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.
This article makes some interesting points about how the former CSA is dragging down our nation in general. The question is, how much longer will the rest of the country tolerate it?
I live in West Virginia and Democrats are NOT good for us. Obama's war on coal has been responsible for massive job losses all over this states and in surrounding states as well. I previously lived in Maryland where liberal taxes and regulations are destroying the agriculture business and forced the closure of a major steel plant. Look at Detroit if you want to see where Democrat economic policies get you. The VW workers in Tennessee refused to join the UAW because they knew if they did, their factory would end up like Detroit's.
Democrats and liberals only answer is more taxes, and more liberal social programs. All they do is make poverty more comfortable. Republicans actually believe in creating jobs and promoting businesses so that people can WORK and get OUT OF POVERTY. yes I am a Christian and my parents are LEGAL immigrants so I oppose abortion, gay marriage, and ILLEGAL immigration but I am a fiscal conservative as well. A lot of the economic growth is taking place in Red states like Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. I know you liberals and Democrats pay lip service to blue collar workers but really look down on them....you think anything less than a high tech or biotech job is beneath you and worthless but automaking, steel making, coal mining are respectable professions too and employ a lot of people in the rest of the country outside your liberal elite enclaves.
I live in West Virginia and Democrats are NOT good for us. Obama's war on coal has been responsible for massive job losses all over this states and in surrounding states as well. I previously lived in Maryland where liberal taxes and regulations are destroying the agriculture business and forced the closure of a major steel plant. Look at Detroit if you want to see where Democrat economic policies get you. The VW workers in Tennessee refused to join the UAW because they knew if they did, their factory would end up like Detroit's.
Democrats and liberals only answer is more taxes, and more liberal social programs. All they do is make poverty more comfortable. Republicans actually believe in creating jobs and promoting businesses so that people can WORK and get OUT OF POVERTY. yes I am a Christian and my parents are LEGAL immigrants so I oppose abortion, gay marriage, and ILLEGAL immigration but I am a fiscal conservative as well. A lot of the economic growth is taking place in Red states like Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. I know you liberals and Democrats pay lip service to blue collar workers but really look down on them....you think anything less than a high tech or biotech job is beneath you and worthless but automaking, steel making, coal mining are respectable professions too and employ a lot of people in the rest of the country outside your liberal elite enclaves.
Agreed about many "libs" in 2014 NOT liking people who work with their hands.
Tried like hell? 1. That's a lie. They considered it, but if they had tried like hell, they would have succeeded, they founded the country. 2. 3/5ths clause seems like a foundation in racism to me.
At the time of the founding of our country, slavery was an issue that would have split the union. If they wanted a united nation then slavery would have to be put on a back burner.
You're a living, breathing, walking reason why school vouchers are a bad idea.
Feel better? Nothing like keeping it classy...
Tried like hell? 1. That's a lie. They considered it, but if they had tried like hell, they would have succeeded, they founded the country. 2. 3/5ths clause seems like a foundation in racism to me.
At the time of the founding of our country, slavery was an issue that would have split the union. If they wanted a united nation then slavery would have to be put on a back burner.
You're a living, breathing, walking reason why school vouchers are a bad idea.
Feel better? Nothing like keeping it classy...
This article makes some interesting points about how the former CSA is dragging down our nation in general. The question is, how much longer will the rest of the country tolerate it?
It makes me wonder why most of you anti-southerners are fervently anti-secession as well; considering that (purportedly) you'd be better off without the former CSA dragging down your country, I'd think secession would be beneficial to both sides. Not that I think the CSA should be resurrected; that political union that would have been cohesive and sensible in 1861 is not so in 2014, considering the changes in parts of the former CSA, the vast differences on either end of the CSA, and the non-CSA states that are pro-state sovereignty and would be better off independent. Self-determination and sovereignty for one's state, and federal intrusion thereof is not a problem confined to the South anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
Leftist America and America are not the same thing..but then again you will attack me and scream bigot or racist.
That gives a whole new meaning to Edwards's Two Americas. I prefer to think of "America" and "the Other America"; the latter is the America where Jeb Bush is such a strong candidate more electable than anyone else and the people don't favor repealing Obamacare . The Other America mostly exists in the minds of the DC elite, but the characteristics of this America are reflective of what has been called "the political class".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
What, legalized slavery? You're right, I don't support that.
America was founded on the principle that man's birthright is complete and equal liberty, and government is instituted for the protection of that birthright, strictly limited and watched to ensure that it is not perverted into doing the opposite. The incomplete realization of that principle by not expanding it to everyone in practice does not change the fact that anti-slavery itself was based on those founding principles you like to denigrate, and the acceptance of the rights of man as a fundamental premise for a new civilization during the Revolution is what enabled abolition to gain support in the first place. Benjamin Franklin founded America's first abolitionist society. Slavery was legal in every state/colony until Vermont became the first to abolish it in 1777 based on the "liberty as the right of man" principle. Indeed, every single northern state abolished slavery by 1820; pretty good work for a bunch of racist slavers, eh?
Also, if slavery was such a fundamental founding principle, why was it conspicuously absent from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and most other important texts concerning the Founding? Slavery, while legal nationwide in 1776 and in the South in 1820, has nothing to do with the Founding, as Vermont's participation demonstrates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef
3/5ths clause seems like a foundation in racism to me.
Why don't you see past the left-wing propaganda you've swallowed? There's an an entire left-wing mythology about the three-fifths clause, which I am happy to correct:
1. It's not about race, only slavery*; a free black counted as one person, and an enslaved white counted for three-fifths.
2. The Founders did not consider slaves to be "three-fifths of a person"; the three-fifths refers to how they are counted for the purpose of apportioning seats in Congress.
3. Since slaves couldn't vote, counting slaves as a whole person would strengthen the slave power, since the slaveowners would get more Congressional districts. It is for this reason that it was the pro-slavery Founders who wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person, and anti-slavery Founders wanted slaves to not be counted at all. Three-fifths was as low as they could go and still incorporate the South into the Union.
The abolitionist Founders laid out an interesting argument, to the effect that the South wanted to have it both ways; if slaves were just property then they shouldn't be counted as people, and if they were people then they shouldn't be kept in bondage. The South's position was blatantly hypocritical, but the North beared through it. It should also be noted that the three-fifths clause was never repealed; it is merely moot now since after the Thirteenth Amendment there are no slaves so no one counts as three-fifths.
*Slavery is not mentioned in the text, but it counts free persons (of any race) as one person, does not count Indians not taxed, and counts as three-fifths "all other persons"; the last by implication means slaves.
Quote:
No, I'm attacking you because you don't know the difference between the United States of America (which I support) and the Confederate States of America (traitors to our country that you apparently really support).
Conquering and placing entire states in bondage who have freely chosen a different fate, particularly when the federal government was not delegated the power to do so, is the antithesis of what the Republic was founded on, so if anyone was guilty of treason against it it was Lincoln and the Union. The Confederates committed many atrocities as well, not the least of which is slavery, but while it is criminal, holding slaves is not treason.
It should also be noted that in that era a very common understanding was that states retained ultimate sovereignty, due to their being sovereign countries who had delegated (not ceded, delegated) some of their power to the federal government out of expediency. So given a choice between loyalty to your state and loyalty to your federal government, betraying your state would be treason, not going against the federal government. Although not comparable, it's much the same principle that would compel one to be loyal to the US rather than the UN.
It makes me wonder why most of you anti-southerners are fervently anti-secession as well; considering that (purportedly) you'd be better off without the former CSA dragging down your country, I'd think secession would be beneficial to both sides. Not that I think the CSA should be resurrected; that political union that would have been cohesive and sensible in 1861 is not so in 2014, considering the changes in parts of the former CSA, the vast differences on either end of the CSA, and the non-CSA states that are pro-state sovereignty and would be better off independent. Self-determination and sovereignty for one's state, and federal intrusion thereof is not a problem confined to the South anymore.
That gives a whole new meaning to Edwards's Two Americas. I prefer to think of "America" and "the Other America"; the latter is the America where Jeb Bush is such a strong candidate more electable than anyone else and the people don't favor repealing Obamacare . The Other America mostly exists in the minds of the DC elite, but the characteristics of this America are reflective of what has been called "the political class".
America was founded on the principle that man's birthright is complete and equal liberty, and government is instituted for the protection of that birthright, strictly limited and watched to ensure that it is not perverted into doing the opposite. The incomplete realization of that principle by not expanding it to everyone in practice does not change the fact that anti-slavery itself was based on those founding principles you like to denigrate, and the acceptance of the rights of man as a fundamental premise for a new civilization during the Revolution is what enabled abolition to gain support in the first place. Benjamin Franklin founded America's first abolitionist society. Slavery was legal in every state/colony until Vermont became the first to abolish it in 1777 based on the "liberty as the right of man" principle. Indeed, every single northern state abolished slavery by 1820; pretty good work for a bunch of racist slavers, eh?
Also, if slavery was such a fundamental founding principle, why was it conspicuously absent from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and most other important texts concerning the Founding? Slavery, while legal nationwide in 1776 and in the South in 1820, has nothing to do with the Founding, as Vermont's participation demonstrates.
Why don't you see past the left-wing propaganda you've swallowed? There's an an entire left-wing mythology about the three-fifths clause, which I am happy to correct:
1. It's not about race, only slavery*; a free black counted as one person, and an enslaved white counted for three-fifths.
2. The Founders did not consider slaves to be "three-fifths of a person"; the three-fifths refers to how they are counted for the purpose of apportioning seats in Congress.
3. Since slaves couldn't vote, counting slaves as a whole person would strengthen the slave power, since the slaveowners would get more Congressional districts. It is for this reason that it was the pro-slavery Founders who wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person, and anti-slavery Founders wanted slaves to not be counted at all. Three-fifths was as low as they could go and still incorporate the South into the Union.
The abolitionist Founders laid out an interesting argument, to the effect that the South wanted to have it both ways; if slaves were just property then they shouldn't be counted as people, and if they were people then they shouldn't be kept in bondage. The South's position was blatantly hypocritical, but the North beared through it. It should also be noted that the three-fifths clause was never repealed; it is merely moot now since after the Thirteenth Amendment there are no slaves so no one counts as three-fifths.
*Slavery is not mentioned in the text, but it counts free persons (of any race) as one person, does not count Indians not taxed, and counts as three-fifths "all other persons"; the last by implication means slaves.
Conquering and placing entire states in bondage who have freely chosen a different fate, particularly when the federal government was not delegated the power to do so, is the antithesis of what the Republic was founded on, so if anyone was guilty of treason against it it was Lincoln and the Union. The Confederates committed many atrocities as well, not the least of which is slavery, but while it is criminal, holding slaves is not treason.
It should also be noted that in that era a very common understanding was that states retained ultimate sovereignty, due to their being sovereign countries who had delegated (not ceded, delegated) some of their power to the federal government out of expediency. So given a choice between loyalty to your state and loyalty to your federal government, betraying your state would be treason, not going against the federal government. Although not comparable, it's much the same principle that would compel one to be loyal to the US rather than the UN.
Amen!!!!!
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.
. The Other America mostly exists in the minds of the DC elite, but the characteristics of this America are reflective of what has been called "the political class".