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.
Lincoln recognized slaves were people, not property. He did the best he could, under the circumstances, to take a step in the right direction.
Equally protecting everyone's rights to life, liberty, private property and pursuit of happiness leads to a more perfect Union, wouldn't you agree?
A perpetual union was formed with it the American Confederation of Congress, where as States put their resources together so as to fight the American Revolution; all 13 States remained sovereign and independent States, with a Congress that did not have the power to legislate.
In 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention a 'perfect union' was formed with the u.s. Constitution giving powers to Congress to legislate. (a king without a face or a name)
The 'more' perfect union was Lincoln --- don't let any other them get away, the Union needs their resources to stand.
A perpetual union was formed with it the American Confederation of Congress, where as States put their resources together so as to fight the American Revolution; all 13 States remained sovereign and independent States, with a Congress that did not have the power to legislate.
In 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention a 'perfect union' was formed with the u.s. Constitution giving powers to Congress to legislate. (a king without a face or a name)
The 'more' perfect union was Lincoln --- don't let any other them get away, the Union needs their resources to stand.
"was not voted in for her brains". Do you even live in her district?
And you personally asked every single person who voted for her.
You must have or you would not have posted such a definative claim!
See my post #28 in this thread.
She is an opportunist who only (finally) obtained her GED just prior to being elected (apparently she was just fine with being a high school dropout until then) who was voted in by strutting around with a gun strapped to her thigh and having an R next to her name. She hasn't done much of anything since.
She is an opportunist who only (finally) obtained her GED just prior to being elected (apparently she was just fine with being a high school dropout until then) who was voted in by strutting around with a gun strapped to her thigh and having an R next to her name. She hasn't done much of anything since.
well she certainly spawns long threads of people talking about her...
you seem stuck on one data point, can you take a few moments to explain your repeated mentioning of her obtaining a GED before election, *after* she was successful in life and business? Im trying to see the tie in..given that you insist its major...
A perpetual union was formed with it the American Confederation of Congress, where as States put their resources together so as to fight the American Revolution; all 13 States remained sovereign and independent States, with a Congress that did not have the power to legislate.
In 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention a 'perfect union' was formed with the u.s. Constitution giving powers to Congress to legislate. (a king without a face or a name)
The 'more' perfect union was Lincoln --- don't let any other them get away, the Union needs their resources to stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan10
What are you trying to say?
I'm saying within our history of the 1700s - 1800s, there were a perpetual union, a perfect union and a more perfect union. (description of each one and their accomplishments in my post above)
You asked a question:
Quote:
Equally protecting everyone's rights to life, liberty, private property and pursuit of happiness leads to a more perfect Union, wouldn't you agree?
imo, that would depend on a person's pov on how those things are best accomplished within the Federal, States laws and the u.s. Constitution. When a State was committed to the u.s. Constitution, there was no provision within the law, that let them back out. They could not get a divorce if the relationship was no longer conducive to their needs or the needs of their citizens. The Federal government can gobble up all of the State's resources leaving very little for it to function; keep it dependent on Federal funds --- is that liberty? If so, for whom?
No- you are wrong. In "diversity", there is weakness. The most "diverse" nations in the world are the least free and prosperous. China, India, and Africa had been on their knees in the world stage due to such "diversity". Now, China and India have moved to one set of laws and one language, and have prospered. Africa, on the other hand, has only become worse, as it has not learned those lessons.
A culturally diverse population is fine, AS LONG AS THEY SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE AND SHARE THE SAME LOVE OF THE CONSTITUION AND THE WILL OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
When "diverse" groups come to America and do not share our western ideas, they weaken the system and destroy the unity of the nation. Immigrants of the past learned the language and embraced The Constitution. Modern "diversity" really means "adversary" in not sharing our western core beliefs and embracing our work ethic, laws, and the Judao-Christian tradition of values. You can have another faith privately, but in order to be an integrated American, you must embrace American values.
What language did your ancestors speak when they came here?
The Founding Fathers all read the Christian Bible at some point. Some were Deists, who did not believe in the Divinity of Christ. None of them wanted to include any reference to any of it in the Constitution when it was written. Why, do you suppose, was this the case...?
The only mention of religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution stating plainly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
What language did your ancestors speak when they came here?
The Founding Fathers all read the Christian Bible at some point. Some were Deists, who did not believe in the Divinity of Christ. None of them wanted to include any reference to any of it in the Constitution when it was written. Why, do you suppose, was this the case...?
The only mention of religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution stating plainly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
That is so strange, considering that laws against Prostitution and drugs are still very aggressively enforced today, in nearly every city!
Where do modern lawmakers get the idea that these laws should be enforced so aggressively? (if not from 'religious beliefs'?)
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.
