lol so many teaparty idiots and self-proclaimed "republicans" think that they were so free, and everything was great under W. I agree that Obama has fucked up in some areas, but Bush certainly spun us out of control....
lol so many teaparty idiots and self-proclaimed "republicans" think that they were so free, and everything was great under W. I agree that Obama has fucked up in some areas, but Bush certainly spun us out of control....
i agree and they want to bitch about the size of government when Bush created the bureaucratic monstrosity that's the dept of homeland security
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
edited August 2011
lol so many teaparty idiots and self-proclaimed "republicans" think that they were so free, and everything was great under W. I agree that Obama has fucked up in some areas, but Bush certainly spun us out of control....
Did you know that if we had followed Clinton's budget, today we would have 2.1 trillion in the bank instead of being in debt 15 trillion. But the war you say...... right. the war. 1.7 trillion. So assuming we followed clintons budget but still did the war after 911, then we would still have 400 billion in the positive.
lol so many teaparty idiots and self-proclaimed "republicans" think that they were so free, and everything was great under W. I agree that Obama has fucked up in some areas, but Bush certainly spun us out of control....
Did you know that if we had followed Clinton's budget, today we would have 2.1 trillion in the bank instead of being in debt 15 trillion. But the war you say...... right. the way. 1.7 trillion. So assuming we followed clintons budget but still did the war after 911, then we would still have 400 billion in the positive.
hey wake i just read this article in time magazine, i think you would find it interesting..... its about the cause of the civil war and how its focus has changed from slavery to states rights, even though that is really, at least imo still, not true
hey wake i just read this article in time magazine, i think you would find it interesting..... its about the cause of the civil war and how its focus has changed from slavery to states rights, even though that is really, at least imo still, not true
there's no way i'd believe that the northern states really gave a shit about slavery enough to start a war. no way in hell. if that were the case, why didn't they give them full rights immediately?
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
hey wake i just read this article in time magazine, i think you would find it interesting..... its about the cause of the civil war and how its focus has changed from slavery to states rights, even though that is really, at least imo still, not true
I started reading this 4 page monster and lost interest the instant they wanted to talk about Lincoln's motivation being Slavery and not state rights. From Lincoln's own mouth:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
Additionally, William Lloyd Garrison who was one of the most prominent of all abolitionists said of Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."
hey wake i just read this article in time magazine, i think you would find it interesting..... its about the cause of the civil war and how its focus has changed from slavery to states rights, even though that is really, at least imo still, not true
there's no way i'd believe that the northern states really gave a shit about slavery enough to start a war. no way in hell. if that were the case, why didn't they give them full rights immediately?
i think its almost the opposite, the south was willing to start a new country due to slavery.. did lincolns actions during the civil war period point to the slavery issue? not really but dont fool yourself, the south wanted to kepp slavery at all costs. we were one of three countries left in the world i believe with slavery and basically it was the souths entire economy.... cant the civil war be both becausethe south didnt want to let go of slavery and there obvious largest source of money and lincoln not give a shit about slaves????? i think so ...like people have said in this thread govt is motivated by business and thats whta the south was thinking at the time, $$$
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
It's another American lie that we're told that the civil war was a good vs. evil battle of abolitionists vs. slavers. Shit was all about industrialism and states' rights. That simple.
It's another American lie that we're told that the civil war was a good vs. evil battle of abolitionists vs. slavers. Shit was all about industrialism and states' rights. That simple.
expound upon the states rights then..what states rights was the north oppressing on the south.? what laws or anything did the south want that was withheld from them due to federal laws and such?
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
For whatever reason in the English language there is a common tendency to misunderstand the definition of "State". A State is defined as "A sovereign entity (rules itself), within a defined/specific territory (in defined borders), that holds a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order.". It was clearly the intent of the founding fathers that these 13 original sovereign entities were voluntarily forming a UNION for the purpose of:
Constitution : "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare"
In other wards, these 13 sovereign independent states were forming a Union such that they could win their liberty from the British. Just as the states were voluntarily entering the union, they had the legal authority to leave the union if the union and the interests of the states no longer were in agreement.
I want you to think about this for a bit.... It is important. Just because Lincoln illegally invaded the south without a declaration or war, and illegally set up blockades of ports without a declaration of war, illegally refused the orders of the supreme court, nationalized the railroads, instituted the draft (which is forced slavery), and started an immoral war that costs the lives of more Americans then all other wars combined.... That does not mean that Lincoln was correct and that the notion of a state is false. It is unfortunate that our country has come to be viewed as one large state, instead of what it really is but a collection of independent states that voluntarily joined together to create a more powerful union.
Comments
i just read this article in time magazine, i think you would find it interesting..... its about the cause of the civil war and how its focus has changed from slavery to states rights, even though that is really, at least imo still, not true
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2063869,00.html
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
Additionally, William Lloyd Garrison who was one of the most prominent of all abolitionists said of Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."
Constitution : "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare"
In other wards, these 13 sovereign independent states were forming a Union such that they could win their liberty from the British. Just as the states were voluntarily entering the union, they had the legal authority to leave the union if the union and the interests of the states no longer were in agreement.
I want you to think about this for a bit.... It is important. Just because Lincoln illegally invaded the south without a declaration or war, and illegally set up blockades of ports without a declaration of war, illegally refused the orders of the supreme court, nationalized the railroads, instituted the draft (which is forced slavery), and started an immoral war that costs the lives of more Americans then all other wars combined.... That does not mean that Lincoln was correct and that the notion of a state is false. It is unfortunate that our country has come to be viewed as one large state, instead of what it really is but a collection of independent states that voluntarily joined together to create a more powerful union.