robertt said:

You are on to something here, robertt! I felt the SAME way back then when Perot was running. I feel the SAME way EVERY year (especially 2000) when Nader runs!

There is NO ROOM for a third party in our national elections. All they EVER do is to detract from what SHOULD be a more accurate representation of the popular vote and concerns.

Even with ALL the judicial wrangling over Florida in 2000.... the NADER vote was enough to cost Gore the election. MORE importantly.... the "accidental" Buchanan vote in Palm Beach County, which was NEVER addressed in the recount process, was more than enough to cause the "selection" of Dubya! The two of them combined, made it look ALMOST like it was actually a close call! It wasn't! :hellno:

IMHO, Perot was the "founder" of the Tea Party movement we see today, although Libertarians (and the Green Party) have been around for years... constantly working their malicious magic.

I don't know if Bush Sr. would have won without Perot's "meddling," but I don't really care. I would not have been against 4 more years of Sr. if that is what the country wanted!

Clinton would have simply won 4 years later!

I am really not FOR our process of Presidential elections every FOUR years! I think it keeps us in a constant state of confusion and "regressive" policymaking (not to mention perpetual CAMPAIGNING!) I am also against the electoral college.

:smokin:

So.... you are agreeing with Obama that "enough" money is "enough?" YOU are now trying to set limits on how much money someone can make (on book sales, I might add.... NOT on the backs of workers!) YOU now have a problem with Property Rights? :eek2::hellno:

They've been seduced to the "Dark Side" by the party of Darth Vader! Perhaps, they have become "DINO's! :roll:

We should put them out of their misery before they start stockpiling GUNS! :lol::lol2:

 

As I stated a few day's ago, sooo much gets lost in translation on here. :banghead:

The Clinton deal was TOTAL sarcasm. :roll:

The Dem's are so worried about how much money everybody else has why don't they condemn the Clinton's for "excess" with their's? [rhetorical question] Personally, as much as I don't care for either one of them, I could care less how much money they have or where they spend it, just LEAVE ME ALONE!!! about MY money!

 

Heck no he would not have won. When Perot dropped out for a bit during the campaign, Clinton's lead grew. If anything, Perot's name being in there at 19% kept Clinton from really stomping the tar out of Bush.

 

Hobo (that's ME) said:

Gman said:

I believe you are WRONG, Gman! And it is time to discuss it. I've let you get away with saying this for a few years now, but it is just not [entirely] TRUE!

I'll admit that I am not the student YOU are of American History... especially the Civil War.... but, I know what I know and what I've been taught OR read... [And what "I" have heard while living in the South.] I believe YOUR beliefs about the war are formed by what YOU may have been taught to believe.

As gently as I can say this... I believe YOUR "interpretation" of the events of the time are colored by your DESIRE to believe what "absolves" your ancestors' guilt or acquiescense in the matter. [But...I admire your Southern Pride.]

But, I did some googling today, to see just WHO was right. And I tried to stay away from any BLOGS or overly opinionated articles.

Wikipedia was my LAST option, but even IT never mentions "textiles" per se. It does mention Cotton plantations, which are related, but NOT in a manner of TRADE. I had once heard that RUM and Bourbon Whiskey were part of the argument. But, I found NO mention of THEM either!

I have HEARD, over the years, that much of the debate was over Free Trade agreements that the South wanted to pursue concerning the rum and cotton trades, and how the Federal government wanted to suppress or tax them. (the whole Interstate Commerce argument.) But, I found no evidence of that today.

What I found LAST was this discussion on Wikipedia. NOTICE that textiles, rums, tobacco or ANYTHING else are never mentioned. TRUE....that the focus is on State's rights.... but ONLY as they concern SLAVERY!

Origins of the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, prior to that, I found THIS discussion of the events that lead up to the Civil War. I don't know if you trust About.com... or those who specialize in Civil War history, but....

American Civil War Causes - Causes of the Civil War - Roots of the American Civil War

Once again.... the rationale seems to be ENTIRELY about the issue of Slavery and whether or not the "State's Rights" amendment was of concern for ANY reason OTHER than as it applied to the rights to OWN "human beings" as PROPERTY.

But, IMHO.... the "coup de grace".... the final blow against your argument, is found in an 1876 article about the REAL reasons behind the Civil War written by a Southern Gentleman who claimed to be somewhat of an authority on the matter!

Origin Of The Civil War

The language is a bit hard to follow, even for me. But, the sentiment and rationale are unmistakable! The argument is DEFINITELY about states' rights... but ENTIRELY as they concern the ownership and trade of NEGRO SLAVES!

More specifically.... it is not about the OWNERSHIP of slaves, but the constitutional decrees and amendments that govern the RIGHTS of slave states to have their "runaway" slaves RETURNED to them by Free States, and the constitutional guarantee of this so-called RIGHT. They often used the word "property," but it was NEVER about land.... it was about the SLAVES they "owned."

Someone recently mentioned the show on the History channel (that I had recommended earlier) about HOW the states' boundaries were formed. This is discussed in ONE of the articles I linked to, and it mirrored what I learned on that show. It was almost ENTIRELY based on compromises over Slave States' rights and trying to keep an equal balance in our Congress. There were several "compromises" intended to keep the Union together.... but, in the end.... the South didn't get what they WANTED! So, they seceeded.

But, my last link, CLEARLY states, in the words of a Southern Gentleman exactly what the war was all about. "THEY" believed that the constituition gave them RIGHTS to own slaves as property, and insisted that all OTHER states were to HONOR their "property rights" and the constitutional decree that OTHER states had to return any "runaway" PROPERTY to them.

It ALSO shows that, as the population grew in the North, and the "majority vote" went against them.... they felt compelled to dissolve their allegiance to any government or "Democratic" process that went against their LIMITED views and minority concepts. They even whined that they would NEVER have "joined" such a confederation had they known that THEIR "plantation or big business" concerns would not be protected.... regardless of any DEMOCRATIC principles set forth in the constitution.

Yes, they used lots of rhetorical propaganda that espoused their DEDICATION to the rights set forth by the Constitution. And their indignation that their "States' rights" had been overcome by an increasing population of FREE immigrants into the Northern "section."

And you (or razorwyre?) are right that THEIR opinion had no more than a THIRD of even the SOUTHERN population as support.... the "haves" who wanted to continue controlling and "owning" the have-nots as opposed to the genteel who had come to be emancipated in their thinking.

Yet... THESE few obstinate "property owners" (slave owners) controlled the politics of the South, and plunged their compatriots and hapless CITIZENS into a terrible war because of "buyer's remorse" over their agreement to a Federal constitution.... when it no LONGER was "convenient" to their FEUDAL mentality!

In all fairness, given the historical and geneological differences between those who settled the South and those who settled the North...though BOTH proved themselves worthy and patriotic in the "revolution" against England... it is no wonder that their differences caused them to come to blows. PERHAPS, it would have been best to form TWO separate nations on this continent. They could have been ALLIES instead of enemies.

But, the article I last mentioned showed that the South joined the Union ONLY because they expected the constitution to protect their RIGHT to own slaves! When it failed to DO so.... they rebelled.

To their credit, they were brave enough to take up arms (once again) against a government they felt was oppressing their "rights." The article even mentions that they KNEW they could probably never WIN.

The IRONY is that our constitution was later amended to give FULL "human rights" to blacks and women.... as was intended (in theory) in our Declaration of Independence.

And the unfortunate result is that MANY southerners, and those who thought their struggle was JUST, have not learned from the mistake.... but rather have been emboldened by their example... and continue TODAY to fear and despise the Federal Government. :hellno:

I'm SURE you will post a dissenting view, GMAN. I DOUBT that it will be backed by any research but rather just an OPINON. I even doubt that you will READ the links I posted. I bet I could almost predict what you will say!

But, unless you DO respond with research to back your claims, or at least an argument that shows you've READ my links, I will have no choice but to assume that you have no INTEREST in the truth, and desire instead to continue your "claim" that the civil war was ONLY about the rights of the states to govern themselves (or something about TRADE) while PART of a "union" that set rules for membership (that they agreed to.)

For the record, I understand the argument made by the southern states concerning the Constitution and its mention of returning runaway slaves. I don't know that I understand exactly how this happened... but, I DO know that it was AMENDED!

I ALSO haven't missed your contention that the VOTE should ONLY be allowed for those who own "property." A debate on THAT will be forthcoming, but for now... I just can't get over the the fact that, in an earlier time, (and EVEN in our Constitution) the word PROPERTY included slaves! :hellno:

And, I defy ANYONE to read all three of my links and still contend that the Civil war was about anything BUT the rights of southerners to own SLAVES!

Hobo

 

Okay, robertt.... sorry, I missed your smilie!

But, here's a little news item for you, in case you missed it. Bill Clinton (AND Obama) are ON THE RECORD as saying that THEY are part of the "rich class" that SHOULD be taxed MORE! How's THAT for putting your money where your MOUTH is??? :lol:

They are not looking to tax YOU more! You are part of the Middle Class that they are trying to preserve! IF you end up paying a FEW DOLLARS MORE in taxes, well.... that's just the price we have to PAY for the excesses of the DUBYA administration!

YOU fear that they are after YOUR money because you listen to the LIES on FauxNews! :roll:

The FIRST "truth" is that they only want to let EXPIRE the unreasonable TAX CREDITS given ONLY to the RICH by Dubya (YOU didn't GET ONE) .... at the SAME time they were waging TWO wars that cost alot of money.... which they endeavored to keep OFF the budget (and therefore out of view) by making them supplemental expenditure bills in congress.

This is not EVEN a tax "hike." It is a restoration to a tax level BEFORE Dubya CUT taxes to his rich "buddies" while plunging the country into two expensive WARS! AND.... since tax CUTS are supposed to create JOBS, I wonder why during 8 years of Dubya's tax CUTS to businesses, he created FEWER jobs than ANY president that prededed him??? [check it out.]

By letting these "credits" for the RICHEST expire, they will return the Tax revenue from the RICH to a level BELOW that of what it was under REAGAN (though higher than under Dubya)... and about the same as under Clinton... when we BALANCED the budget!

 

Nooooo.....I KNOW they are after my money after hearing, (how many times), from obama and his cronies about how the guy below me deserves a chance too. See Joe the Plumber!!! REDISTRUBUTION OF WEALTH That's all they talk about. And that is from THEIR mouths not somebody else's. (Unless they are lying)

 

Slight correction here, but just a little one.....I am FROM the South, however, not FROM Meridian, I have only recently moved here. I have moved around throughout the South in my life, but I was born in North Carolina, and grew up between there and Alabama for the most part. I only LIVE in Meridian, I am FROM Jacksonville, NC.


My opinion wasn't formed from the NRA, I am not a card carrying member, never have been, and don't really plan on being. I, like you, disagree with a lot of their tactics and "facts" though I am for some of the same things that are on their agenda, notice the SOME.


Ok, on this one, I will admit you are partially right as was I. Obviously you agreed that the South as a whole was not in favor, but as you stated, their political heads were. I will concede that slavery was an issue, but like you told GMan, I was taught that it was not about slavery, but it was about states rights. So, in that I admit that the states rights may have been spearheaded by slavery, but on semantics, it was in fact the rights of the states the war was fought over. I know we as a people have come a long way in recognizing that people are not property, but remember, there are still plenty of cultures on this planet that do not share the same feelings, so I can understand how they viewed the slaves as property and not people. I don't agree with slavery, but I understand their point of view. Again, I was raised in the South, so my schooling may have been swayed by the fact that southern pride is obviously still a big deal, but I can't imagine it being swayed much more than the Berlin school system teaching about the first half of the 20th Century. So yes slavery played a part, but correct me if I am wrong, but when the South seceded, was the Union not in violation of the laws it set up by trying to force the South to abide by them instead of allowing the Confederate States of America to just exist as another country?

 

This is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . .

BSO: Robbers wearing FBI shirts met with bullets

"Authorities said two men tried to pry open the front door with a crowbar, and then tried to get in the front window before the 45-year-old homeowner fired his .40 caliber pistol at them. "

 

The Palm Beach Post reportedSee, now this is what I am talking about. If the man was properly trained and practiced regularly he would not have missed when he fired at the would be robbers. He shouldn't own a gun, he forgot the most important rule of gun safety, "know your target and what lies beyond." He just shot randomly from a close distance I can only assume and missed. On top of that, if he had hit them we would have a few less criminal minds on the street so he should have been allowed to own a gun....the biggest crime here though is the stupidity of the robbers.....They would have gotten away with it if they weren't driving a silver Mercedes, everyone knows the FBI drives black Suburbans.

 

razorwyr said:

And.... if they had been only mischievious teenagers, they'd be DEAD.

This pretty much sums up MOST gun owners in America. I'm not talking about the NRA types.... but rather the scared masses that are allowed to purchase firearms WITHOUT taking safety courses and training.

Ah... but, the TRUE criminal mind KNOWS that is what everyone thinks. Therefore, had they parked down the street, they could have "skated" away because everyone would be looking for a black Suburban. :lol: