Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you ever given some consideration to a career as a propagandist? All of your natural instincts direct you that way. Look at how you characterize things. Examples of behavior aren't just illustrations in support of a point, they are "cherry picked." My facts aren't simply facts, they are "raving" facts. Right away when I see someone responding to anything I wrote in this sort of propagandist mode, I assume that there is going to be little point in bothering to read the rest.
Is that how you want to be received? Dismissed two paces out of the starting gate because you just can't resist being a partisan propagandist?
I propose this...I will ignore your reply and await a modified response where the idea of the exercise is to state your positions in a manner so that there is nothing suggestive of propaganda techniques, none of the worn cliches like "cherry picking", no emotional "wows!", no quotation marks designed to serve as rolling eyes, no employment of adjectives and adverbs as substitutes for substance...just an adult presentation of what you thought about my ideas.
That I will give its proper due. Partisan propaganda? A waste of my time.
So, think me as arrogant as you like, but I am right about this, you should modify your approach, and if you do, you will eventually come to appreciate that this is a favor, not an attack. Take it from the Burning Bush.
No, actually, you flatter yourself a bit by using the adjective "arrogant" to apply to yourself as in that I apply it to you. But ok...now that you mention it...? (see below at the end).
But let's get off all this BS. It is getting old and tiring and ridiculous. IMHO, you are one of those who fools themselves into thinking you have a following of admirers. You simply cannot handle disagreement. It is evident in the almost manic ways you reply to those who do not agree with you. "Grandstander" is the perfect moniker and parody of yourself. What DO you do for a living???
Doesn't it strike you as "relevant" that most of the people I disagree with -- and disagree with me -- that we also seem to have a civil relationship? Even a good natured one (like with IrishTom and NJ)? On the other hand, I have really never seen you disagree with someone in a way that suggested mutual respect for another persons position. To be blunt, you really are full of yourself, GS. And I don't know how and why you come by that attitude. And I am not the first to say it.
But that is your business, so lets' just go back to square one. The points made by Doctor Blues are very relevant. Your replies did not address a single thing. Neither did this one to me. It just once again indicated that you cannot handle disagrement. But ok, whatever, maybe you and I should just ignore each other...
Grandstander and TexasReb, how about this, I think you're both right on the issue of states rights.
Conflicts arise over specific issues. When those conflicts cannot be solved/mediated to the satisfaction of all parties and the issue is large enough, you see a fallback to the argument of states rights vs. Federal power. Essentially those who do not get their way at the Federal level attempt to fallback on their right to make it the way they want in their state. In this way they cloud the divisive issue and make it about something more palpable and neutral...
Forget about slavery, this is about our right to live the way we want in our state. Forget about abortion, this is about our right to live the way we want in our state. Forget about marijuana, this is about our right to live the way we want in our state. Forget about gay marriage, this is about our right to live the way we want in our state. Forget about illegal immigration, this is about our right to live the way we want in our state...
See what happens? Take the divisive issue where common ground is unreachable and make it about the legal/Consitutional issue of states rights.
Now, that seems like I am proving Grandstanders point and to an extent I am. However, the fact that our system is designed to operate like this and that such an argument can be used is what allows the divisiveness to continue and create an us against them mentality. If there were no states, simply a single nation, the divided parties would have to continue to work towards compromise, not simply default to their bunker mentality and changing the argument claiming their own righteousnous in the context of states rights. I think this proves the point TexasReb was making and the same one Jefferson Davis did as well. As long the system remains the way it is, another conflict will happen for a different reason, but the core will go back to the issue of what rights the states have and the Federal governments ability to compel them to agree to something they disagree with.
As for whether it could happen today, of course it could and over a variety of issues. However, America is a much more diverse nation and the current conflicts don't necessarily have a territorial component to them. Secession was made much easier by the fact that the states involved formed a geographic block. I can't think of any issues today that are so directly territorial in nature with perhaps the exception of immigration, but could that one issue rise far enough to create an actual conflict worth fighting over? Who knows.
However, the fact that our system is designed to operate like this and that such an argument can be used is what allows the divisiveness to continue and create an us against them mentality
Sorry Goat, but the sytem was not designed to promote conflict, it was designed to resolve conflicts. The flaw in the design was that the designers had to paper over the differences rather than bring forth a document which made manifest, where ultimate authority would lie.
The reson that they papered over the conflict was the justified fear that if final sovereignty was identified as resting with the central government, or identified as resting with the individual states, then the new constitution would never be ratified.
Quote:
If there were no states, simply a single nation, the divided parties would have to continue to work towards compromise, not simply default to their bunker mentality and changing the argument claiming their own righteousnous in the context of states rights. I think this proves the point TexasReb was making and the same one Jefferson Davis did as well.
Huh? Where did TexReb ever make that point? TexReb's position is that the Constitution wasn't vague, that the states were fully vested with a right to depart whenever they decided, and that in the case of the South in 1861, they were perfectly justified in departing, legally and morally.
My position is that the Constitution was silent on the issue of such rights, it wasn't designed to promote or retard secession, and that states rights wasn't the issue, it was simply the tool employed. The South did not indulge in secession for the purpose of protecting the right of secession, they left to protect a political advantage which they saw slipping away when the GOP came into power. Secession was the device that they utilized, it wasn't the cause. TexReb has been arguing that it was the cause.
And it has always been that way. Whenever the specifics of a position being contested could be aided by introducing the notion of states rights, it was drawn like a gun. Fugitive Slave Law opponents hid behind states rights to frustrate Southern slave owners. Southern states righters morphed into neo Federalists when the issue was recovering their runaway slaves. At all times that struggle was over runaway slaves, not over states rights. No one actually gave a damn about states rights until some utility was seen for it.
Sorry Goat, but the sytem was not designed to promote conflict, it was designed to resolve conflicts. The flaw in the design was that the designers had to paper over the differences rather than bring forth a document which made manifest, where ultimate authority would lie.
The reson that they papered over the conflict was the justified fear that if final sovereignty was identified as resting with the central government, or identified as resting with the individual states, then the new constitution would never be ratified.
I didn't mean to imply that the system was designed to promote conflict, but that the system as framed allows it to occur over the issue of the rights of states vs. the central government.
Doesn't the fact that we all agree and understand that the document was a compromise on the specific question of ultimate authority support the point that was being made; that without that particular issue having been resolved, conflicting views are able to devolve into the ultimate question of who has authority?
That is why I agree with both views that were put forward. The conflicts do not arise from the issue of states rights itself. The conflicts are always centered on other issues. However, the fact that the underlying question of ultimate authority was never resolved allows the conflicts to fall back on the macro issue of states rights.
Quote:
Huh? Where did TexReb ever make that point? TexReb's position is that the Constitution wasn't vague, that the states were fully vested with a right to depart whenever they decided, and that in the case of the South in 1861, they were perfectly justified in departing, legally and morally.
Yes, that is TexasReb's position regarding the Civil War. However, I didn't get the impression he was framing his argument in this case solely on the Civil War. I believe his point and Davis' was that the "ultimate question" had not been resolved making such an event as the Civil War possible over another issue that would prove divisive. That is the point I agree with.
Quote:
My position is that the Constitution was silent on the issue of such rights, it wasn't designed to promote or retard secession, and that states rights wasn't the issue, it was simply the tool employed. The South did not indulge in secession for the purpose of protecting the right of secession, they left to protect a political advantage which they saw slipping away when the GOP came into power. Secession was the device that they utilized, it wasn't the cause. TexReb has been arguing that it was the cause.
And it has always been that way. Whenever the specifics of a position being contested could be aided by introducing the notion of states rights, it was drawn like a gun. Fugitive Slave Law opponents hid behind states rights to frustrate Southern slave owners. Southern states righters morphed into neo Federalists when the issue was recovering their runaway slaves. At all times that struggle was over runaway slaves, not over states rights. No one actually gave a damn about states rights until some utility was seen for it.
It is almost a "chicken or the egg" argument. The debate isn't over states rights, it is over another issue and the question of states rights is merely a tool that is used to legitimize a position. I agree with that argument. However, the fact that it can be used as said tool and the fact that the "question" has never been answered allows it to continue to be a divisive force.
You are correct that no one cares about states rights until it can be used to support a position, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an ongoing source of conflict do to the simple fact that it can be used as such a tool. If the "question" had been firmly settled such a tool wouldn't exist and IMO would strip factions of their ability to cloak themselves in legitimacy by claiming states rights.
Yes, that is TexasReb's position regarding the Civil War. However, I didn't get the impression he was framing his argument in this case solely on the Civil War. I believe his point and Davis' was that the "ultimate question" had not been resolved making such an event as the Civil War possible over another issue that would prove divisive. That is the point I agree with
.
No, no. That was my point..that the question had not been resolved by the Constitution. Davis felt that it had been resolved, in favor of the right of secession. And TexRed supports the Davis interpretation. I'm happy that you agree with me, but please don't hand my argument to the folks against whom I am arguing.
Quote:
You are correct that no one cares about states rights until it can be used to support a position, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an ongoing source of conflict do to the simple fact that it can be used as such a tool.
Well, my point was that it is not the source of the conflict, it is one means for conducting the conflict. If I catch you sleeping with my wife and bash you over the head with a shovel in reaction, the source of the conflict was the sexual misconduct, not the shovel. That shovels exist isn't the cause of marital infidelity nor the cause or related homicides, it is only a tool.
I didn't mean to imply that the system was designed to promote conflict, but that the system as framed allows it to occur over the issue of the rights of states vs. the central government.
With all due respect, NJGoat, you oughta just forget it! "Grandstander" is one of those who cannot tolerate disagreement. I am no longer even going to adress that person, directly.
On the other hand, I am honored to be able to exchange with men like you who -- even in disagreement -- discuss and debate with good will and civility!
With all due respect, NJGoat, you oughta just forget it! "Grandstander" is one of those who cannot tolerate disagreement. I am no longer even going to adress that person, directly.
:
I sure wish things could get back on topic. Personalities of posters are not the topic. And it's rather amazing (looking from the outside of some of these intense arguments) how some people on opposite sides fail to recognize that they are similar in one respect: Each just has to have the last word. And no, I do not think that because I started the thread that it belongs to me. I am not the topic police, but just sharing my thoughts. Actually I take a loose view of what is "on topic" compared to many moderators. So despite my loose view I think we have wandered off-topic.
This topic isn't even history, it's politics. Which is why I now avoid this subject which is almost relgious in nature. I'd feel like a Dominican arguing with a Calvinist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Grandstander" is one of those who cannot tolerate disagreement. I am no longer even going to adress that person, directly. 
