|
|
COMMENTS:
"We are a country of two right wings--republicans & democrats."
--Gore Vidal
Internationally, no, there is not much difference, domestically there is a huge difference. Comparing Lincoln's 19th century war to Clinton's, Bushs', or Reagan's doesn't make alot of sense though. The Civil War was fought here and the others were fought internationally. Vidal has always been a little facile.
Not that I've noticed.
We certainly have a much higher number of things in common than we do different with every human being on the planet. We just get more excited by the differences, and the media exists to highlight the differences, and, if we aren't careful, we come to believe that a average Iraqi is much less than us. Or some such.
One group of wealthy interests, calling
themselves "Repulicans," selects one candidate for us to vote for, and another group of weathly interests, caling themselves "Democrats," select another candidate for us to vote for. Texaco or Shell. Simon & Garfield said it best in the 60's, "any way you look at it, you lose."
There are some cosmetic claims by these parties, but if you just sit back and notice, not a lot changes after an election.
We are all excited about it, but it never seems to make any material difference.
Inter, I always saw the Union as the United States and the confederacy as an independent power. Then that Union went into that independent power and made it theirs. Get what I'm saying. Yeah, it was out of range I'll admit.
The Republicans who are currently in power are pro-war socialists and the Democrats currently bitching about being out of power are anti-american socialists.
Well it is just not scope here. There is the matter of the wars being international and domestic.
The South, as was decided by the Civil War had no right to secede. The strawman about states rights has never worked for me. Since the Civil War it has been decided law that states absolutely don't have the right to leave the union. Now you can look at the moment of time when the South had left and call it a foriegn nation, but since it has long been determined that it was not a foreign nation why bother?
What if both Clinton and Bush were right in their respective wars? What if without a victory in Bosnia, the U.S. would have, at a minimum, had to deal with a war between Nato allies? Or what if an invasion of Iraq was the only way to ensure that a madman did not hold the world hostage with WMD's? Not saying this was/is the case. Have no way of absolutely knowing this. But neither do you. And I hope that both Clinton and Bush have better intelligence than we do.
History will be the ultimate judge of these actions, and in the meantime all we are left to do is clatter.
inter_
you are wrong. the Civil War didnt prove the South didnt have the right to leave the Union, it just proved they werent allowed to.
When Virginia ratified the constitution, they did with an added condition. The condition was that they could secede if they ever wanted. Congress accepted that condition when they accepted their ratification. Look up "Virginia's conditional ratification" if you dont believe me. Since our constitution clearly says that any right given to one state is given to all, then every state had the right to secede. So the forcing of states to rejoin the union was illegal and unconstitutional.
I didn't understand that last part inter but I'll answer it to the best...
I don't believe that a part of a country or territory can't secede just because of a law. If 90% or more of the people oppose the politics of the occupying power then they should have that right. It's kind of like saying that India or South African had no right to secede from England because the law said so. Not all things are justified by the law.
Reb, it doesn't really matter that Vitginia was given special consideration, or that for political reasons, and the strong representation that Virginia had provided to that point, the fact is that it is not legal to secede. That part of states rights is settled, once in you can't get out. I know that there are many in the South who somehow think that they were right or that they will somehow "rise again" but it is a fool's dream. Virginia, or California, or any state for that matter absolutely doesn't have the right to secede.
Kaiser (and also Reb) I am not sure if you are American but indeed the US is a nation of laws and not of men. It wouldn't really matter if 100% of the people in any given state decided they wanted to leave the union because they can't as a matter of law.
The South was a "breakaway" republic who felt that under the Constitution they had the right to secede. The "Union" felt differently and Sherman burned Atlanta as an object lesson of the South's wrongheadedness. Now we are not talking about the United States' control over a place like Puerto Rico which seems to be the argument you are making about India or South Africa. We are talking about places that are IN the Union, and as such the Civil War settled the argument about whether or not that can be done. The answer is no. Not withstanding those in the South foolish enough to believe in the contrary.
There is no example to cite, fortunately, no state is rushing the exit door.
inter_
I showed legal right to secede, you cant show any law saying its illegal. Now who's arguement is foolish?
The North invaded to keep from losing a valuable asset. The South paid 3/4 of all federal taxes, due to their reliance on importexport goods.
To say winning made them right is crazy...if I took your wallet, then kicked your a$$ when you tried to get it back, would that mean I was right??? No.
There is nothing in the constitution that says secession is illegal.
^ What Gore Vidal/ elvislennon said.
by zig on Sun Jun 05, 05 4:00am
[+]
I asked this question a while back. Both parties are pro-business and pro-war. Both have plenty of wackos in their party and both basically don't care for the little guy. Not much difference really.
I'm not American, my opinions lean more conservative (doesn't automatically mean I'm a Republican even thought the leftists on the site think so) but I consider myself a moderate. I'm just saying what I personally believe is right. Forcing 100% of the population to do something because the law says so is wrong in and I think that should give any state to secede. Forcing them under your rule is like dictatorship.
The Democrats wouldn't have unilaterally invaded Iraq.
Of course, neither would have most Republicans.
Good point.
Crank: unlike their unilateral attack on iraq under clinton? Or their assualt on serbia without UN support, or their absolutely worthless cruise missle attack on an aspirin factory that happened without any support. You really don't know anything about this party that you mindlessly support do you?
Reb, you didn't provide any proof of anything. There is a huge difference between stealing a wallet and seceding, the point is obviously lost on you.
The proof of my point would only be in the putting, which, as you know, is impossible because only the retarded fools who lost the Civil War would think that they can still secede. The overwhelming majority of the people of the United States love being in the union as evidenced by not even the hint of any group in the entire US to even think of seceding. So apart from that you haven't proved anything.
Where in the constitution that the rights given one state are automatcially given to all others? Do you mean that there is some sort of 14th or 15th amendment right of equal protection?
Reb, is this what you are talking about?
"A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
The Virginia convention ended its clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed Constitution on June 23, 1788, and the next day George Wythe proposed that the Committee of the Whole ratify the document. He also recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.
We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...
The committee of five that wrote the ratification was Edmund Randolph, George Nicholas, James Madison, John Marshall, and Francis Corbin -- all of them Federalists and Madison and Randolph, of course, members of the Constitutional Convention that had met in Philadelphia in 1787."
Hopefully you will note that this is the argument THAT LEAD UP TO THE CIVIL WAR. This was not the case for readmission to the Union in which case the Rebel states were in no position to demand a damned thing.
See this is what cracks me up: THIS IS THE PRE-CIVIL WAR ARGUMENT THAT WAS DECISIVELY SETTLED IN THE TIME BETWEEN THE END OF THE WAR AND THE READMISSION OF ALL THE STATES back into the UNION>
It suprises me how an example that really had little to do with the ballot can start a bigger debate than the actual ballot. I admit, I'm wrong, put your guns down.
Cranky, Democrats go by the same international policy as Republicans do. If a Al Gore had won in 2000, he also would've probably attacked someone whether it's justified or not. Bill Clinton has probably killed more people with his sanctions and international policy than GWB except Bill Clinton did a better job hiding it. See what I'm saying?
Herzog, I'm a bit confused about one of your ballot comments: Are you arguing that the attack on Serbia was not justified and necessary? Can't imagine that. Lots of graphic evidence of atrocities by the Serbs -- even today on your favorite news channel: Fox (always unfair and unbalanced) showed films of a group of Muslim men being executed, shot in the back, by the Serbian military. Are you recommending that we stand down and let this sort of rot go on? I don't think so. Heat of battle comment, I expect.
Enjoyed most of your comments.
The exact same arguments some are making about Iraq^ can also be made about Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo, but they can be done even better because this is the area that WWI started and, AND it is in the backyard of Europe. Now one can wonder why the Brits, French, and Italians (along with Germany as represented by NATO) would all sit on their hand when their backyards were on fire? But in so doing we would have to look at a certain president and his motivations to distract the home crowd. The evidence that was used as justification to get into those wars doesn't even amount to 1/100th of what it took to get into Iraq. But Republican Wars are clearly bad, whereas Democrat Wars are always for good, and pure, and simple humanitarian reasons. Nice try. Try to shame somene by presenting an extreme modicum of evidence bolstered by the recent videotapes. Yeah fun.
inter_
The acceptance of that condition by congress, plus the absolute absence of any constitutional law against secession, proves that it was the right of any state to secede.
The "right given to one is given to all" is not an ammendment, it is in the ORIGINAL constitution. Article IV, section 2, clause 1
The only thing retarded and foolish is your "they lost so they didnt have the right" bullshit. The fact that they lost only proves they didnt have the ability. If your logic (or lack of it) were true, one could claim that Iraq doesnt have the right to be a nation because we beat their army. See how stupid that sounds?
JohnnyReb,
As I so clearly pointed out the argument that you used to justify secession was from 1787. It is not in the Virginian Constitution on this very day and you know that. Or certainly you can make yourself aware of it if you so chose.
Again you chose to make an invalid analogy. First it was that wallet crap and now Iraq? They are not parallel and therefore they are fallacious.
I don't think we have been talking about the same thing. You were talking about justifications for the Civil War, and I am talking about the reality of settled law regarding secession. I thought we were on the same page but we weren't. If you want to continue to talk about the arguments justifying secession then I will cede the floor because I readily admit that I don't know that much about the South's purported reasons for secession. I think the South was wrong however, and the facts on the ground supersede all of the rhetoric either of us could spout at one another.
When you said the Virginia had reserved a right to secede in their Constitution I thought you were talking about post Civil War. Which they most certainly don't have. You were talking about pre_Civil War and you were absolutely right. I was unaware of both the New York and Virginian reservation for secession.
I did not absolutely use the word retarded. Please I use plenty of inflamatory words but that wasn't one of them. So, simply if you want to use my words to come back at me, do so. Just pick the ones that I actually used.
Voted : No
In the full political spectrum, where far left is Marxism, and far right is Nazism, there is less than 5% difference between the two parties. At least this was what a professor once told me...
|
|
britvic55 from bestandworst.com -
comment : ^^ Annnnd females wouldn't?? lol ...
