2009's, let look at history and see if we can speculate what might occur. So please tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Because I don't agree with you this country needs a violent revolution, I'm the guy who stands by and does nothing? My convictions lie with things of greater importance than politics. You can bet on that. I live according to the life that God has called me to live, one of love and not hate and bitterness, which is what I see primarily on this board -- people who will never stop complaining, people who are not appreciative of the lives they have been given. My commitment is to live like Jesus as best I can -- to help others less fortunate, to love without ceasing and try to resolve issues without hate and violence, which seems to be beneath most people on this board. HATE and VIOLENCE, do not necessarily go together, you can have one without the other. You speak of Jesus, you will see this even with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 and obviously said with sarcasm Winner again. Sounds like an education didn't work too well in Fivehead's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Chase, there is a quote that I think fits "having a life." I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees. See every country, good or bad, people live or are alive. What most here are talking about is living by our own decisions, by beliefs and means that we truly believe are necessary for "living." All most are saying is that we believe the government is overstepping its constitutional rights. I would venture a guess here that most on this board would much rather see the government reclaimed by our suffrage right. We are not blood thirsty holligans wanting to kill. We want to live by the prinicples that our history gives us, a history that made this country great. If you look at the founding of this country, the principles this country was built on, and look at those same principles today. You cannot say our system is better off today. You cannot. Will revolution come? It always does. Will it come soon? I hope not. Then you create that revolution at the voting booth. Don't be a part of the threats of civil war. That's just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooRufusoo Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 After 2012 nothing will matter. There will be a new person to gripe about in the oval room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Then you create that revolution at the voting booth. Don't be a part of the threats of civil war. That's just ignorant. You are not giving history its due. The Civil War was not ignorant, the Revolutionary War was not ignorant. If government is capable of controlling the people, and ours is to a tremendous degree, there comes a time when voting may not be enough. And if the government is defiling the constitution enough, revolution may be the only way of attempting to save what this country was founded on. But you have missed my point nearly every time, so I will not try to change your mind. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest surfsup Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Do you realize that more countries would trade with Texas, because we have goods and services to offer ? I realize that you may not read much, but there are only two count them two States that are in the black right now. Black is a good thing, when it comes to economics. Those two are Texas and Alaska. Do you understand the resources that Texas has available ? Just like other countries traded cotton with the South during the Civil War? They did not trade with us then, and they would not do it now. I suspect that a lot of other companies would also leave to go to the United States, or Mexico. Yes, we have resources but we are also a long way from being in a state of autarky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest surfsup Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 After 2012 nothing will matter. There will be a new person to gripe about in the oval room. I keep waiting for the Republicans to establish some leadership, but it hasn't happened yet. I also think that it will be very hard for Republicans to gain the White House in 2012, because there have been a lot of conservatives leaving the party for the Libertarians. If the conservatives split their vote (i.e. Bush and Perot) Obama can easily get re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 autarky. n., pl., -kies, or -chies. A policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports or economic aid. A self-sufficient region or country. [Greek autarkeia, self-sufficiency, from autarkēs, self-sufficient : auto-, auto- + arkein, to suffice.] autarkic au·tar'kic (-kĭk) or au·tar'ki·cal (-kĭ-kəl) adj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 You are not giving history its due. The Civil War was not ignorant, the Revolutionary War was not ignorant. If government is capable of controlling the people, and ours is to a tremendous degree, there comes a time when voting may not be enough. And if the government is defiling the constitution enough, revolution may be the only way of attempting to save what this country was founded on. But you have missed my point nearly every time, so I will not try to change your mind. Carry on. The fact that you're trying to compare this country from the late 1700's and mid 1800's to today is insane! There is no comparison. You want to call the current administration tyrannical like it's the court of England from the 1700's. The U.S. Civil War arose from situations far, far worse and debilitating than anything currently going on in Washington. My ancestors felt the need to fight for something during the Civil War that was obviously wrong. If people today want to try and carry out something similar, it will mean only the destruction and final divide of the most powerful country in the world. If you and others feel like the Constitution is being perverted and twisted in ways in which you disagree, form your revolution with votes, run for office or donate to those in whom you believe. Anything more than that will only divide the country in which you claim to love so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 The U.S. Civil War arose from situations far, far worse and debilitating than anything currently going on in Washington. My ancestors felt the need to fight for something during the Civil War that was obviously wrong. The U. S. Civil War arose from a tyrannical federal government trying to dictate to the states what they could and could not do in clear violation of state's rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Conservatives today have a problem with a tyrannical federal government trying to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do in clear violation of state's rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. If your ancestors fought for the federals, then yes, they were fighting for the side of tyranny and were wrong. If they fought for the South, then no, they were not wrong as they were fighting for their freedom from tyrants and dictators..... Despite what your liberal, probably communist college professor taught you, that is why the war was fought....slavery became an issue when lincoln saw the north was losing and needed a reason to continue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camuchs Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 You do that Jacques! :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camuchs Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 The U. S. Civil War arose from a tyrannical federal government trying to dictate to the states what they could and could not do in clear violation of state's rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Conservatives today have a problem with a tyrannical federal government trying to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do in clear violation of state's rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. If your ancestors fought for the federals, then yes, they were fighting for the side of tyranny and were wrong. If they fought for the South, then no, they were not wrong as they were fighting for their freedom from tyrants and dictators..... Despite what your liberal, probably communist college professor taught you, that is why the war was fought....slavery became an issue when lincoln saw the north was losing and needed a reason to continue... :notworthy: Thank you, and please tell me that you teach history! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 The U. S. Civil War arose from a tyrannical federal government trying to dictate to the states what they could and could not do in clear violation of state's rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Conservatives today have a problem with a tyrannical federal government trying to dictate to the states what they can and cannot do in clear violation of state's rights as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. If your ancestors fought for the federals, then yes, they were fighting for the side of tyranny and were wrong. If they fought for the South, then no, they were not wrong as they were fighting for their freedom from tyrants and dictators..... Despite what your liberal, probably communist college professor taught you, that is why the war was fought....slavery became an issue when lincoln saw the north was losing and needed a reason to continue... Incorrect, sir! A major part of the fight of the civil war was, of course, states' rights -- and one of the major rights of the states being the right to own slaves. Perhaps you should do some reading -- I suggest For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War by James M. McPherson. You'll get a better idea of really why soldiers from the South fought in the war. Judging by your statements, you believe that states did have the right, and today should still have the right, to own slaves. Would you agree with my assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Judging by your statements, you believe that states did have the right, and today should still have the right, to own slaves. Would you agree with my assertion? Your posts reveal your total disregard of the Constitution and your complete perversion of history. The Civil War had nothing to do with the justification of slavery. Obviously slavery is wrong. Hope you didn't need me or some liberal professor to clear that up. Instead the war was about money and who had the power to make "the decisions". If you have read and believe in the COTUS, the answer is just as obvious as slavery is wrong (see 10th Amendment). On the other hand if you tend to ignore the COTUS, that's where the violence comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Incorrect, sir! A major part of the fight of the civil war was, of course, states' rights -- and one of the major rights of the states being the right to own slaves. Judging by your statements, you believe that states did have the right, and today should still have the right, to own slaves. Would you agree with my assertion? Now, after that other nasty bit of business has been taken care of.... I am not incorrect....as you show in your very next sentence where you agree with my previous post, and which I've taken the liberty to highlight for the rest of the readers.... Yes, slavery was ONE of the rights...However, it was not the ONLY right the southern states were fighting to protect....they were fighting to protect their state sovreignty, their individual liberties and freedoms from a tyrannical federal government bent on controlling everything....a right which the federal government DID NOT have then, and DOES NOT have now as long as the 10th Amendment remains in the Constitution. States DID have the right to be slave states if they so chose, under the 10th Amendment.....and slavery would have ended without the massive loss of liberty and life eventually on its own....the free market would have seen to that as the industrial age grew..... Your assertation about today, then, becomes irrelevant, as slavery would not be supported by me or by anyone else....so that straw man argument won't fly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Now, after that other nasty bit of business has been taken care of.... I am not incorrect....as you show in your very next sentence where you agree with my previous post, and which I've taken the liberty to highlight for the rest of the readers.... Yes, slavery was ONE of the rights...However, it was not the ONLY right the southern states were fighting to protect....they were fighting to protect their state sovreignty, their individual liberties and freedoms from a tyrannical federal government bent on controlling everything....a right which the federal government DID NOT have then, and DOES NOT have now as long as the 10th Amendment remains in the Constitution. States DID have the right to be slave states if they so chose, under the 10th Amendment.....and slavery would have ended without the massive loss of liberty and life eventually on its own....the free market would have seen to that as the industrial age grew..... Your assertation about today, then, becomes irrelevant, as slavery would not be supported by me or by anyone else....so that straw man argument won't fly.... I never said slavery was the ONLY right. I said, "one of the major rights of the states being the right to own slaves." If you want to argue that it wasn't a major issue, then you can stay blind to that fact. And no, states did not have the right to hold people against their will, use them for free labor and have the freedom of authority over another human being. As far as this goes: and slavery would have ended without the massive loss of liberty and life eventually on its own....the free market would have seen to that as the industrial age grew..... I'm glad you can predict the future. You said yourself that states had the right to be slave-holding states. It's right here: States DID have the right to be slave states if they so chose, under the 10th Amendment. But look right here in the Declaration of Independence: 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. It doesn't say MOST men, or all men except African Americans, or all men except slaves. It says ALL MEN. Plain and simple. Slaves were denied liberty, and obviously the pursuit of happiness. Slavery violated the goals in which our country was founded. And since you believe that states had the right to own slaves during that time, I believed it was correct for me to believe that you might still think that way. I personally don't see how you couldn't, but maybe that's just me. I can't understand how you would believe it's OK for one period of time, but not today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I never said slavery was the ONLY right. I said, "one of the major rights of the states being the right to own slaves." If you want to argue that it wasn't a major issue, then you can stay blind to that fact. And no, states did not have the right to hold people against their will, use them for free labor and have the freedom of authority over another human being. As far as this goes: and slavery would have ended without the massive loss of liberty and life eventually on its own....the free market would have seen to that as the industrial age grew..... I'm glad you can predict the future. You said yourself that states had the right to be slave-holding states. It's right here: States DID have the right to be slave states if they so chose, under the 10th Amendment. But look right here in the Declaration of Independence: 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. It doesn't say MOST men, or all men except African Americans, or all men except slaves. It says ALL MEN. Plain and simple. Slaves were denied liberty, and obviously the pursuit of happiness. Slavery violated the goals in which our country was founded. And since you believe that states had the right to own slaves during that time, I believed it was correct for me to believe that you might still think that way. I personally don't see how you couldn't, but maybe that's just me. I can't understand how you would believe it's OK for one period of time, but not today. You are preaching to the choir as far as slavery is concerned.......slavery was a blight on this nations past... However, the Constitution, which was actually still being followed until the lincoln administration, gave the remedy for it.....and that remedy was for the battle to be fought in each individual state legislature.....and eventually, that battle would have been won.....and the Constitution would have survived instead of being shred to bits........However, tyranny prevailed and we have been going down hill since...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So, you're saying the wrong side won the Civil War? Is that correct in me thinking that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So, you're saying the wrong side won the Civil War? Is that correct in me thinking that? That is exactly what I'm saying....the Constitutional government was destroyed by the war and the massive power grab by the federals following it.....Go ahead now and feel free to demonize me...that is how liberals and moderates try to control the debate.....however, you won't phase me one bit......you know as well as I do that you are in the minority in this forum on this issue......as you are on so many others..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest surfsup Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So, you're saying the wrong side won the Civil War? Is that correct in me thinking that? Colmes either doesn't know, or is choosing to forget that the French were sitting in Mexico hoping the South would win so that they could invade. I doubt Colmes would be much happier if he was a Frenchman. However, he would have access to the best healthcare system in the world :sorcerer: It is funny how those who have never even been in a college classroom can label all universities as liberal. All of my instructors were conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So, being in the minority makes me wrong? And I'm glad that Smoaky.com's message boards establish what is majority and minority, right and wrong. We've established that you think the wrong side won the Civil War. That you indeed favor the idea that this country would have been permanently divided, split apart had the Confederacy won. The creation of two separate countries would have solved everything. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Colmes either doesn't know, or is choosing to forget that the French were sitting in Mexico hoping the South would win so that they could invade. I doubt Colmes would be much happier if he was a Frenchman. However, he would have access to the best healthcare system in the world :sorcerer: It is funny how those who have never even been in a college classroom can label all universities as liberal. All of my instructors were conservative. Oui....parlez vous francais??? :rofl: EVERYONE is conservative when compared to you......so its no wonder you THOUGHT all of your instructors were conservatives..... :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So, being in the minority makes me wrong? And I'm glad that Smoaky.com's message boards establish what is majority and minority, right and wrong. We've established that you think the wrong side won the Civil War. That you indeed favor the idea that this country would have been permanently divided, split apart had the Confederacy won. The creation of two separate countries would have solved everything. Please. The fact that you believe that this socialistic government we have now is better than the one that our forefathers created for us is what makes you wrong. I enjoy how you belittle the future telling of Colmes in one post and make your own baseless predictions in the next. Please. The Union would have fallen apart and gone bankrupt without the resources of the Confederacy. Much the same would happen in today's world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 The fact that you believe that this socialistic government we have now is better than the one that our forefathers created for us is what makes you wrong. Show me where I said that. I'll wait here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now