Drug Laws: By Cenk's Logic, We Could Decriminalize Murder
When it comes to marijuana, I'm a libertarian. That said, Cenk Uygur has made possibly the worst argument ever in favor of legalizing it. On his MSNBC show this evening, Uygur advocated the decriminalization of marijuana since, 74 years after the feds made loco weed illegal, people continue to smoke it, or as Cenk put it, the War on Drugs is unwinnable.
Yo, Cenk: Cain killed Abel more than 5,000 years ago. Murder has been illegal ever since, and yet people continue to commit it. By that logic, since the War on Homicide is also unwinnable, should we decriminalize murder?
Be sure to view the video after the jump. Not only will you hear Cenk make his nonsensical argument, you'll see Dem Rep. Jared Polis. On the one hand, the congressman went on to make a number of better arguments in favor of decriminalization. On the other, not to be unkind, but the man from Colorado looks like he's been on a few Rocky Mountain highs himself.
Watch Uygur's utterly illogical argument.
CENK UYGUR: In 1937, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, which in essence began the federal criminalization of pot. Now, it's been nearly 75 years since then. I gotta ask you: how's that War on Drugs being going for us? Let me be a little bold, and ask you this as well, or say this to you: I can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt how ridiculous the War on Drugs is. Really? Can I? Let's watch and see. Raise your hand if you think we will ever win the War on Drugs. That we will have, for example, the United States President come out and say: today, we have completely defeated drugs. We won, drugs lost. Seriously, did any of you raise your hand? Does anyone in the country believe that? Even the most ardent, the Drug Czar, like, yeah, does he really think we're going to win the War on Drugs and people aren't going to take drugs anymore? That sounds crazy, right?
Here's Rep. Polis.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
As dumb as can be
Submitted by Truestar on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:37pm.
Rick Sanchez was once the stupidest guy on TV, and now Cenk has taken over that vaunted position.
I think people know how i feel about this issue
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:38pm.
.......however the author is right this comparision is so ridiculous that I don't even know if truthmonger or NL207 would use it.
Why? I can pull your
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:14pm.
Why? I can pull your intellectual undies over your head anytime I want without it.
Your position that morality you personally disagree with cannot be the basis for laws is a total abusrdity.
No NL sir
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:34pm.
What is absurd is the fact that you will use a silly comparison like like this Cenk guy and try to pretend it is exactly the same thing.
Cenks comparision nothing we can do with legalizing drugs people still do it just like people
Still murder. You compare being gay to NAMBLA
Oh we tomatoes ....tomaaaatos
Nice try though. :-)
Edit
How about on he grounds that
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:44pm.
How about on he grounds that the Fed overreached its authority? This is a perfect candidate for nullification, which some states in effect are doing with the medicinal marijuana clinics.
The so-called "War on Drugs" is a joke, a lie, and probably the
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:28pm.
...largest and most important weapon in the government's ever-escalating war on freedom, liberty, aa well our founding document - the Constitution of the United States.
Obviously the lessons of Prohibition were completely missed.
Government, at all levels, has committed some of the most heinous transgressions against American citizens, all in the name of the so-called War on Drugs.
Thousands of innocents have been killed - some in their own homes by law enforcement officers who can't read a street address, hundreds have had their cash and property seized without due process, have had their vehicles, homes, and businesses searched and ransacked, been detained for hours, and even days, all because of this misguided war.
And what has the government really accomplished?
Not a damn thing, other than to fill our prisons with non-violent people who are no threat to anyone other than themselves, and that we have to pay out the wazoo to house, feed and clothe for God knows how long.
Not to mention the billions of our tax dollars that have been thrown down a rat hole paying for this stupidity.
What a person does to themselves is between them and God, and as long as that activity does not threaten the life, liberty, or property of another American citizen, then that activity should not be illegal.
It's time to put an end to this insanity.
Let's reserve expensive prison space for those who truly are a threat to others - armed robbers, murderers, rapist, and child molesters.
Actually, that last group can just be taken out back and shot for all I care.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Let's be honest, shall we.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:26am.
I'm not launching arrows or cannon ball, but lets be honest about the police and those claims of "atrocities" that they have supposedly committed in the war on drug. Yes, innocent people have been falsely accused, injured, and even killed, but since when was that only restricted to police activities against drug offenders? There isn't a singe category of criminal code where that hasn't happened. People have been shot, mistakenly, by police simply because someone else thought that they were trying to invade a home, their OWN home. People have been falsely accused of rape (I was once when I was a teenager, but they soon realized that mistake because the perp was capture a half a block away just after they approached me, with guns drawn! Talk about being scared stiff!) simply because they match the description, a vague one at that (he was wearing a brown coat, and I was wearing a brown coat, that all the info the police had), of a possible perpetrator. People have even been shot by police after being stopped for speeding because the police mistakenly thought that a weapon was being drawn.
The point I;m trying to make is that the police , like any other human, make mistakes and sometimes those mistake can harm or kill others. That can never be eliminated, no matter how hard we try. Does that mean that we should stop the police from, say, arresting possible rapists or investigate possible home invasions, just because, in the past, they were wrong in who they thought was a true criminal? No, it doesn't, it just means that we need to be more vigilant about this and act accordingly, the police especially.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
That's all well and good, but
Submitted by Rowane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 2:21am.
That's all well and good, but these warrant-less, no-knock home invasions need to stop. The police killed a man and his wife in their bed in my county about 2 months ago. They had busted down the WRONG door at 3AM whisked into the back of the one story home and fired with no warning when the man tried to rise from the bed, killing both of them and leaving a boy and girl without their parents.
They were supposed to be attacking the next house down the dirt road but had gotten the address wrong. No charges have been filed and I'd have never even heard of it if they hadn't been friends from High school. DTF needs to be revamped and the people responsible for this outrage need to be brought up on charges.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
Do you have a source
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:35am.
Do you have a link to any article relating to this incident?
I've heard of no-knock warrants but I've never heard of a warrantless drug raid. I would be interested to know more details about this.
LOL. Does it matter if they
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:06am.
LOL. Does it matter if they had a no-knock warrant? This is still murder by the foot soldiers of tyranny.
LOL Duh Yeah
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:11am.
It would matter if they had a no-knock warrant. It would also help if this account was coming from a source and not someone on the internet. "foot soldiers of tyranny"? Okay Freedom Fighter for Incest.
Wow.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:15am.
Wow.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50932722-76/blair-officer-force-deadly...
Be sure to pay close attention to page 2. I'm not surprised you would support no-knock warrants.
That's not the one Incestmo
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:23am.
That's not the case the person above was talking about. As far as page two, what am I looking for? They didn't have a copy of the warrant? Did they need a copy? (see page three).
I'm not surprised you have no idea what your talking about.
No, it's not surprising that
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:29am.
No, it's not surprising that Satchmo is talking out of his a$$, that's par for course. The story details a search that went wrong, nothing more. As has already been pointed out, this can happen for other searches, not just drugs.
Hey! For all you "lets do away with the drug laws", answer me this. Will you still support it when burned out junkies are laying in the yard next door to yours?
Will you feel the same as your kids watch people shoot heroin on the front porch of the house across the street from you?
I love this belief that legalizing drugs will solve the problems. Absolutely ridiculous.
Oh, it's just a search that
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:35am.
Oh, it's just a search that went wrong. Nothing more. Because other tyrannical actions occur, this one is ok, too. Ok.
Brilliant response. I take it
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:34am.
Brilliant response. I take it that you admit your were talking out of your a$$. Thanks.
Well that's what your
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:43am.
Well that's what your argument boils down to. It's the same thing as saying "unconstitutional acts are ok because past Congresses and presidents have passed unconstitutional legislation. It could happen under any Congress or president." Hey, it's ok that a paramilitary force barged in a person's house without a warrant and murdered him because this could happen if there were a different macguffin. This is your position. It's just a search gone bad. Nothing more. Your words.
Please quote me where I said
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:47am.
Please quote me where I said that I approved of "unconstitutional" acts? Please show me where an "unconstitutional" act occurred? Nothing like that occurred. If the investigation finds that they screwed up, then they should be punished.
Unconstitutional??? You're a wacko. And a pretty bad one even by wacko standards.
NC Cop, not to throw stones
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:00am.
NC Cop, not to throw stones or anything, but you need look no farther than Ruby Ridge to find law enforcement involved in an entrapment scenario. And they took the so called "no knock" to a whole new level.
Sniper kills the kid first rattle out of the box, and then expects the father to just throw up his hands, and come outside?
Can we say unconstitutional?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Hey, I never said that things
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:07am.
Hey, I never said that things like that NEVER happened. I was refering to Satchmos ridiculous argument based on that story he linked to.
I certainly do not condone things like Ruby Ridge or Waco for that matter. The screw ups there were undeniable and incredible. However, that does not mean that every single search warrant is a violation of the consitution like Satchmo seems to believe.
When law enforcement screws up, they should be held to the same standard as anyone else, I truly believe that.
NC Cop, I agree.
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:09am.
NC Cop, I agree.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
What part of "it's the same
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 2:57pm.
What part of "it's the same thing as" did not register with you? It's called making an analogy to show you how ridiculous your position is. The unconstitutional acts are: 1) barging into a house without a warrant, 2) murdering the occupant, 3) unlawful detention. I can't fathom how anyone would even support and defend no-knocks. In doing so, you are putting yourself in league with numerous totalitarian regimes and dictators who forcibly kidnapped and murdered their own people in the darkest night.
Yeah, believing and supporting the Constitution and not paramilitary thugs who have no regard for civil liberties, the Constitution, and human life makes me a wacko. It's almost as if I were on the side of liberty. How ridiculous!
Are you kidding?
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:28pm.
Please. The Constitution means absolutely nothing to you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your the one that made the accusation
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:52pm.
Answer the question.
I already did.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 11:14am.
I already did. Besides, he didn't ask a question.
Hey! For all you "lets do
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:57pm.
Hey! For all you "lets do away with the drug laws", answer me this. Will you still support it when burned out junkies are laying in the yard next door to yours?
What if it was a burned out drunk instead? If it's their yard, more power to them. If it's someone elses yard, it's called trespassing.
Will you feel the same as your kids watch people shoot heroin on the front porch of the house across the street from you?
As opposed to watching them drink a beer, or watching dad down a bottle of Jack?
Another bad argument
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:35pm.
How many times do people go out to drink to get drunk? Sure, it happens, but more often than not, it does not.
Everyone who burns a blunt or shoots up does so for the express purpose of getting high.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm shocked that another
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:31am.
I'm shocked that another government agent, this one on the same side as the police, would approve of their actions. Nothing to see here, folks. Everything is ok because we say it is. Ex cathedra proclamations are perfectly acceptable.
Im shocked that a left wing,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:36am.
Im shocked that a left wing, ignorant troll who seems to know nothing about the real world, doesn't like the police.
Shocked.
That's exactly what I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:43am.
That's exactly what I expected. I truly hope you aren't a cop.
Oh, this is going to be good.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:45am.
.
Oh, I am. It must suck to
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:48am.
Oh, I am. It must suck to get schooled on a topic by someone who actually knows something about it, huh? How's life in mom and dad's basement?
You're a thug with a badge;
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:57am.
You're a thug with a badge; an excuser, enabler, and footsoldier of tyranny. Nothing more.
LOL!!! And you know this,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:03am.
LOL!!! And you know this, how? Because I proved you're a liar? Spare me your "jack booted thug" propaganda.
I've been called worse by people MUCH better than you.
Praytell, what do you do for a living? Since you're so eager to trash my profession.
That may take awhile to get an answer, Cop.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:40am.
I figure old Satch is lighting up about now and trying to come up with a good answer for you.
It may be difficult for him to tell a real live cop what he does for a living.
By the way, thanks for your service to all of us who depend on you each day.
Thanks, Newsbubba.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:07am.
I appreciate that. I've been doing it for 15 years and I love it! I can't imagine doing anything else.
No, I'm sure you can't.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:15pm.
No, I'm sure you can't.
You still haven't answered my
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:57pm.
You still haven't answered my question Satchmo. What do you do for a livng? Or are you afraid to tell anyone? Coward.
I predict he won't either.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:17pm.
I predict he won't either. Must be ashamed of working the drive-up window at Hardees.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Depend on the police? The
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:02pm.
Depend on the police? The police have no obligation to protect you or to even respond to a call of distress. None whatsoever. SCOTUS has ruled as much.
Now...what other ideology holds that we should be dependent on government? Hmm...it's right at the tip of my tongue. Dang.
Incestmo: "SCOTUS sez A-OK for cops to hang up on 911 calls"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:37pm.
Golly, Professor Incestmo, is there ANYTHING you are not an expert on?
Quasars?
Artificial insemination of alpacas?
Early Dynastic Period mummification techniques?
There must be SOMETHING...
Awww, poor little Satchmo...
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:46pm.
You live in an alternate world, don't you? It's been my experience that people with Satchmo's attitude toward the police have either been turned down for a job by them or beaten up by them. Which is it Satchmo? Enlighten us.
Please cite the ruling that the SCOTUS says that we don't have to respond to a call of distress.
"Now...what other ideology holds that we should be dependent on government?"
So now calling the police is "dependence" on the government? The lights are on, but nobody's home, are they Satchmo?
In all seriousness, are you posting from a mental hospital? I've never seen such a random, unorganzied, rambling bunch of thoughts in my life. I hope you are getting help, I really do.
Did you see the incest thread?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:48pm.
....the one where Satch earned his new nic? I've been on NB almost five years, and have never seen anything else remotely close.
His latest nonsense is actually pretty lame and tame, for him.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I do remember that thread.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:51pm.
I do remember that thread. That's where he wondered if incest was ok if it was consensual, right?
He didn't wonder about it...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:54pm.
to say he vigorously defended it would be the understatement of the year.
Incorrect. I said it is not
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:10pm.
Incorrect. I said it is not the government's business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home when no force or fraud has taken place.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:13pm.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I wasn't asking you nor was I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:35pm.
I wasn't asking you nor was I expecting you to agree.
http://www.freerepublic.com/f
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:09pm.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
Who said calling the police is dependence on government? Not I. Depending on them under an illusion that they're here to protect you is what a good little compliant citizen should think. I manage to go through my days without depending on the police. I don't depend on them one bit. Who does? They're not here to mow my lawn, or to buy my groceries, or to wash my laundry, or to make sure I drink enough water, or a host of things. They're not here at my house to make sure no one breaks in, or to protect me if someone does in the middle of the night...or even in the middle of the day. "Depending"...garbage. Pure garbage. I've never met or come across a police officer who believes in individual responsibility, who is supportive of an armed citizenry - especially open carry, and who doesn't view citizens as subjects.
Let me quote your post,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:23pm.
Let me quote your post, Satchmo:
"Now...what other ideology holds that we should be dependent on government? Hmm...it's right at the tip of my tongue. Dang."
Why would you bring this up at all in this thread if you weren't saying that? What did this statement mean?
As usual, Satchmo misrepresents.
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:32pm.
Those case law studies were for INDIVIDUAL police protection. In other words, you can't have a police officer assigned to you because you are recieving death threats, etc. There are PLENTY of lawsuits that have found police have failed their OBLIGATION to protect citizens.
Interestingly enough, Satchmo, the argument was being made for more pro-gun rights, so I take it you are a big 2nd Amendment kind of guy, right????
What a load of crap you spew.
Case law study?
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:36pm.
Case law study?
Enjoy
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:41pm.
http://www.theday.com/article/20100502/NWS02/305029912
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2074/Domestic-Violence-Laws-Courts-LAN...
Be sure and read Thurman V City of Torrington
No, dude. I linked to a
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:58pm.
No, dude. I linked to a SCOTUS decision, you came back with something entirely irrelevant ("those case law studies"). We are not talking case law studies.
Satch, you can't talk about
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:03pm.
Satch, you can't talk about Supreme Court decisions without including case law studies. Good grief!
So ONLY SCOTUS decisions are
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:52pm.
So ONLY SCOTUS decisions are relevant? Why? Because YOU say so? Those rulings were every bit as relevant to the topic, even more relevant than yours.
So tell me, Satchmo, how can the police have no legal obligation to protect you, but can get sued for not protecting you??? Makes perfect sense in the Satchmo bizarro world!!!
Nice attempt at deflection.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:00pm.
Nice attempt at deflection. It is not all of the police that I am trashing, it is you and any of your brethren who engage in thug behavior and who believe that you are the law and what you say and do goes, all because you have a uniform and a shiny badge.
Ok, please cite the "thug
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:47pm.
Ok, please cite the "thug behavior" I have engaged in. Please tell me where I said I was above the law.
You really are a nut. Go take your meds.
Please, Satchmo...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:58pm.
Why do you insist on personalizing your views on law enforcement and your theories of Constitutional limitations of power by directly attacking the integrity of NC Cop who hasn't posted a single word which could even be remotely construed as defending, condoning or excusing the inevitable and regrettable--yet comparatively rare--abuses of police authority.
You deplore a tyranny which exists only in your mind and invite anarchy which guarantees nothing but the ultimate disintegration of a free society. Thank God we have NC Cops on the beat. We could use many more just like him.
Jer
You're right, he didn't
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:06am.
You're right, he didn't characterize what happened as "a search gone wrong. Nothing more."
And you think abuse of police authority is rare? You are naive.
hi. iz me satchmo the pervy troll. iz got proofs nah.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:40am.
Iz got proofs for everthan I said. iz like to link to 7 page articlez. iz make you search for 2 words to make story for pervy satchizmo truez. iz know. not there. iz make you waste you timez. too bad. so sad. iz what trollz do.
anyhoos. iz got proofs for all here. you go look. iz true what trollisatchizmo said. iz proofs iz here. You clicky here nah to find proof iz tell truth nah.
You back nah. Told you. proof of truthies is there nah. you just find it. Bang! trollie tell truthies.
"You're a thug with a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:44am.
"You're a thug with a badge"
And you're a troll with little knowledge and wisdom who spouts off often without understanding. Nothing more.
Pulled over for a simple broken taillight, Incestmo somehow
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:58am.
ends up being cuffed, arrested and thrown in the clink.
The arresting officer stated "I was just going to let him go with a warning, until he started shooting his mouth off about tyranny and Nazis or something."
ROFL!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:29pm.
ROFL!
And, you're a know-nothing,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:51am.
enabler of incest, an excuser of incest, and a footsoldier of leftist tyranny. Nothing more. You know nothing of the constitution, law or common sense, but you certainly do dwell in the sewers of mankind.
"What if it was consensual", indeed. Jerk.....
To you, everyone who carries a badge is a "thug with a badge". I wonder, if we knew your real name, what your CCH would show?
And what if he is a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:42am.
And what if he is a cop?!?
[And for the interest of full disclosure my brother and my first cousin are both law enforcement officers and I also work in law enforcement albeit not as a sworn officer.]
Pay no mind
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:07pm.
Pay Incestmo no mind. He hates cops because he knows you would arrest him for having...um, a little fun, with his niece, daughter, sister, or whatever.
Having laws against incest is the mark of a truly evil, oppressive society, dont'cha know. (Well, I didn't, until I first encountered Incestmo on NB.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Additionally, no one seems
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:46am.
Additionally, no one seems concerned at all that the police engaged in an illegal detention and even admitted it. It's truly astonishing that anyone would support this.
What illegal detention Incestmo?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:07pm.
I didn't see one in the article you linked.
You won't find it, sentry,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:21pm.
You won't find it, sentry, because it doesn't exist.. According to Satchmo, anything he doesn't like must be illegal or unconstitutional.
No Doubt NC Cop
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:30pm.
I figured he was talking about the vehicle stop done on the two people that left the house. One matching the description of the suspect and in the suspects car. Not that it matters but once they were ID'd, they were let go. Damn those Utah Soldiers of Tyranny. Probably dirty thugs with badges....AND MORMON TO BOOT.
The police were looking to
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:14pm.
The police were looking to detain Blair solely for his "protection". There was no RAS to pull him over at all, and this laughable excuse of protection is just that: laughable. It was Chournos they were going after, and their request for the no-knock was because they believed she would destroy evidence.
During a search warrant you
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:49pm.
During a search warrant you can detain anyone who is in the house until you determine who they are. They thought Blair was in the car, they have said as much.
It seems your reading comprehension is as bad as your logic and reason.
They weren't in the house,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:15pm.
They weren't in the house, Herr Officer. They were not pulling over the car to search for drugs or for anything else. The sole purpose was to detain him while they illegally barged into his house. How you can excuse any of this is just disgusting. Do you think this is what the Founders even remotely had in mind?
LOL!! Your delusions are
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:20pm.
LOL!! Your delusions are quite humorous. The attempted to get him in the car to avoid the exact kind of situation that occurred!! Are you dense!! When it turned out not to be him in the car, they went into the house like THE WARRANT that they had said!!!!!
JUDGES approve warrants like that, you moron. They are approved every day and if they were unconstitutional than I imagine someone would have said something by now.
As far as the Founders, I don't think the Founders could see into the future and see fully automatic assault rifles, explosives, reinforced doorways and a plethora of other things that drug dealers use. I realize you are the self proclaimed expert on EVERYTHING, but cops can't see into house and see what's inside. They go into house to protect themselves. If you have a problem with their tactics take it up with the drug dealers who have caused us to change our tactics to adapt.
Go back to watching Law and Order and thinking you know everything about police work, Satchmo. You mother should be along with your cheese and crackers and chocolate milk any time now.
Yes, yes, yes...everything I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:45pm.
Yes, yes, yes...everything I expected you to say. Nice job of showing how the police don't have disdain for an armed citizenry. The nerve of people to have reinforced doors! LOL! "They go into houses to protect themselves." Priceless. Isn't it a shame that the police can't see inside houses? Oh, but Miami now has drone planes and vans that can! You'd never guess that they don't see this as a violation of Constitutional principles and rights! Why won't people just comply and let you do as you wish?
"The nerve of people to have
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:56pm.
"The nerve of people to have reinforced doors! LOL!"
Oh, Satchmo. DRUG DEALERS reinforce their doors to keep police out. You see, that's the difference between the real world and YOUR world. Good try, though.
"You'd never guess that they don't see this as a violation of Constitutional principles and rights!"
Oh great scholar of constitutional law, please, PLEASE tell us all how that is violating the constitution. You're completely clueless and it used to be amusing, but realizing how clueless you truly are, it's sad.
The Supreme Expert
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:38pm.
The worst, saddest part, NC Cop, is that Incestmo truly feels himself to be the brightest, most supreme expert ever to grace NB.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Satchmo
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:46pm.
I have always been fair with you right? Please back up your points without deflecting NCs questions. It is also very disrespectful to call a person that is willing to risk their life to protect you and me a thug.
"It is also very
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:16am.
"It is also very disrespectful to call a person that is willing to risk their life to protect you and me a thug."
That's a strawman, shawn. No one is being called a thug because of a willingness to risk their life or to protect someone.
Seriously Satchmo?
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:26am.
People like NC Cop risk their lives everyday for us. It is their sworn duty to serve and protect
I might have different political views than NC Cop, but I know that he has seen an uglier side of humans than you or I and I would never call a man that belongs in law enforcement a thug unless I had strong proof to back it up.
Seriously, shawn.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 4:49pm.
Seriously, shawn. To serve and protect is nothing but a motto; there is no obligation for them to do either.
The brave officers that went into twin towers
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 5:13pm.
.......sure believed in that motto.
What ISN'T a strawman?
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 6:31am.
...also, when losing an argument, call EVERYONE ELSE'S argument, no matter what, a strawman.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Dave, A new tax, fee, fine income source for them revenuers.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 1:27am.
L@@K, at the great untapped source of new taxes to be harvested.
The proposed law would set a standard for marijuana impairment while driving.
Maybe Some science guy can set the limits in puffs per hour/ body mass, or some such % of too stupid to drive/units.
Oh wait I found the units.. Anybody who tests above that amount, 5 nanograms per milliliter, would be presumed to be too high to drive, in much the same way someone with a blood-alcohol content above .08 is considered too drunk to drive.
Sister groups like MADD, would be called MASD.
Better yet a meth, breath test.
There needs to be someone to build all that test equipment, NOW.
Ahh the ever expanding field of "crony capitalism"
You Didn't Build That.
Yes, the one sure way to
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:19pm.
Yes, the one sure way to create the world of Idiocracy (2006) where the clever rule the uninformed.
Dave...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:34pm.
... spot on.
Now I have ducked under a rock...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:53pm.
...awaiting the projectiles that will soon be coming my way.
Rocks, arrows, spears, and probably a couple of really big cannon balls, too.
LOL - I have been catching hell around here for years because I oppose the War on Drugs.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Like the war on
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:57pm.
Poverty, we are winning. More folks in poverty then ever before.
I forgot to mention in my little rant above that Cenk...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:06am.
...is an idiot, as in my mind, there is no more hideous transgression possible than to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
How's that war on Discrimination going?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:11am.
Hay, Cenk, how's that war on discrimination going? Is Obama going to call for a press conference any time soon and announce that we've won the war on Discrimination? We won, discrimination lost. Or is that something that can never truly be won? I guess that makes the war on discrimination rather foolish, dosn't it?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
But wouldn't it reduce crime rates???
Submitted by Dave81 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 1:23am.
I had a friend make the argument that if all drugs were legalized, crime would go way down. I was like "dude...that's because you just made something that was illegal not illegal anymore!" That's NOT the way to reduce crime rates!
I'm not arguing for or against the legalization of drugs, just saying that legalizing something isn't the way to fight crime.
Well there is precedential and analogous evidence
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 2:33am.
that it might, i.e. Prohibition--its implementation, failure, and eventual rescission. And if you are discarding the moral question, then it would seem entirely proper to engage in a practical balancing of harm versus benefit analysis which bears directly on the issue of crime and whether its potential reduction through legalization of the proscribed activity would result in a net 'good' or 'bad' for society in general.
Jer
Big words to normal English translation C/O The Vet
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:02am.
BW-NE translation: Who cares dude, hey, you gonna bogart that thing?
Thanks, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:22am.
I just happened to be thumbing through an old Crim Law textbook and got carried away.
Uncle Jer
Uncle Jer Speak to Real World Talk Translator.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:38am.
UJS-RWT translation: Why you little punk, if I could grab that scrawny neck of yours....
Hee Hee Hee.
I hope Jer
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:39am.
That you were thumbing through that book to work on that alimony problem you mentioned.
No sentry...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 6:04pm.
I thumbed through my Bankruptcy manual looking for a loophole with respect to that problem. Couldn't find one.
Jer
How old? ;-)
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:46am.
How old? ;-)
Me or the textbook?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 6:06pm.
We're about the same age.
Jer
The "old Crim Law textbook."
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:52am.
The "old Crim Law textbook."
Actually, Beuke...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:09pm.
The Crim Law book is approximately 40 years old, and I wish I were that "young" again.
Jer
It's a great point Jer.
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:26am.
It's a great point Jer. Morality is determined by Society NOT by individuals. Yes, yes, yes, God is the author of morality, however, it is man's collective willingness/degree to accept that absolute morality that determines Society's laws.
The point of disagreement I would have with you is this idea that you can separate the moral question from practical thinking/balancing. IMO, you can't because morality is all about how you treat the other person. Morality is practical thinking. The very essence of morality is the concept of sin. You hit the nail right on the head Jer, this is where conservatives and libertarians have a fundamental disagreement.
However, we agree to disagree on the issue since the greater threat to our society is from the dysfunctional application of extreme liberalism which appears to deny there are consequences to actions and more importantly in their quest to achieve utopia on earth they practice total denial of reality. The reality is the world is not ideal and therefore you can't achieve the ideal by denying reality, even though reality is from what you want to get away. Extreme liberalism as practiced by people like Obama are not capable of making practical/balanced decisions because these type of decisions are exactly what they want to do away.
BTW- Mark, as a conservative I take a contrary position on legalization and agree that Cenk's logic is totally inconsistent with all other human behaviors that we either condone or criminalize. That being said maybe now Cenk having illustrated the absurdity Libertarians would stop using this same silly logic to rationalize their position for legalization which not only doesn't advance their agenda but on the contrary hurts it. That's my advice from a practical strategic matter to all Libertarians.
Mark Finkelstein
Submitted by Evil_Skippy on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 2:36am.
Loses me when he makes up an illogic argument to counter an illogical argument. We do not have a "War on Homicide" and I am not sure how homicide is comparable with decriminalizing marijuana. (other than an attempt to mock Cenk for being simplistic. Irony ensues)
I agree that Cenk is using the shallowest of logic and shows a complete lack of understanding about the complexity involved. An open discussion about the social impact of these laws is needed, along with a dose of reality about the industry that has grown up nurtured by these laws and the economic impact they create. Looking at it like this, you can see there are powerful lobbies in place to continue these laws.
Mark, I don't get your logic here
Submitted by melvin on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:01am.
How does the decriminalization of Marijuana lead to the decriminalization of murder? Are you trying to say that Cenk supports murderers? The drug war is stupid. Personally, I'd legalize all drugs. But marijuana is a no brainer. It should be criminalized at the least. It is totally harmless.
Wow.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 6:26am.
Melveen or Melvinger you really are not bright at all, are you?
What?
Submitted by melvin on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:19am.
Who are Melveen and Melvinger?
Apparently, a very slow troll with a bad memory.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:38am.
melveeng or melvinger that thinks Mr. Finkelstein is advocating removing murder laws: If you want to debate, fine. But if you are going to refer to me as melveeng or melvinger, I'm not going to respond.
Melvin
Submitted by Mark Finkelstein on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:21am.
Cenk made the argument that since people continue to smoke marijuana despite it being illegal, we should make it legal. I was pointing out that since people continue to commit murder despite it being illegal, by Cenk's logic we should make murder legal.
You just provided ample evidence it is NOT totally harmless.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:02am.
.
How about decriminalizing tax cheats?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:39am.
After all, the income tax has been around about the same amount of time, and people are still cheating on paying it. So let's decriminalize it.
Oops, I forgot about Tim Geithner. I guess we did that, didn't we?
Dennis Prager
All The More Reason for Reason
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:37am.
Legalization takes away the opportunity for the humans in law enforcement to make mistakes. Of course it also takes away from their budgets and from the DA's lucrative trade in stealing (confiscating) property.
And of major concern here (will it should be), it would also take away a major source of funding to the DNC by depriving the trial lawyers of a big fat cash cow. Aside from the drug dealers and the police/prison guard unions, they're the only ones who profit while everyone else pays.
Losers and loser behavior
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:04pm.
Legalization also blesses losers and loser behavior, and allows for losers and burnouts to live near me and otherwise drag down the quality of life.
Hit downtown Oslo sometime and see how much you like the losers and burnouts that make it dangerous there when the sun goes down.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Mark
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:45am.
It's highly embarrassing when a conservative uses the same straw man tactics the left does. I suppose, by your analogy it should be legal to throw grenades since it's legal to throw baseballs? It's sort of like saying Libya is like Iraq and also just as poor an assumption.
The only way the subjects of marijuana and murder can be taken into the same context is the violence that takes place by drug dealers to protect a business made so excessively lucrative. . . by the "war on drugs".
JustAl
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:46am.
You should probably read Marks reply to Melvin above. No offense but I think you missed the point.
Am I the only one that understood Mr. Finkelstein?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:50am.
People want to legalize marijuana because people break the laws against marijuana anyway.
That same logic ------> People want to legalize murder because people break the laws against murder anyway <-------- That same logic
I'll second that Vet
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 8:52am.
That same logic can be applied to anything and would be a fail.
This is NOT a "Reefer Madness" myth,
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:53am.
marijuana does cause psychosis in a percentage of people who smoke marijuana for a period of time. For the sake of discussion (because i personally don't have the numbers) lets say it was 30-40% of people who smoke it for a period of time go psychotic. Would you, not knowing for sure, risk becoming one of those who go psychotic? Would you get on a plane if you knew that their was 30% chance of it crashing? I would hope the FDA would no approve a drug that can cause psychosis. This is not like alcohol, where if you drink responsibly there is no problem. I am against mood altering drugs like alcohol and marijuana they both can cause serious problems! Their are people out there that do use these, drugs essentially, to medicate personal pain. These people are the ones that will become alcoholics or psychotic. Deal with the pain, don't use these crutches! I know what I am talking about, I abused alcohol to medicate my personal pain. That is why I am against this. I have been sober since 93'.
Right, Right.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:01am.
Congrats on that sober thing. It must have been tough.
I do have one question, though. I figure that the liberal position on drugs is for the same reason they think illegals and convicts should be able to vote. Where the hell are they going to get more voters unless they let people turn themselves into delusional psychotics? I mean, who in their right mind would vote for them?
My personal position on this whole issue is, people should be free to use any drug they like if they will first sign a waiver saying that the taxpayer will not be responsible for their upkeep or health costs, ever. If you commit another crime while under the influence, you get tagged with double the sentence.
You want to destroy your life, go for it. There will be a whole lot less liberals to vote for idiots like Obama.
I have been sober since last night, and my goal is to make it till happy hour tonight, but then I'm older than Mt. Rushmore and pay my own way, so what the hell.
I Agree (90%)
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:09pm.
I agree with everything you said. Except I still do not see the liberals pushing to end prohibition. As per my post below, they are the ones who profit from it the most.
Ignorance-bred hysteria.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:35pm.
Ignorance-bred hysteria. Absolutely false.
Prove it.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:26pm.
Prove it.
Point of Order
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:04pm.
The author of the original post being replied to offered no proof of his positions. In fact he expressly said he did not have numbers available and also that he was expressing his beliefs and personal preferences.
So why should a counter post that also expresses an individual's opinion require a greater degree of "proof"?
So says the King of
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:35pm.
So says the King of Ignorance-bred hysteria and lies.
So, Officer
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:06pm.
How much of your department's funding comes directly or indirectly from the "war on drugs"? Any chance you could point to the part of the Constitution that actually makes prohibition legal?
Does it matter?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:38pm.
So departments should not get federal money to enforce a federal mandate? I'm sure NC Cop could point you to many rulings and case law where those who share your view have failed to point to the part of the Constitution the makes prohibition illegal.
Well, not sure about funding,
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:29pm.
Well, not sure about funding, that's above my pay grade, I'm afraid. As far as what part of the Constitution makes prohibition legal, isn't it the same part of the Constitution that allows states to prohibit other types of behavior?
Why are drugs so different than any other law we have?
Ya know it's kinda shameful
Submitted by scarebear83 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:23pm.
Ya know it's kinda shameful when I see conservatives throw up their hands as well and state we need to allow people to do whatever drugs they want simply because of freedom (and they aren't harming anyone else *rolls eyes*). I suggest to watch Intervention and the newest drug show on A&E and then tell me that drugs don't hurt anyone but the users. Sure people DO have the freedom to do drugs, it's just if you get caught it's a different story. Everyone has the freedom to do anything they wish, but there are consequences of those actions. You may get caught, you may not.
I personally feel safer that our law enforcement are out there fighting these people who wish to alter their state of mind for recreational purposes. Have you met people strung out on meth? I wouldn't want these people near a car... or much less out in public. The slightest thing could set them off because they are not in their right minds. In fact Wed. night a girl drove into our neighbor's fence and into our backyard and it is believed she was inebriated (on what we don't know).
But my point is I'd rather the war on drugs continue to be fought and let people understand that no matter what drug it is, if you're taking it for recreational use is not only a danger to you but a danger to those around you. But if this is what you want America to turn into, count me out. This is on a college campus by the way which if I was a student here these people would be infringing upon my right to get an education... how? Unlike alcohol, pot when smoked, can cause one who is near it to get a contact high. I would have to either stay indoors and miss my classes or go through this mess and end up getting inebriated.
lol Sorry FOTR what was going to be a simple verbal high five ended up being a rant. But I do applaud you on being sober and taking a stance against these drugs.
"This is on a college campus
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:02pm.
"This is on a college campus by the way which if I was a student here these people would be infringing upon my right to get an education... how? Unlike alcohol, pot when smoked, can cause one who is near it to get a contact high. I would have to either stay indoors and miss my classes or go through this mess and end up getting inebriated."
So, all those students who didn't participate had their right to an education infringed, and flunked out of school all because of this event that happens one day out of the year? Please, give me a break. Ever hear of going around?
Having said that, what they did there was illegal. No one is talking about allowing drug use in public. College students aren't allowed to drink beer on the quad between classes. In fact, in many places, they aren't even allowed to smoke cigarettes, so there is no reason to think they would be allowed to smoke marijuana either.
"Have you met people strung out on meth? I wouldn't want these people near a car... or much less out in public"
Who said anything about letting them drive? Last I checked, driving under the influence and public intoxication is illegal.
"But my point is I'd rather the war on drugs continue to be fought and let people understand that no matter what drug it is, if you're taking it for recreational use is not only a danger to you but a danger to those around you."
Do you believe masturbation will make you go blind too? I drink recreationally, and I'm not a danger to anyone. If it's a danger to me, well, that's my choice to make, not yours.
ckc
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:34pm.
What if what you do is a danger to you? Do I have to pay for it when you become sick? Or can't work anymore? This is my problem with legalization. Until I know I will be off the hook for problems people have due to drugs, I won't be for it.
To be fair, I feel the same way about hikers that get caught on mountains. I think they should pay for it when they take risks.
Simple
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:40pm.
Dismantle the welfare state. It's propped up by the same folks who prop up prohibition because of some misguided "societies duty" nonsense.
If you are going to make individual responsible for his actions you have to also give him a reasonable freedom of action. But, if you prevent his actions, "for his own good," then how could you then draw the line at providing health care etc., etc. "for his own good"?
Fine by me
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:48pm.
I'd like nothing more than dismantling the welfare state.
Only thing,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 1:03am.
dismantle the welfare state, first. Give it a year, two or three, then let folks smoke weed, smoke meth til their teeth fall out, and do heroin until they need to live with a needle in their arm. As long as not a cent of my money goes to support them, I'm fine with it.
And, we all know that will happen the day after trolls like Incestmo stay at Kos, Du and the like.
Seeing the human wreckage
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:24pm.
Seeing the human wreckage first hand from other's drug use convinces me that any abuse of any drug is symptom of a psychological problem (mental instability). I would no more give a suicidal person a knife or gun because it's legal to use a knife or gun since this person would harm themselves. Why would I condone or approve of using any drug to get high under similar circumstances? Nor do I approve or condone alcohol abuse.
Which brings us to a larger issue, does Society have a claim upon the health of an individual within that Society? I would say yes.
Why? In my thinking (suggest a reading of John Locke), Society has a right to defend itself against all physical external enemies such as invasion hence the right to conscript or create a standing army as mutually necessary. Society has a right to defend itself against internal enemies who violate the rights of it's members hence the right to tax and employ a legal system to arrest, try and punish the offender. Society has a right to clearly articulate the rules of conduct between it's members as mutally agreed to and established at the beginning of that Society, hence Society via self governance of the majority has a right to modify the rules at such times as necessary AFTER the initial establishment of the rules. Society has a right to demand that it's individual members be self supporting to the extent they are physically and mentally able to do so since the purpose of a Society is MUTUAL benefit. No group of people creates a Society that does not create a mutual benefit otherwise it's every man for himself. It therefore follows when an individual within that society is not self supporting, that is making claims upon fellow members of that society to survive then Society has a claim upon a person's health. It is in Society's interest therefore to demand (make rules) that a person NOT abuse drugs of their intended purpose to dehabilitate themselves making them a burden upon Society.
Society however does not have to honor any claim upon it that is fraudulent, i.e. a person who doesn't want to work, a person who breaks the rules, a person who refuses to provide for their future or their family. Any claim that using drugs recreationally is not harmful to ones health is disengenuous. I've seen the wreckage. Simply signing a statement that you would have Society let you die in the gutter is absurd, you can't know at the time of lucidness upon realizing what a huge mistake it was to take drugs a person would decide it's time to live properly. Nor can you accept the decision of a person who is mentally unstable in taking drugs. Such a person lacks the ability to make such a decision, i.e. giving a knife to a suicidal person and expecting them to act rationally. It is no more rational to get high with drugs than to cut off one's finger. It's an abuse of the physical body, NO RATIONAL PERSON DOES THIS, therefore that person lacks the mental ability to make rational decisions. Who decides what's rational? Society (we collectively via self governance, majority rule)
Whereas
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:36pm.
Imprisonment does an individual a lot of good, and by extension a society that imprisons a higher proportion of it's citizen than any other that even claims a pretence of freedom is better for it. Yes sir, no "human wreckage" from imprisonment, out of sight, out of mind.
Rhetorical nonsense quoted by political philosophers is still rhetorical nonsense. Can you give a single example of totalitarianism that wasn't put into place "for the greater good"? I doubt it.
I would also point out that "society" and "government" are two distinctly different things. Societal norms change with respect to time and geography. The very limited scope outlined by the Constitution allows for the localized norms of society to coexist. Individual, local societies vs "totalitarianism". And your argument supports the latter.
Apparently Al it's only
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:24pm.
Apparently Al it's only totalitarianism IF you disagree with it and the majority refuses to go along with what you want to do. The point of a self governing society is that there is PRIOR MUTUAL CONSENT to enacting ANY SOCIETAL CHANGE. Just because you want something legal that is currently illegal doesn't put the onus on the majority to suit your desires. That's called a DICTATORSHIP where the minority imposes their views on the majority.
The onus is upon you who want the change to convince the majority that it doesn't harm their self interests. This is exactly the same concept with Same Sex Marriage or any other PROGRESSIVE lifestyle choice. What Society has decided is what the norm is. Change comes when Society is ready for it because the majority either approve or condone. You as an individual don't get to impose your views nor do you get to ignore the LAW. That's how a society works. If you don't like it, find another society that mutually approves or condones of being a pothead. I'm not stopping you. In fact, please go.
Please
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:43pm.
Enlighten me. When, exactly was the question of a federal "war on drugs" put before the people for a vote? Not a poll, an actual, let's hear it from the horses mouth vote of we the people. As long as it's done at a state level, I've got no issue with it. But make NO mistake. This is a tenth amendment issue, like all of the so called "SOCIAL ISSUES" you like to equate with one another.
Since YOU insist on running in some more STRAW MAN issues, can I assume that you are fine with states and municipalities that vote to allow same sex marriage? Remember, it's SOCIETY that makes MORALS and enacts LAWS.
I assume you are in favor of the federal government standing down in all jurisdictions that vote to approve decriminalization of marijuana. Correct?
It was the PROGRESSIVES who initiated prohibition! You know, the whole Utopian ideal imposed on the citizens, backed by a no questions asked propaganda machine.
Once again, you intentionally confuse "society" with "government". Please point out where the Constitution allows the federal government to prohibit anything a person does to his or her own body. . . anything. Then point out the part of the Constitution that allows the majority to impose it's will on the minority as to what citizens can and can not do with their own bodies. . . .
Once, SOCIETY had LAWS that said it was okie dokie to own someone else. In some SOCIETIES they have LAWS that say it's okie dokie to have sex with a sixteen year old. So, I guess that's all fine with you since SOCIETY made LAWS. After all SOCIETY makes MORALITY, right?
Get over yourself and your moral superiority. People don't need statist like you looking over our shoulders. Go SHOUT your statist drivel to someone ELSE.
Cuckoo for The Hippie Lettuce
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:11pm.
That closing paragraph is dripping with irony, coming from someone who has his own claim to moral superiority here and wants to impose his own morality on society.
And sorry, just because people support laws against marijuana and other drugs, doesn't make them statists. That's just more screeching from a poster whose sole aim in life is to get high legally. You are just throwing a temper tantrum at this point.
By the way, in the pot-crazed state of AK, a proposal to legalize pot was shot down handily in 2004. That's in a state obsessed with the hippie lettuce.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Same in CA Unsane
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:39pm.
A ballot measure to legalize pot was shot down by voters last year. I was surprised to be honest.
You Paint with a Pretty Braod Brush
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:33pm.
Maybe you should open your eyes first.
First of all, you don't know me, secondly, my "moral superiority" as you put it is a call to follow the Constitution. Please point out any post I've made here, at any time, hell google my handle and find any post by me anywhere at any time in which I say I want to impose anything on anybody except the respect of the Constitution.
I've asked several here to point out where that document gives the federal government any authority over what a citizen does with his own body. So far, no one's been able to do it. But, since you are obviously a mind reader, maybe you can. But then, since you offered no argument at all other than ad hominem attack and some cute school yard rhetoric, I guess an answer won't be coming.
And yes, insisting the government impose laws on the people that are not supported by the Constitution just to salve the moral outrage of busy bodies does, in fact, make said busy bodies statists.
The DEA budget is $2B, but I guess that's a small price to pay for the self righteous to sleep sound in their homes at night. Unless of course they live in Mexico. Marijuana no doubt contributes to lung cancer, but the war on drugs killed more people in the one city of Juarez last year than were killed in the entire country of Afghanistan. And the only proven benefit. . . fattening the wallets of trial lawyers and strengthening the DNC.
As I wrote, I have no problems with states enacting laws, this is a tenth amendment issue. But the ham handed federal government has no dog in this fight.
"I've asked several here to
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:20am.
"I've asked several here to point out where that document gives the federal government any authority over what a citizen does with his own body."
It doesn't. Additionally, it is a 10th Amendment right for the states to decide if they wish drugs to be legal or not, just as it is with prostitution and anything else NOT enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution.
You are correct, it is a 10th
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 10:48am.
You are correct, it is a 10th Amendment issue, IMO. The fact that the Federal Government creates laws that mirror and support State Laws seems to be lost on you. Next thing you'll say is that Bank Robbery can't be a Federal Crime only a State Crime???
Not to open a can of worms but IMO the SCOTUS decision on abortion was defective as this is a States Rights issue under the 10th Amendment. But I'm not a judge or a lawyer so I'm blowing hot air.
The Right To Get Baked
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:53am.
Really? Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to get baked.
Please show me where I hurt your feelings with an ad hominem.
You screech that "You don't know me!", but every single person I have personally know who is as obsessed with the legalization of drugs as you are, and who turns explosively angry as you do when it is suggested that the government, following the society that it works for, MIGHT come up with laws regulating behavior, basically only wants to get high legally. There really is no shame in admitting that you want to just sit around and get high all day long without legal repercussions. It certainly is better than spouting off about freedom and liberty and all of that when all you REALLY want to do is to get high.
Such rhetoric failed, and failed miserably, in AK in 2004 when that pot-obsessed state shot down Prop 2 and it fails on me here as well.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm glad you raised the issue
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:01am.
I'm glad you raised the issue of Prohibition and in doing so you made my point. Prohibition was LEGAL as it was duly enacted according to the rules laid down by the Constitution to amend same. Prohibition in practice turned out to be an over reach, Society changed it's mind on the subject, the PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES and ACCORDING TO THE RULES laid down by the Constitution repealed it. NO, I don't confuse Society and Government. This is why we have elections for Society to tell the government what to do and change the rules when deemed proper. Government is merely a tool of Society. In that sense Society and Government are one and the same, but only in that sense.
Actually
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:44am.
You proved MY point. Prohibition required amendments to the Constitution on the way in and the way out. The Constitution, as written before prohibition, and as written now, did not and does not support any federal prohibition.
And yet, after reading your bio, you say only facts influence your views.
You are confused Al, the
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 10:40am.
You are confused Al, the Constitution was enacted by Society and Society has a right to change it as necessary and for what ever reason it suits. The FACT that the Constitution was amended to bring about Prohibition clearly demonstrates what I'm saying. Now you are just flaming.
btw- "Once, SOCIETY had LAWS that said it was okie dokie to own someone else. In some SOCIETIES they have LAWS that say it's okie dokie to have sex with a sixteen year old. So, I guess that's all fine with you since SOCIETY made LAWS. After all SOCIETY makes MORALITY, right?"
Once again you trip over yourself. The Constitution was set up specifically as a compromise to bring in the slave states to form the Union. Your implied premise is the Constitution is perfect, IN FACT its not. Compromise implies imperfection. That's why there is an amendment process. If it were up to you, there would have been no Union and there would have been two countries (Northern and Southern States of America) where there is one now. Of course you pay no attention that the Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery that ended that compromise. Please don't utter any gibberish that the Civil War was about slavery, it was about States Rights.
Sex with 16 year olds? My the flaming ignorance of history is rampant with you. At the beginning of this country the age of Majority (age of consent) was from 9 to 13. Society as it progressed INCREASED the age of Majority to 16, then 18. My how times change and the laws changed with the changes in Society. Again demonstrates my point about Society dictates the Laws the government passes and enforces.
In Colonial Virginia in 1689 NINE year olds were legally married: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html
Until the 1880s the age of consent to get married was 10 in most US States, then in the 1920s it went to 16 and 18, since then in many states it went down to 16: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24
Please be ignorant of the FACTS and don't bother reading the chart showing the ages and dates. Please continue to be ignorant, your flaming is bringing me so much laughter.
Calm Down
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 4:04pm.
By your own admission prohibition had to be mandated by Constitutional amendment. So where is the amendment for the new prohibition. You are desperately trying to defend the indefensible. You are either for liberty and following the letter of the Constitution or you are not, it really is that simple.
You obviously have NOT been
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 5:19pm.
You obviously have NOT been listening to anything I have said, you're just flaming.
THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITTUTION WAS AMENDED TO INSTITUTE PROHIBITION PROVES THAT SOCIETY ACCORDING TO THE RULES CAN CHANGE THE LAWS WE LIVE UNDER. It's called the 18th Amendment ratified in 1919. Now what part of that don't you understand? Are you actually claiming the Constitution can't be amended? I hope NOT. Whether you agree or disagree with Prohibition IS IRRELEVANT, what is relevant are what the RULES are that we mutually operate under.
Interesting that you didn't comment on the 16 year old sex thing since Prohibition was instituted in the same time frame as raising the age of consent from 10 to 16. Yes, those religious do gooders meddling in morality...dictating what we do and don't do and hindering the liberty of people to marry under the age of 16...
There is nothing to defend. Society decided that Prohibition wasn't such a good idea after all in practice and following the rules outlined in the Constitution revoked it 1933, that's called the 21st Amendment . What part of that do you not understand?
THE RULES: Article V - "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"
Anything you don't understand there Al? This is what I have been saying from the beginning...
Society in 1865 amended the Constitution to abolish slavery in the 13th Amendment. Do you dispute Society's power to amend the Constitution? Do you dispute Society's ability to regulate morality or liberty because outlawing slavery is dictating morality and liberty!!! If Society can dictate you NOT enslave someone and how old a person has to be to have sex with then Society can dictate whether or not you can abuse drugs. It's really that simple. Where are your critical thinking skills?
http://constitution.org/afterte_.htm READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Society in 1868 amended the Constitution to Codify that everyone be treated equally in the 14th Amendment. Now if that isn't regulating morality and liberty I don't know what is? Prior to the 14th Amendment you could "freely" at your liberty discriminate against anyone for whatever reason. Damn those meddling goody two shoes for making us disregard the color of someone's skin or their religion. /sarcasm/ So Al shall I flame you for being a bigot because the Constitution was amended??? I don't think you are a bigot but then nothing surprises me anymore.
I am for following the LETTER (THE RULES) of the Constitution which IS the guardian of our liberties. What part of that don't you understand? http://constitution.org/indexco_.htm
As outlined in the Declaration of Independence, ALL rights come from GOD. What part of that don't you understand? Or do you think that YOU as an individual are the arbiter of moral authority much less what liberty IS? Where does the power and legitimacy of the government come from? Society (THE PEOPLE, not individuals) You can not have self governance or liberty IF individuals of mutual conviction don't exist. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
What is simple here is you don't bother to READ and THINK about what people say, you just react/flame. BEFORE you respond to me again, read John Locke's Treatises on Government, this is the source philosophy of our form of government. Don't be making assertions about the Constitution IF you don't understand it much less are clueless as to the inspiration of it.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/
Getting baked
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 6:38am.
Interesting. Either I wholeheartedly endorse losers and loser behavior or I am an evil tyrant who hates the Constitution.
Your increasingly irrational and explosively angry posts only shows me that your sole objective is to get high legally. You desperately want to just sit around and get baked; you just don't want any legal repercussions for doing so.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The Constitution was not
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 5:00pm.
The Constitution was not "enacted" by society. It was ratified by independent soverign states - governments, and not as rules to govern the people, but as restrictions, guidelines, and agreements for the Republic the states formed.
We can quibble about
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 5:37pm.
We can quibble about representatives of the 13 colonies ratifying the Constitution, however, WE THE PEOPLE (Society) elected representatives to sign for us. You think for one minute that the representatives who signed off for each of the colonies DIDN'T have PRIOR EXPRESS authority to sign from the people they represented?????
You'll have to pardon me for using Wiki on this one but this is reasonably accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_th...
"The process for ratification in each state was approximately the same: the state legislature called a state ratifying convention to decide whether or not that state would ratify the proposed Constitution. Delegates were elected to the ratifying conventions, and ultimately each state ratified the Constitution, although North Carolina had to hold a second convention after the first refused to ratify."
Does this sound anything like some small group of elites hobknobed in a click and decided to sign on their own authority without going to the people they represent for their consent? Notice North Carolina refused the first time around...think about it.
Wjo's quibbling about
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 7:49am.
Who's quibbling about representatives? That doesn't even remotely have anything to do with what I said.
"We the People of the United
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:13am.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Where does it say WE THE STATES? Reference to the States comes only in their responsibilities and rights in representing the PEOPLE.
I think you meant to respond
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:23am.
I think you meant to respond to someone else, because neither of your responses have anything to do with what I wrote.
King Beclowner beclowns himself again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 4:42pm.
King Beclowner Satchmo: It was ratified by independent soverign states
The United States already had a weak federal government when the Constitution was written Retard.
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was the first written constitution of the United States of America and specified how the national government was to operate.
The states were more sovereign than they are now but they were still not able to make treaties or declare war. They were not independent nor sovereign.
Man, you are really stupid. You are nwahs, aren't you?
Again
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 6:38am.
States are not sovereign.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ha!
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 10:02pm.
The Civil War was absolutely not about states' rights. The South only whined about "states' rights" when it was convenient for them to do so.
The Civil War was the result of politicians kicking a can down the road to the point where that can could only be dealt with by massive, extreme violence.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well said, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 10:44pm.
Jer
Ok, your opinion is the Civil
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:40am.
Ok, your opinion is the Civil War was not about States Rights. So I will offer up this question to you that goes to the heart of that opinion. When the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution, with the knowledge of slavery, ownership of a person was a property right, given the 3/5 counting of slaves for Representation purposes, DID those who crafted this compromise to form the Union have in their understanding that IF this whole idea didn't work out that the States had a RIGHT to secede?
And yes, every interest group whines when their ox is gored.
Again...
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:39pm.
It is a fact that the Civil War was not about states' rights. The ONLY time the South cared about states' rights was when it meant their ability to keep "the peculiar institution" intact. Other than that, the Southern states could care less about states' rights. If they HONESTLY cared about them, they wouldn't have imposed the Fugitive Slave Law on Northern states. (h/t , Free Stinker)
Other than describing the beginning of the great kicking of the can down the road for future generations to deal with, I don't understand the point. States are not sovereign.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I shall rephrase the
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:39pm.
I shall rephrase the question, if you don't mind?
In your opinion did the Slave States (I'll call them that since you are of the belief the Civil War was about Slavery) when negotiating over the Constitution with the Northern States (Maine to NJ, Del) believe they could secede from the Union they were creating?
While the Constitution specifically had a process for gaining entry into the Union, no exit was discussed. Was this because:
a) States had a right under the 10th Amendment to exit the Union OR
b) Everyone assumed / took it for granted / believed it to be a given (like gun rights) that participation in the Union was voluntary which meant they could leave at their chosing
OR
c) Everyone understood once in - no out
Obviously, the question was answered at the outcome of the Civil War by force of arms and NOT by choice, NO STATE may secede from the Union.
IF you answered C, then why would any Slave State enter the Union knowing that via an amendment process to the Constitution would cause Slavery to be ended by being out voted if enough "Free" states entered in the future? In fact, wasn't that the reasoning for the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a compromise the South and North made to keep that possibility from happening?
I've got 3 words for you:
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:53pm.
I've got 3 words for you: Kansas-Nebraska Act. The southern states did everything they could to extend slavery to new states.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
dscott...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:53pm.
At the time of adopting the Constitution and building a new nation, the right of secession--although not entirely ignored--was not a particularly "hot button" issue. However, the prevailing sentiment appears to have been more aligned with the idea of a perpetual and permanent union; a relationship between the member states and the central government which was contractual in nature and as such could not be rescinded unilaterally but only by mutual agreement, and in the absence of the latter could only be achieved via the unauthorized but successful insurrection of the aggrieved states.
It is also my recollection that when several New England states threatened secession during Jefferson's presidency, the Southern states, in general, were of the opinion it was constitutionally impermissable. [I'll check on that, however.]
That's not to say there were and are no valid, even reasonably compelling, legal/Constitutional arguments in support of the right of secession--just that the weight of authority [including the only Supreme Court case which ever directly addressed the issue] is against it.
Finally, if slavery, as you have implied, wasn't the underlying cause of secession--and thus played no material role in the commencement of subsequent hostilities--how are your correlative questions about option "C" even relevant?
Jer
Disunion!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:03pm.
When looking at Varon's recent book which I recommended to you, it had a most interesting passage on a Northern secession. Guess who was heard to wail the loudest against it? Why, a Southerner, John C. Calhoun!
I'll have to quote the entire passage at length here a little later when I got a moment.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Obviously, when you're busy
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:49pm.
Obviously, when you're busy focusing on creating a Union, you're not making leaving it a hot button issue. "Honey bun, will you marry me? Now before you say anything here is this pre-nup agreement...just in case so you won't scratch my eyes out if things don't last"
How is option C relevant? hehehe, Jer you know I'm a tricky little devil, how indeed...
"a relationship between the member states and the central government which was contractual in nature and as such could not be rescinded unilaterally but only by mutual agreement,"
Since when is a contractual agreement ONLY predicated on a mutual agreement to part the ways? You have heard of Breach of Contract and Force Majeure? Where the non performance of one party gives the other party an unilateral right to determine whether or not to continue the contract? You have heard of unilateral ending of contracts when circumstances outside the control of parties make it no longer feasible to continue on in the contract? That's two broad categories.
I would contend this Jer, at the beginning (obviously not now) that during these discussions/debates about forming the union certain concepts were accepted as an unspoken given. Example: Bill of Rights - EVERYONE during that era took it for granted that you had NATURAL RIGHTS but some wanted them specified. There was whole debate about specifying rights and the chief concern about specifying them was in the words of one Founding Father (Alexander Hamilton) in Federalist Papers #84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm The Anti-Federals took the opposite approach to the issue: http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html
In Fact many things were left unsaid because people took it for granted that any rights NOT SPECIFICALLY given to the Federal Government were theirs under the 9th and 10th Amendments like actual gun ownership. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, how can you exhaustively address every detail in a Constitution without it becoming a Book? So I contend with secession.
A "belief"? More like a fact
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:01am.
Unfortunately for you I do not hold a "belief" that the Civil War was about slavery. It was in fact about slavery. You are clearly a Confederate apologist.
I choose D, You Lost This Argument On April 9, 1865. The South Lost, Get Over It.
And with apologies to Free Stinker, the KS-NE Act was only one aspect of the argument over the expansion of slavery. Other things contributed as well, like the MO Compromise. Also, note the dates of state admission prior to the Civil War. To balance out slave states like TX and FL, states like IA and WI were brought in in time to keep the political balance.
States are not sovereign, the South only cared about "states' rights" when it meant them keeping slavery (after which point they no longer cared), and ultimately the Civil War was fought because everyone, including the Founding Fathers, had no will or desire to confront the issue of slavery head on, and thus, the can kept getting kicked down the road until it exploded in everyone's faces after 84 years. Or, if you prefer, 74 years after the Constitution was written.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Obama Doctrine
Submitted by kilrod on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 8:09am.
So unsane you are applying the obama doctrine,"we won so shut up and get over it". I've got an exercise for you, back off about 300 yds, get you a good run, and take a flying leap at the crack of my arse.~!~
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Heinlein Doctrine
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:48am.
So, because I am not a Confederate apologist, I am now a supporter of His Majesty The Shahinshah?
I'll go ahead and mark you down as a Confederate apologist...
It's the "Heinlein doctrine", if anything. Violence often settles arguments, and does so with a finality not comparable with anything HMTS said. He said "I won", but He lost His ass last November, IIRC.
And this whining that the poor, little, defenseless, helpless Southern states were victims of a Big Evil Meanie called Lincoln who viciously attacked them FOR NO REASON AT ALL is at odds with what actually happened.
The Civil War was fought because no one was brave enough in previous times to address the issue of slavery.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
LOL. Well it seems my
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:43pm.
LOL. Well it seems my questions have touched a nerve here. So now I'm a Confederate Apologist. Worse, you accuse the Founding Fathers of moral weakness and cowardice. WOW!!!
Where is Unsane and what did you do with him?
I make no defense of slavery, it is what we in this Society in this day and age consider a morally reprehensible act, nor do I attempt to justify it in any way. But then given the age of consent of 10 years old during the Colonial era up to the 1920s, the Founding Fathers were also pedophiles to confirm their moral cowardice?
Come on Unsane, how can you judge the soundness of a belief system of the 1700s to that of the 20th and 21st Centuries? Don't you think that is rather comparing apples and oranges? Honestly, put yourself in the shoes of the Founding Fathers in the 1700s, what were your priorities at the time? Building a nation in the then wilderness or NOT build a nation based upon a novel debate that just began in that era?
Let me put it in perspective for you, were it NOT for the moral cowardice of the Founding Fathers there would be two nations where this is one, a Northern and Southern States of America. Worse, slavery as an institution would have been still going strong to the beginning of the 20th Century. Hint, 1861, the beginning of the Civil War was only 39 years to the beginning of the modern era!!!! What would have been the results of WWI if the US was not a unified nation? No man is perfect Unsane, but that is no reason to trash him and discount all the good we have as a result of some timely compromises by imperfect men. Your beginning to sound like, like, like a lib... No I won't say it, it's just too ugly a thing to call you even though you called me a Confederate Apologist. It's called RESPECT.
Actually, it is I who has touched quite a few nerves
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:30pm.
Accusing the Founding Fathers of "moral weakness and cowardice"? Yes, I realize people here on NB worship them like deities and howl and scream whenever anyone like me comes along and points out that they all were in fact HUMAN and that they did things out of political expediency, but that's what happened. Was it "moral cowardice" or a political calculation that slavery as an institution as things stood in 1787 would die out on its own? I'd argue for most that is was the latter, not the former.
Like it or not, there was this can, called "slavery". It got kicked down the road, first by the Framers of the Constitution, and then by successive generations of politicians until such point that the can could no longer be kicked. It then had to be dealt with with a massive orgy of violence which resolved the issue once and for all.
I love it when a history-deficient poster decides to scold and lecture me on a subject I have been studying for...decades now. I have more perspective on this subject than you can possibly imagine.
What's funny is that you refer to WWI and ask what the results would have been if we were a divided nation, yet you and like-minded posters absolutely scream with horror over the fact a war, the Civil War, was fought to preserve national unity (and eventually it was determined that slavery had to be destroyed once and for all to preserve national unity). Quite the contradiction there.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I think I will just leave you
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 6:07pm.
I think I will just leave you to your strongly held opinions on the matter. I'm not understanding your strong emotionalism on the matter.
It's much better discussing this with Jer, at least he can see both sides of the issue dispassionately and doesn't call me names even though we frequently disagree. There is a point when you learn to agree to disagree, something I really appreciate about him.
Lots of whining and projecting
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:03pm.
Projecting much? I'll take that as surrender. The ONLY people I see getting emotional about this are you and your fellow Confederate apologists. (Whine about name-calling all you want, but you are happily supporting the Confederate cause here.) Me, all I'm doing is re-stating the simple fact of the matter concerning the Civil War.
After all, you were the one shrieking about how I disrespected the Founding Fathers when all I did was point out that they made a political compromise, and that from there, it became a can that got repeatedly kicked down the road. (for example)
Well, at least you aren't using laughably bad history the way bassndude is. But it is still pretzel logic...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your lack of reciprocated
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:21am.
Your lack of reciprocated respect toward me is rather disappointing especially when I gave you every opportunity to walk such a comment back, I expect such childishness from Al the Anarchist, but you? That Unsane is strike one.
If I think for one minute that your use of the derogatory term "Confederate Apologist" has an implication of me being a racist, that will be strike two. Consider your next words carefully sir.
Are you kidding me?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:59am.
Um, what exactly is derogatory about "Confederate apologist"? You have an EXTREMELY thin skin. I expect that from other posters.
Give me strike three. I don't come onto NB to grovel and seek your approval (or anyone else's). It may come as a shock, but I do in fact have a life that extends far beyond the threads of NB.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
If Lincoln hated slavery so
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:58pm.
If Lincoln hated slavery so much, and IF the Civil War was all about slavery and the freedom of such. Why did Lincoln draw the Mason Dixon line and only free the slaves south of that?
Could it be, that the northern states were jealous of the wealth of the southern states? After all, while the north languished in poverty, the south enjoyed large plantations and wealth from exports to Europe. The north had yet to industrialize to this point, and money was hard to come by.
The North wanted what the South had. They could not take it. The best they could do was to free their slaves, while they kept their own. States rights played a big roll in it. Had Lincoln freed ALL the slaves, the South would have never wanted to succeed.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Nonsense!
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:19pm.
Nonsense!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Disturbingly inaccurate
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:39pm.
Wait, wait, wait. LINCOLN drew the Mason-Dixon Line? Since when?
The NORTH was jealous of the SOUTH'S wealth? The NORTH had yet to industrialize? (To hell with Samuel Slater and his mill in Lowell, MA, I guess.) Hmmm. If the South was this massive cash machine for the United States, please explain to me why the North had 22 million people and the South and 9 million people when the Civil War began?
And IF the North had yet to industrialize by this point (pausing to stop hysterical laughter), please explain why it had a much broader industrial base to begin with?
The North kept their slaves while freeing the South's? What about that 13th Amendment thing.
And states' rights? Total BS. The South would ONLY squeal about "states' rights" when convenient for them to do so. If the South so deeply cared about states' rights, and were so much wealthier than the North, please explain the Fugitive Slave Law.
From one who lives in an ex-Confederate state to one who clearly lives in on, your post is devoid of any historical substance. Like Free Stinker said: nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The 13th Amendment was not
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 10:10am.
The 13th Amendment was not passed until AFTER the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only included Southern states. What is so hard to understand about that? I am not surprised that you don't know that, being a "teacher"? of history?. The war ended in April of 1865, the 13th amendment was passed in December of 1865.
So, yeah, what about that 13 amendment? The Emancipation Proclamation only included souther states below what came to be known as the Mason Dixon line, effectively creating line between slave and non slave states. You should know that, "professor".
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Keep digging the hole
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:01pm.
I realize when the 13th Amendment was ratified. I know this cold. (As yes, the 13th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, do you also deny that it was a result of the Civil War?) I also about the Emancipation Proclamation. I've seen more classes and lectures on both than you can imagine and forgotten more about both than you presently know.
I am neither a teacher nor a professor (pretty damn close actually but not quite). But thank you for showing me you hate people in academia. (Hey, I do too, but for entirely different reasons.)
What's laughable is someone as history-deficient (I'm really trying to be tactful here but you are pushing the limits of my patience) as you are scolding and lecturing someone who has been studying history a whole hell of a lot longer and harder than you have.
Throw as big a temper tantrum as you want. You are delusional when it comes to history. You are owed a refund from wherever you studied history. I'm pleased to know you are an expert on the Emancipation Proclamation; now if only you would focus on the rest of the subject. Seriously, LINCOLN drew the Mason-Dixon Line? Do you even know what that is, and why it was drawn? Seriously, the poor, non-industrial North invaded the South for pure plunder? Why should I begin to take you seriously on this subject?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Just leave them to their
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 8:10am.
Just leave them to their ignorance. Let them believe the revisionist myth that the War Between the States was about slavery.
Satchmo...You choke on the
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 10:57am.
fabulist nonsense which generations of "Lost Cause" devotees have swallowed whole and wallow in the same ignorance in which they have gloriously reveled.
No one who knows anything about the period would insist there were not myriad reasons for the gradual and inevitable fracturing of the relationship between the North and the South (social, economic, political,etc.), and anyone who knows anything about Lincoln is aware that he was first and foremost a Unionist and a pragmatist willing to subordinate--but with crucial qualifications--his antipathy toward the institution of slavery to his overriding, near monomaniacal, objective of preserving the Union. And although he was not to be found in the camp of the radical abolitionists [nor were the majority of Northeners], there was no mistaking his support for the ultimate demolition of slavery as demonstrated by his unconditional opposition to its spread to the western territories and future states. The pro-slave South--in which many of the state governments were controlled by the planter elites and slave-holding fire-eaters equally determined to maintain the "peculiar institution"--was well aware of these views of "Black Lincoln" [as he was derisively called] and the dire implications for the future of slavery occasioned by his election.
When you have the time, read the accounts of the secessionist speeches by the governors and other leaders of the Confederate states. That the root cause of secession and ultimately war was slavery is an inescapable conclusion and simply overwhelms any serious analysis.
Jer
I agree with the majority of
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 11:28am.
I agree with the majority of what you wrote, most of the parts I disagree with are trivial enough, I believe, to be called an honest disagreement; however, I do strongly disagree with your belief that the root cause of war was slavery. In the Western Hemisphere, every nation other than the U.S. abolished slavery peacefully. It was Lincoln's radical view of secession and Unionist views that resulted in the war. States had already seceded prior to his taking office. It was Lincoln's use of force that caused other states to secede. So yes, the entire conflict was based on states' rights. Now, that may have shifted towards the end of the war, but the cause of the war was secession and states' rights. When the Senate passed its resolution in July 1861 stating the purpose of the war, slaves and slavery were nowhere to be found. The sole purpose was for the preservation of the Union.
Additionally, I disagree with your characterizing Lincoln as having "support for the ultimate demolition of slavery" through his opposition to its spread. Lincoln's views on slavery adapted due to politics. Today we would call it political expediency. He viewed whites as superior; that freed slaves should be deported; that he was not and never had been in favor of equity between blacks and whites, among other things.
Lincoln's use of force?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:37pm.
Fort Sumter. No, I don't expect you would understand.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Very good point. What if
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:36pm.
Very good point. What if they NEVER fired on Ft. Sumter?
My understanding as to the details, it was the position of the State of South Carolina that once they seceded, Ft. Sumter belonged to them so in effect the Union (what was left of it) occupation of it posed a military threat of blockade to Charleston harbor. So in this sense, IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE SOUTH FOR STARTING THE CIVIL WAR. Had they not tried by force to evict the Union forces at Ft. Sumter but instead waited out the Union there would have been NO CONFLICT other than a shouting match. In my estimation Lincoln had no stomach for spilling American blood however, the war was forced upon him by the impatience and insecurity of the local Southern military commanders and Governor. It's with cruel irony that Lincoln who so cherished the Union and life was forced to endure and be responsible for so much death. The true irony is Lincoln would not have chosen to start any conflict, he would have negotiated to get the states back into the Union,
Satch...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:47pm.
A couple of quick points [for now].
I've read major portions of Lincoln's speeches and am well-acqainted with his racial views--including the notion of innate inferiority--which views, however, evolved and continued to progress over time. [I mentioned his position on racial differences in a post here months ago and was mercillessly hammered for doing so.]
But you must also remember historical context: Even some attitudes which would be considered demonstrably "racist" today were considered enlightened egalitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century, and certainly Lincoln was in the vanguard of those who were appalled by the legally subjugated status of blacks in the South and the fundamental injustice, indignity and inhumanity of slavery.
Also your chronology of secession is a bit disingenuous. Yes, some states had seceded prior to Lincoln taking office. But none had done so before his election.
Jer
I wasn't being disingenuous;
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 9:30am.
I wasn't being disingenuous; it was a factual statement. The point was that states had already seceded before Lincoln had any presidential authority.
What a surprise
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:21pm.
What a surprise. You show here your disgust at preservation of the Union, thus further indicating that the Constitution doesn't mean s*** to you.
This war was not at all about states' rights. If it was, explain why the South was only too happy to trample on the "states' rights" of Northern states when it suited them (Fugitive Slave Law). "States' rights" did not mean one damn thing to the South.
Indeed, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union but when it became clear that in order to do that the destruction of the institution of slavery had to be accomplished, that became an objective. But the war was ultimately about slavery and your constant insistence that it wasn't is to ignore the history of the United States from the ratification of the Constitution all the way up to 1860. (By the way, what Lincoln thought of race, while interesting, is irrelevant.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Answer the question, Incestmo. Now.
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:15pm.
Idiot, IF IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY, WHAT WAS IT ABOUT?
You are the ignorant one here because you cannot answer that very basic question, sick freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
what was it about?
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 1:49pm.
it would take a ten dvd set to get at the full answer and still probably leave some things out. How much of an answer are you looking for? Slavery was definitely an issue and like WMD the emotional 'hot button' issue but far from the sole source of discontent.
The question
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:04pm.
Incestmo keeps insisting that slavery as an issue in the Civil War is a myth. When I ask him to give another reason, he refuses to answer the question.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane and slavery,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:32am.
slavery was definitely an issue however others included:
Access/Cost of Raw Materials/Manufacturing
Alignment with foreign governments (commercial and political)
Power Struggle (Slavery central to this issue because it was a key component to the State Representation)
The firm idea by southern politicians that Lincoln would not represent the south in his decisions as President.
There are several related issues but the fact that slavery itself was more important to the cause of the Civil War conceptually than just the mere existence of slavery. Conceptually, 'slave states" represented voting power for the Southern states that would support policies that would increase the value of their raw materials and restrict competition. Slavery was considered representative of the power of the southern influence on commerce and therefore an attack on slavery was an attack on the political and commercial power of the south. In these ways slavery was the key issue of the Civil War but to say it was strictly the 'right' to have slaves would be a very limited view of the issue, imho.
Agnostic
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:52pm.
Your analysis of the impact on commerce, the comparative social and financial framework and regional political power is excellent, but these are all [as I think you acknowledge] ancillary concerns, that is to say, SLAVERY is the hub of the wheel around which those derivative issues turn. Once again, slavery--and the continued viability of the institution in light of Lincoln's election--was indisputably THE proximate cause of secession. And secession, and the North's determination to restore and preserve the Union, led directly to war.
Yet another associated factor about which the importance cannot be overstated was the very real and consuming fear among southerners of the consequences of nearly four million slaves suddenly being set free--a fear of pervasive social disruption including the potential threat to the physical safety of their former masters.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:02am.
Actually I would have to disagree that they were ancillary concerns. It is my opinion that these were the primary concerns and they all rotated around slavery. To be clear I would be agreeing with you entirely if you are referencing slavery as to what it means to commerce, political power and regional politics. However, if you are referencing the slavery issue as a moral or social wrong that needed to be changed then I would have to disagree. Many people knew slavery was wrong just as most of Western Civilization knows it to be wrong today but the moral questions of slavery did not divide a nation and drive it to war.
The political rhetoric of the time was that Lincoln was anti-slavery and that is not entirely true though it does appear that he was against the institution but it also seems apparent that his belief in the inequality of races would have never prompted him to war without other issues that struck closer to home. States rights were a very real issue though not the central part of the rhetoric at the time. This was because Lincoln was seen to be consolidating Federal power (not a very good Conservative but history shows it is part of the Republican Party) and to do so he had to keep power in the hands of 'free' states where his political base resided. I believe it was Calhoun that best illustrated the Lincoln political power base.
As to your last point it is true but it should also be noted that those fears did not come from real instances of slavery violence (though surely some existed just not frequent enough for the people trying to instigate a mob mentality) but from the politically convenient rhetoric of southern orators and in some cases church leaders to scare the white population and to create tales that could be spread around the north to prove that slaves must be kept under 'control'. As the writings of slaves and their actions after the war have proven they were neither the true subject of the fantastic tales attributed to them by the Southern Politicians of the time nor were they the childlike constructs represented by so many of the abolitionist. The true subject of the tales was the greed and ambition of the political activist and the childlike constructs were naive and often politically inept abolitionist (the politicians and protestors not the people who actually did the work to free slaves).
Such a shame it seems that while society has grown to understand that slavery is wrong, states/peoples work together in many instances for the greater good - politically we haven't grown one bit - if anything we may have regressed.
Nice work, Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:33am.
But when we revisit the issue, let's see if we can move and widen the thread. One word per line posts drive me nuts.
Jer
1 line,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:56am.
a
g
r
e
e
Hein Un
Submitted by kilrod on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 12:35am.
ROFLMAO, Un i did'nt imply you were anything other than an arsehole. And nope i'm not apologizing for anything.~!~
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Hmmm, you ally yourself with Incestmo
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 1:47am.
And out of ignorance to boot. You should be proud.
IIRC, the squeal of "state's rights" wasn't heard until the South was out of excuses and public opinion has turned against them. Toward the end of the war.
The Civil War was about slavery, nothing else.
BTW, the fact that the "state's rights" excuse was used so late further diminishes Jer's cause that those racist southern democrats switched parties, and took over the party of abolition.
RESTLESS---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 3:17am.
kilrod is (by choice) an unrepatriated Rebel who still wants to thump some Yankee heads. :o)
He would have Incestmo buried and be reading a few passages to mark the occasion before you or I could even clear leather on the pervert.
kilrod is certainly one of us; he is just exceptionally proud of them Southern roots.
MD
So am I,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:14pm.
But not the point of myopia.
Sure, there were other reasons for the war, and as Agnostic stated above, slavery was the "hot button" issue, but to deny slavery as one of the chief reasons for the war is simply ignorant, pride or no pride.
I'm touched, kilrod...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 1:20pm.
You shouldn't apologize for handing out compliments.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There are two "unwinnable" wars
Submitted by chazzy-kc on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:40am.
The wars on drugs and poverty are both unwinnable. When they have proven to be so....as both clearly have.....it is time to explore alternative strategies and tactics.
While I have no ready solutions for either, it does seem logical that when upwards of 40% of our prison population are incarcerated for drug related offenses....many for absurdly minor ones at that.....and that the illegality of those drugs fuels the power of the truly criminal drug cartels.....that a legalize, register, and tax drug policy MIGHT benefit all of our society.
Liberals want drugs decriminalized because if people are on
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:56pm.
drugs then they aren't worth a plug nickle and will need government to bail them out. Also when people use drugs they aren't paying attention to what is really going on in their families,society, and in their government.
My view is that we should go further into war on drugs. We should draw a line in the sand and say there will be extreme penalties if you deal drugs and use them. Singapore has the death penalty for those who sell drugs. I would advocate our prisons to be changed so that the prisoner pays their own way by hard labor, so it doesn't come out of the federal/state budget. This way there won't be a revolving door in prisons and jails. These men and women won't want to ever come back because they had to work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day.
Nothing Liberal About It
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:10pm.
Please point out one nationally known liberal who openly advocates an end to prohibition like the late, great Bill Buckley Jr. did . . . just one.
The liberals are the ones who profit from the current system. How much money pours into the DNC from the trial lawyers, police and prison unions? Not to mention the great wedge issue it makes to split any neo-con/libertarian coalition.
Since when did conservatism mean the belief in a big powerful government to control the most private aspects of citizens lives?
Re-read your post and see if you can figure out why many independents who may be quiet conservative with regards to defense and fiscal policy simply will not vote for a neo-con, holier than thou social con. There really is no difference between your views and the liberals' as to method, or intent, only in the details of the world view you want to see imposed on others by an oppressive government.
Well you are no conservative
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:36pm.
Well you are no conservative or proponent of liberty, that's for sure.
You are not conservative says the non-conservative
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 7:10pm.
And that's OK, because you are no conservative.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Its fairly obvious that those
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 11:25am.
Its fairly obvious that those pushing for legalization have not had to deal with the issues surrounding an addicted family member. They view this in the abstract, devoid of reality. They haven't been harmed by it, or seen someone close to them harmed by it, and they deny the power that chemicals have over the human body.
Yes, it's a choice. And yes, many people are able to resist making that choice, or have the self-disciple to set strict limits for themselves. But the simple, proven fact is that is not the case. Most people who use some form of drug beyond cannabis become addicted. Many people who use cannabis progress to more powerful drugs and become addicted. And some people become addicted to cannabis. (Here come the deniers.... The fact is, teens and pre-teens who smoke pot on a regular basis -daily or more- are almost always addicted to the drug. Drug counselors know this and the kids themselves know this.)
The other issue that libertarians get hung up on regarding the War on Drugs, the the name: The War on Drugs. Its happened on this thread, and it happens in virtually every conversation it rears its ugly head. Take away the name, and it becomes much less threatening. Law enforcement pursues drug crime just as they do gambling, prostitution, robbery, theft, and battery. The term was created for shock value and to alert people that a new emphasis would be placed on curbing illegal drug distribution and use in the US. It's not a war. There are no soldiers in tanks blowing up garages because someone reports a possible meth lab. No special forces are lasing the living rooms of casual pot smokers so that F117's can drop GBU-24's on them. Satellites aren't linking up in outer space to assist F22's locate targets for their JDAMs. It's blown completely out of proportion by those wishing to be free get toked on the weekend and not have to worry about losing their job over it.
Nope
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 4:02pm.
I've had a nephew commit suicide because of drugs. But hey, they were against the law at the time so I guess that really helped? Meanwhile, his wife lost everything, job, house, any means to support the kdis, not because of the drugs, but because of the arrest that ensued. And of course, the lawyers made out very well, so did the leftist candidates they donated to.
Yes indeed, the compassionate drug laws are great, if you happen to be the DA that gets to auction off the property stolen. The family member who died wasn't a victim, he wasn't societies responsibility, he was a casualty of his own weakness. And frankly, I'm tired of paying taxes to protect people from their bad habits and grow the government bigger, and bigger, and bigger (anyone who thinks the DEA is a good idea is a hypocrite if they say the want a smaller government).
I've also known people who smoked marijuana and are very effective managers and scientists. Likewise, I've known people who didn't smoke, some are effective, and some are notably defective.
The fact is, marijuana isn't addictive, but paychecks for drug councilors are, especially if they come from the tax payer. Sugary sodas are more addictive and destructive. More people died in bicycle accidents in the US last year than from marijuana unless you count the violence borne of high profit margins. . . thanks the government.
Imagine that, you make something illegal, so those who want it have to deal with criminals, who also sell other illegal (and higher profit margin) drugs so they try those to. How many folks go down to 7/11 to buy a six pack and then see heroin on isle 3?
I'm a Libertarian, and I don't care what you call it, the so called "social issues" are none of the federal government's business. It isn't the name, it's the substance.
Legalization has nothing to do with keeping a job. Show up drunk you loose your job. Many employers won't hire those who use tobacco.
So much for assumptions.
Assumptions Al?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 5:59pm.
Are you saying that I'm making assumptions?
I understand the anarchist position that says all government is bad government, but this country wasn't founded on that. In fact, outside of a few dead and gone hippie communes from the sixties, there are exactly zero successful societies that follow the "every man for himself" philosophy. If you can determine that the DEA is an unwarranted entity within the Federal government, than the Armed Forces must be as well. And the FBI. As well as State and Local law enforcement. Your likelihood of survival in your society is decidedly small.
It's a real shame that your nephew committed suicide [in your words] "because of drugs". And I'm not making light of it- that is a tragedy especially for his family- but I will assume (this time) that he did so as a result of his use, not his inability to use. And while there are many other things that can happen to people to affect their demise, it is a certainty that were there no -or only controlled access to mind-altering drugs, he would not have taken his life [in your words again] because of drugs.
Drugs are a combination of powerful chemicals. And they effect people in various ways. There is no benefit to any human being from crystal meth. There is no benefit achieved from cocaine. Likewise heroin or crack. These are human concoctions created in an effort to control people's lives. Pot has no tangible benefits either, though it's arguable whether they help relieve certain pain symptoms. Of course, morphine helps relieve pain too, it's just harder to get than pot.
So the basic premise of your Utopian society logically cannot be achieved. People that use drugs on a regular basis are decidedly less functioning than those who do not. This is undeniable. A society that allows the freedom to be non-functioning, is by default a non-functioning society.
By the way, marijuana is addictive for certain people. Marijuana is also an engineered product, not only a naturally grown herb. It is many times stronger than it used to be and young people are much more susceptible to the chemicals it contains. Twenty bucks says your nephew began his drug use with marijuana.
I'm confused about the ensuing arrest regarding your nephew... Was there evidence of distribution? Was his wife involved? How would she be unable to provide for her children simply because her husband took his own life? I understand grief, but we all have had or will have close family members leave us, and we all face the difficulties of moving on without them. Most are eventually successful; hopefully that is the case for your nephew's wife. And it seems a bit misplaced to blame the lawyers for your nephews inability to resist the overpowering effect of the chemicals he put into his body.
Anarchy?
Submitted by JustAl on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:19am.
So, since every single "social issue" the social statiests want the government to take charge of existed when the Constitution was framed, and not one of them was enumerated as a responsibility of the federal government at that time, we lived in "anarchy" until the current prohibition was instituted?
If you will actually read the article, the discussion today is about marijuana specifically. Nonetheless, the central question of the so called, "war on drugs" isn't if drugs are good or bad for people. The question is what the hell gives the federal government the right to be involved one way or the other? Since every one I've encountered on this site has chosen to ignore that question and the fact that there is absolutely no Constitutional validity to the existence of the DEA etc. I guess I will go ahead and "assume" that you have no credible answer.
Wrong again, The Congress has
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 5:22pm.
Wrong again, The Congress has the power to create departments or bureaus or agencies to further the administration of public services.
Please direct you attention to Article II, section 2 of the Constitution as it relates to the powers of the President. In enumerating those powers, the Founders made reference to the President filling offices in departments which Congress created.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
The Constitution was a general frame work for the operation of the federal government, it was NEVER intended to be the exhaustive description you are claiming it should be otherwise Congress would NOT BE ALLOWED TO LEGISLATE. Congress has the power to legislate and with that power comes the ability to create positions and positions imply departments. That's Article I, section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Article I, section 7 enumerates the many duties of the Congress, however, that list is NOT exhaustive. To make such a claim is simply silly. The DEA, FBI, DOD, ICE, DHS, and a host of other Federal agencies are created by and funded by Congress. And according to the Constitution, the President is responsible to staff ALL agencies/departments appropriately.
The checks upon that ability to legislate are contained in the Bill of Rights.
http://constitution.org/constit_.htm
Know this: your ill-formed
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 11:29am.
Know this: your ill-formed arguments place you on the side of leftists. It is ironic that you oppose drugs (only ones government says are illicit, mind you) in your silly belief they are created to control people's lives, when this is exactly what you are advocating: controlling people's lives by force through the police power of the state, in addition to your leftist belief that the DEA is constitutional.
Al and Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 4:46pm.
Both of you are engaging in straw men arguments. I did not make try to make the case that the DEA was authorized by the Constitution yet you both made that claim of me. What I said was that if you make the claim that the DEA is an unconstitutional Federal entity, than you could make the same case for the Armed Forces, the FBI and State and Local law enforcement.
Al- Every single social issue? Because I don't want to see lives destroyed -which you claim to have first hand knowledge of- by the effects of manufactured products which have no purpose other than to destroy lives, I want the government to take over? Again, that's a straw man. I didn't make that argument. I did, however, take your comment to infer that the government has no role in people's lives. Is that fair, or do you see a role for government to intervene in people's lives in ways other than trying to protect them from the effects of addictive drugs?
Satchmo- yes, I assert that crystal meth is manufactured to control people's lives. It's an addictive substance that for sellers, results in profits. Because the drug is so addictive, it brings buyers back to sellers, who's profits increase. This is a measure of control as the addiction takes over and the body finds it increasingly unable on its own to resist continued use. If I'm not correct in this, please tell me why someone thought to combine alcohol, ammonia, battery acid, chloroform, diet pills, drain cleaner, ether, freon, gasoline additives, rubbing alcohol, iodine and lithium -among other nefarious materials- into a product that serves no medical purpose? And no, I'm not advocating that the government control peoples lives. What I'm suggesting is that one of the roles of a centralized, representative government is to use the combined resources from all inhabitants to help protect them from those who wish them harm. Do you disagree?
[Edited to clean up some of the sloppy grammar.]
Article I
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:47pm.
Don't forget the Armed Forces are called for in Article I. Congress is given authority to create and fund them there.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
True Uns- I shouldn't have
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:36pm.
True Uns- I shouldn't have included the Armed Forces in my example. I stand corrected - thanks.
The DEA is unconstitutional
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:09pm.
The DEA is unconstitutional due to the 9th and 10th amendments; it is not the power of the federal, but the innate sovereign power of the states to enact their own drug laws. The Constitution deals with the formation of the federal government and its restrictions. State and local law enforcements cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.
"What I'm suggesting is that one of the roles of a centralized, representative government is to use the combined resources from all inhabitants to help protect them from those who wish them harm. Do you disagree?"
I agree that is what you are asserting, yes. It is for this very reason that you are planted squarely in the leftist's camp. Leftists, big government liberals also are in favor of centralized government. This does not put you in league with the majority of the founding fathers; it is the opposite of what they envisioned this union to be.
What else do leftists rail against? Profits. Evil profits. And you're calling gasoline additives, ammonia, battery acid, rubbing alcohol, iodine, freon, lithium, drain cleaner, etc., nefarious materials. So what if none of it serves a medical purpose?
If you took a step back, examined what you are saying, and were completely honest with yourself, you would see that you are making some of the exact arguments that are made for oil, or salt, or happy meals, etc. Government is not instituted in order to protect us from our own decisions, no matter how harmful they may be to us.
Again...
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 10:28pm.
States are not sovereign. The DEA is in fact Constitutional under Article II as outlined above.
Besides, since when do you care about the Constitution?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Good try Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:32pm.
But you're cherry-picking from my comments to spin them in a way that supports your view of them. I have not made a constitutional argument one way or another. You can argue the constitutionality of the DEA till you turn blue, I'm not in on it. You're talking to yourself on that one.
And calling me a lefty is pretty far-fetched. I am not a libertarian, but I am most certainly a conservative. What you fail to distinguish is that conservatives do see a role for government, albeit a limited one. Saying that using collective resources is not that same as saying all monies are government monies, nor am I calling for a larger role for government.
Now, the spin on the nefarious quote was interesting, but still fails the sniff test. What makes those ingredients nefarious is that many are commonly-known poisons if ingested by humans, and they are combined to make crystal meth -which, by all accounts, you would advocate as a legal substance.
So, go on with the silly 'you're a big 'ole lefty' claims because I see a role for certain aspects of the Federal government. You obviously don't know much of what I've posted here or other blogs and are basing your opinion on one comment that doesn't mesh with your free-for-all stoner mindset.
But good luck trying to make your case.
I haven't cherry picked
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 8:36am.
I haven't cherry picked anything. And what you fail to understand is that libertarians also see a role for government, which is a limited one. In this instance, you are for more government than a libertarian. And generally, many conservatives are for big government in practice. Based on your argument here, you don't seem any different. And yes, you are calling for a big, anti-liberty role for a centralized government. There was no spin on your nefarious comment; you made a list of items and followed it with "among other nefarious materials", which indicates the listed items are nefarious as well. Heck, you just said it again. You didn't say that they were used in a nefarious way, or that the end result is a nefarious product, you said the items by themselves are nefarious. Well, leftists would say so are salt, oil, happy meals, carbonated beverages, gas guzzlers, etc. Do you not see the point here? Do you not see you are making their same arguments? Instead of siding witn the individual, you are siding with the big government, nanny-state collective.
I don't care what else you've posted on this site or other blogs because none of that is relevant with your position in this discussion And when you use the exact same words and arguments as leftists, which you did, then you are arguing from a leftist position. .
Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 1:44pm.
So, if you see a role for government, then why have you refused to answer my specific question regarding what that role is? You also seem incapable of discerning anything beyond the literal, or Satchmo-view of literal.
I have a request for you: look up "order of magnitude." Equating salt to crystal meth is about as dumb an argument as equating a drizzle with a hurricane. "But it's all rain!" In your example, one is actually good for you in the right doses (salt) and one is not good for you in any dose (meth). A scalpel used to create an incision in advance of a live-saving bypass is actually a good thing while a K-Bar to the base of the brain is lethal. But they're both knife wounds, right? I'm all for carry permits, but an M60 pit on each side of my driveway is overkill. See the difference?
The ridiculousness of black and white arguments exposes your inability to decifer scale in your positions. I can understand why people would want to legalize marijuana. I disagree with their reasoning as the arguments for are largely in line with the AGW positions- based upon false data and a hope that what they claim will happen will actually pan out. But then there's the extremists in the argument like yourself who can't seem to separate the fact that marijuana is considerably less dangerous to human beings than meth. That they're both controlled dangerous substances is the extent to which you will go with no separation to the level of danger given. It's a simplistic and unrealistic argument. It lacks real-world evidence and -since you've brought up the lefty ideology angle- parallels the liberal Keynesian view of economics; in theory and under a tightly controlled environment, it might work.
My position, however, is not based upon ideology. It's based upon personal experiences and what I've learned having progressed through those trying times. And the fact that what I've witnessed really has no end.
So tell me Satchmo, which big lefty is on his soapbox screaming to keep marijuana illegal? Which deep blue state is leading that charge? That bastion of conservatism California? Oregon? If I'm a lefty because I think pot should remain illegal, who am I parroting? Also, if the DEA is an obtrusive, unconstitutional entity within a centralized government that you seemingly wish to drastically reduce or eliminate, how can you justify regulating marijuana sales? (Assuming, of course, that you fall in to that camp. Most "legalize it" activists use that as a major element of their argument.) Would you suggest that we defund and eliminate the DEA and grow the FDA and IRS in it's stead? And when you've got that figured out, please, fill me in on what you believe the role of government should be.
I never saw you ask. The sole
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:53am.
I never saw you ask. The sole role of government is to secure our liberties. Nothing more.
It's not a matter of magnitude. It's a matter of your using the exact same arguments that leftists use. Salt, oil, etc., were examples, but you missed the point entirely. And the arguments for legalization of illicit drugs are in no way in line with the argument for AGW. Not one single bit. AGW is about controling others; legalisation is about liberty and letting people make their own decisions for their own lives.I don't care how dangerous a drug is compared to another. If a person wishes to ingest drugs, let him. It in no way affects your life, liberty, or property or mine. It is that person's choice, whether it's a harmful one to him or not.
Your position is most certainly based on ideology. It has to be. Your arguments are ideological ones. I didn't say you were a lefty, but that your arguments are aligned with theirs: you want a centralized government to control people's lives. This is exactly what you are arguing. Leftists want to use the force and polive power of government to alter people's behavior in the way they seem fit. This is exactly what you are advocating. With personal liberty and freedom, people are going to do things you may not like or that you may be moraly opposed to, things that do not infringe upon another's life, liberty, or property. This is one of those things. So what side are you coming down on? The side that wants government to control behavior and take away individual choice.
I've never said marijuana sales or any ither sale should be regulated. I have no idea where you came up with that. You present a false choice; it's not an either/or. The DEA, FDA, and IRS should all be eliminated.
Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:33pm.
This is as incoherent as you've been thus far. Truly stunning irony here.
How, exactly, does the government go about doing that? If the guy next store to me decides that it is within his purview to help himself to my possessions, is that within his liberty to do so, or not? What if he wants to maintain his meth business, but needs to siphon gasoline from my vehicle in order to do so? Within his liberty? Would placing a locking gas cap on my vehicle infringe upon his liberty? How about locking my doors so he couldn't remove my laptop - would that infringe on his liberty? I mean, no one's getting hurt here, right?
Additionally, there are 4535 words (including signatures) of original text in the US Constitution. According to you, there should be 10. How do account for the 4525 extra?
Exactly wrong. AGW legislation is about applying a fee or tax on people or businesses that choose to act in a certain manner - either by driving vehicles that use more gasoline, or powering their homes with certain fuels. It's about levying fees or taxes on one company because it's business requires use of certain fuels that are deemed unhealthy to the planet by a limited group of rule-makers. --- Legalization of marijuana is about regulating its sale and collecting taxes on that sale from people that choose to partake of that particular product; a product deemed taxable by a limited group of rule-makers. Both are ways to control behavior by making that behavior more expensive and using the additional revenue to fund larger government.
Legalization would also include age limitations, as well as usage limitations; both would have to be monitored and acted upon when violated. The war on drugs wouldn't go away, it would just morph into a different animal. While there are virtually no arrests for driving while under the influence of marijuana, there most certainly will be after legalization. Workplace violations will still exist. And illegal sales to minors will still exist.
This is a stunningly stupid statement. You have absolutely know idea of what you're speaking. This is beyond asinine so I won't address it further.
I clearly indicated that I didn't know if you were in that camp or not -so I did not attribute that position to you- though surely you're not inane enough to suggest that that isn't the one of the most popular arguments for legalization. So the DEA, FDA, and IRS should all be eliminated. What about the FBI? CIA? DOT? Congress? The Executive branch? Please, enthrall me with your acumen. If the federal government is charged with protecting our liberties, who decides what those liberties are, and how does the federal government go about insuring they're protected?
Clearly, you have no interest
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 8:41pm.
Clearly, you have no interest in being serious or in trying to have a discussion. Your response is full of nothing but strawmen. Not one legitimate response to any of my points. When you decide you're able to have a discussion without putting words in my mouth (according to me there should only be 10 words in the Constitution? Really??), let me know, but I won't be holding my breath.
Straw man. 2 words idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 9:28pm.
It ain't a scarecrow. It is a man made of straw. 2 SEPARATE WORDS. Idiot. Now. Tell us how Indiana is a sovereign state and can make a treaty with Malta.
What makes you think you can school one person here when you are so utterly utterly utterly stupid?
Well, Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 10:10pm.
apparently I need to dumb things down a little bit for you to understand. Just to set the record straight- we're specifically talking about the United States of America in this discussion. I don't know where you're from, but our country has a document that is called the US Constitution, which was written at the founding of our country and lays out in some detail the makeup and role of the Federal Government. That document required more than 4000 words to delineate the specific roles of the Federal Government. I asked you what you thought the role of the Federal Government should be and you replied: "The sole role of government is to secure our liberties." Followed by: "Nothing more." I looked up "nothing" and "more" and found that, in conjunction, they imply that anything additional is not required.
It seems to me that the founders of this great country could have simply said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
Secure liberties.
End.
Okay, a few more than ten words. But they sure wasted a lot of paper and ink with those other 6 articles and those useless 12 amendments called the Bill of Rights.
Okay, sarcasm complete.
Now, besides the above, I asked you several questions in my last comment of which you addressed exactly, zero. Sure, calling them stupid questions and ignoring them is one way of not dealing with it, but it also indicates an inability to deal with it. So, if I'm making a fool of myself with these comments, don't worry for me, I'm a big boy. Keep embarrassing me with your brilliance. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. Maybe I'll even learn something. I can surely stand enlightenment as I'm never the smartest guy in the room.
As for not addressing your points: Well, I quoted you and then replied. Which points did I specifically not address? And how was I wrong? As for you not addressing my questions, I'm still waiting...
I'm going to just end this
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:54am.
I'm going to just end this bit here (not that I expect it will do any good): you're looking at the wrong founding document. The Constitution is based upon this key phrase in the Declaration of Independence (highlighted for you): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,..."Nowhere in the pursuit of
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:26pm.
Nowhere in the pursuit of Happiness is the idea that destroying one's life with drugs is a right much less a liberty to do so. Sorry, no sale.
btw- did you post at the ACOC under this same ID? It seems to me that Satchmo was equally a an extreme Libertarian.
dbl post
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:52am.
dbl post
But you did not end it.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:56am.
You say you end it and then like an idiot, click six or seven times on the submit button. Those little mice thingies sure do confuse you don't they. Too bad there is not a mouse class for you to take.
Maybe this will help. Hope the words are not too big for an idiot that thinks Ohio and Utah are sovereign states.
On incestmo's delusions
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 10:34pm.
The government does not exist to secure our liberties. Government exists to kill people. Government MUST BE FORCED to acknowledge our liberties. FORCED.
Unfortunately for you people's decisions DO in fact effect my life and property. You simply do not give a s*** about ANYTHING at all. Hell, you think society is the most evil, oppressive thing on earth - especially if a society has standards, norms, folkways, and mores. If someone gets high and gets behind the wheel, and kills friends or family or destroys property - you bet you ass that effects me. If a bunch of burnouts fill up my neighborhood, damn right that will destroy my property values. So hell yes it very quickly becomes my business.
The ONLY way I will support the legalization of drugs is if it involved setting aside, say, a county. Let's call it Loser County. County seat: Loserville. Within that county all the druggies and burnouts can consume all the drugs they desire. One condition: they cannot leave; the instant they do they are arrested. That way they can do what they want and kill themselves and check out of society and not, in any way, involve me. Until then...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:23pm.
You know, I tried to have a reasonable discussion on this issue with Satchmo- even though I know many NB'rs wouldn't have taken that route at his point. I know he's relatively extreme in his views, and "libertarian" is clearly an edge position for him. But I'm curious because it was my intent to remain cordial and to-the-point; did you find, as he did, that I was evading his issues or otherwise disingenuous in my responses? Clearly he and I disagree on the issue, and I've been accused of being abstract in my thinking in the past (see: shawn) but I thought I was rather upfront with him. I wasn't tying to be confusing though I admit my examples may have seemed off-the-wall to someone unwilling to see them in the context of the discussion.
Thoughts?
bkeyser
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:36pm.
I applaud your efforts to have a reasonable discussion with Incestmo and in that sense I must say that you have the patience of Job in order to try and do so.
The problem is that Incestmo is (or so he believes) THE SUPREME EXPERT on EVERYTHING imaginable. What Incestmo believes or posts on NB is THE Holy Writ and is not to be challenged or questioned in any way.
Because of this, he is entitled to greet any questioning of his beliefs or thoughts with simply ignoring the question, or by being dismissive or childishly insulting everyone and anyone who dares to question him, for Incestmo is not to be questioned.
You can be as reasonable and clear as possible all you want with him: in the Incestmo world, you are an idiot for even trying to question him. The only acceptable response to him is "Incestmo, you are right as always."
But by continuing to converse with him, you are exposing him to be as big an intellectual lightweight we all know him to be.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
bkeyser, you are---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 11:53pm.
always even-handed, never heavy-handed; always polite, never rude.
Always up on current events, and though solidly conservative, never found to be a landlocked concrete conservative who insists it is "my way" or the "highway".
You are guilty on all counts, Marine.
Deal with it. :o)
MD
Thanks md
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:10am.
though I suspect that Jer would strongly disagree with your "never rude" assertion. If he saw your comment I suspect his reaction was a strong eye-roll. If he' reading this one, I'm betting "you're damned right" has crossed his mind.
I do appreciate the compliments.
Not a "strong disagreement" with that assessment, bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 12:45pm.
since I have found you to be almost "never rude"--which is precisely why I described your couple of lapses with me to have been "uncharacteristic" [in light of your customary very cordial exchanges].
Jer
I don't think you tried hard
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 12:15am.
I don't think you tried hard enough. If you had, then you would've responded to my points instead of putting words in my mouth such as "according to you there should be 10 words [in the Constitution]." Instead, you have entirely ignored my argument and were arguing various straw men. If you had, then you wouldn't say things like "a stunningly stupid statement," without giving any thought to the statement or position. And then say that I'm the one being unwilling to see your side? That's not being reasonable.
I haven't done anything like that to you at all. I have not misrepresented your words, I've never claimed you said something that you didn't, I haven't been sarcastic or mocking, nor have I said any of your statements were stupid...nothing like that at all. I think if you go back and look over the posts, you'll see that I have treated your position seriously and that I have directly responded to your argument and tried to show you how it is the same exact argument that leftists use. I don't think it's too much to expect the same conduct.
That is so mean. That guy putting words in your mouth.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 12:21am.
No one should be allowed to misrepresent another's opinion. I have reported this guy to the Admins for overstating and putting words in others mouths. ----->
Your position is .... It has to be. Your arguments are.... ...you were a lefty...your arguments are aligned with theirs...you want a centralized government...This is exactly what you are arguing. Leftists want to... This is exactly what you are advocating. .........So what side are you coming down on? The side that wants government to control behavior and take away individual choice.
That was the most egregious example of someone putting words in another's mouth I have ever seen in my life.
Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 11:05am.
I had assumed that we ended this conversation -or rather, you ended this conversation- which is why I asks Unsane his opinion on my conduct. I'm only addressing your latest comment in context but will respect your desire to terminate the discussion relative to the larger topic of legalization.
As to the details:
"If you had, then you would've responded to my points instead of putting words in my mouth such as "according to you there should be 10 words [in the Constitution]." Instead, you have entirely ignored my argument..."
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was interpreting what you had written. You're certainly free to challenge that, but I explained why I interpreted your comment the way I did. You said that the purpose of the federal government was to secure our liberties (paraphrasing) followed by "Nothing more." Since the US Constitution was the original document that specified the purpose of the US government (not the Declaration of Independence which established the US as an independent state from Great Britain), it theoretically should have consisted of "nothing more" than what you indicated, not the 4000 plus body of text that -in fact- established a much larger role than your version. Again, maybe it's the way I present my arguments that is confusing; I try to supply examples or link documents to support my viewpoint. I generally don't like to use the "because I said so" method of declaration. I used the Constitution reference to support my view that the role of government is larger than simply securing individual liberties, which I attributed to you using your own words of "nothing more". You're free to disagree, but I hope this clears up what I was trying to do.
"...and were arguing various straw men. If you had, then you wouldn't say things like "a stunningly stupid statement," without giving any thought to the statement or position. And then say that I'm the one being unwilling to see your side? That's not being reasonable."
If I knew you better and trusted your confidence, I would explain this further. I told you that I based my opinion on the legalization issue from personal experiences. Your comment that an individual's drug use had no bearing on others was personally offensive to me, hence my reaction to it. I apologize if I offended you in return. I have no desire to discuss it further on these very public threads.
Finally, I don't believe that you treated my position seriously -which again, is within your purview. I don't expect that I'll change your mind, though I'm not on these threads to remain silent. My original comment on this topic was made to no one in particular; it was not in response to another comment. I'm glad that you entered into the discussion by way of reply, so I returned the favor by engaging. You in fact ignored a number of my direct questions and seemed to retreat when directly challenged. You claimed that my position was based upon ideology -a political position that I not only disagree with, but one that I can't even identify with on almost ever single platform- even after I specifically refuted that claim; thus you treated each of my responses as merely ideological rather than thoughtful and independent. That is not taking my responses seriously.
Own it, Satchmo
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 3:46pm.
If a person wishes to ingest drugs, let him. It in no way affects your life, liberty, or property or mine. It is that person's choice, whether it's a harmful one to him or not.
That statement is just plain ignorant. Drugs kill people, and ruin lives of not only the drug taker, but others' as well. Family, friends, and victims of crimes committed to support a drug habit. You'll never admit the truth of that, will you? All that matters to you is "if it feels good, do it". Childish.
BK has been unfailingly polite to you here, and you've reacted with your usual attacks (you're a leftist!), doing that which you accuse others of (you're putting words in my mouth), and worse.
You think you are a hard core libertarian, we get it. I think you're actually an anarchist. The one thing I know you are, most of the time.....wrong.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, let's turn the tables
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:21pm.
Blonde, let's turn the tables on the lib:
"If a person wishes to ingest McDonald's Supersized Fries, let him. It in no way affects your life, liberty, or property or mine. It is that person's choice, whether it's a harmful one to him or not."
A little alteration but reveals hypocrisy since the liberal Mommy state wants to limit food choices for the greater good since they know what's best for us, right?
"If a person wishes to ingest real butter on their movie theater popcorn, let him. It in no way affects your life, liberty, or property or mine. It is that person's choice, whether it's a harmful one to him or not."
Another alteration that reveals hypocrisy.
Yet the liberal special interest group, Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Mommy-state organization, pressured movie theaters to remove real melted butter for popcorn and replace it with some sort of butter-flavored WD-40 substance of questionable origin.
"If a person wishes to ingest red M&Ms, let him. It in no way affects your life, liberty, or property or mine. It is that person's choice, whether it's a harmful one to him or not."
Remember the claims that red food dyes caused cancer. The Mommy-state folks demanded it be removed from the market and one of the effects was that red M&Ms were ceased to be made. Many years later it turned out the studies were wrong and red M&Ms are back to stay.
A little bigger alteration:
"If a person wishes to own firearms, let him. It in no way affects your life, liberty, or property or mine. It is that person's choice, whether it's a harmful one to him or not."
I don't even need to explain the hypocrisy here.
And those are just a few examples.
I know, Beuke
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:40pm.
Liberals make my head explode.
Incestmo, though, pretends to be a libertarian. He doesn't want anyone, in any shape or form, to interfere with his fun. Whether that means screwing his adult daughter, or ingesting illegal and highly addictive drugs....his motto is "if it feels good, do it".
I'd imagine he's against traffic laws as well....after all, they impede his ability to have fun.
All societies have rules. While I acknowledge the danger of having too many rules, some are necessary. That is why we have a constitution, and the best one ever divised by man. I am a Freidman adherent. The government is there for a few well chosen reasons....and the Food Police isn't one of them. However, and particularly in the area of this discussion (illegal drugs), there is a very good reason to limit access to certain categories of drugs. Addiction is a dangerous thing, and not just for the person who is addicted. Enough said.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
To quote another poster, "I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:02pm.
To quote another poster, "I don't even need to explain the hypocrisy here."
Confirmation
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:07pm.
We know you are a hypocrite, Incestmo. Thanks.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Of course you don't, Incestmo
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:37pm.
You're the only one who understands your points.
They're so gloriously complex (and galactically stupid) that no one else could possibly comprehend.
Thank you for sparing me the bother of trying to decipher your meaningless meanings.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Do you advocate the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:57pm.
Do you advocate the government prohibiting gambling, alcohol, prescription drugs, and cigarettes, among others?
And the only Friedman you are aligned with is Thomas.
No, no, no and no.
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:03pm.
Thomas Friedman?
You are delusional. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You avoided my question
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:13pm.
You avoided my question regarding those other things. Are you in favor of their prohibition?
Look, this is what makes your argument the exact same as the leftists. You are saying that government must step in to protect people from their own decisions because they would make stupid choices if left alone. Forget that a person has the right to live his own life and to make his own choices, even if those choices are bad or harmful to him. I used salt, oil, and happy meals above, Buekeboom used french fries, butter, and red food dye. Your argument is the same ones liberals use for all these examples.
How about we just let people live their own lives? Liberty. What a radical concept!
You are incredibly full of it, Incestmo
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:19pm.
What a little whiny baby you are.
I did answer. What do you think those four "no's" mean, exactly? Just because I know you are galactically stupid, I'll explain it to you. That was a DIRECT answer to your question. Now you are blathering about "arguments"? Get a grip.
I truly hope you are the next victim of a mugging by a drug addict. Then you'll truly understand how victimless the crime of using illegal drugs is, Incestmo. Because it's not victimless. Only in your fevered brain is incest and drug abuse just dandy.
You are dismissed. I can't stomach your insufferable stupidity any longer.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
B, it's more likely Incestmo will be the mugger, not the muggee.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:28pm.
.
Possibly
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:32pm.
I feel like I got mugged by his creepiness.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ah, so you did. My mistake. I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 9:12pm.
Ah, so you did. My mistake. I hardly ever look at the subject lines. Sorry about that.
So in answering no, you've proven my point about your hypocrisy. Aren't gambling, prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco equally, and in some cases, even more addictive? Yes. Can they not destroy lives and bring stress into families? Yes. So why are you not advocating for their prohibition? I suspect it's because you've never truly given thought to it. X, Y, and Z have always been illegal and so you're used to their being illegal, and as a result have come up with a rationalization/justification for your hypocritical stance. Have you never considered that if prohibition were lifted on drugs then associated crimes would decline and even cease? Look no further than the repeal of Prohibition in this country.
As for your misplaced stab regarding incest and drug abuse, it's a shame you have to make up straw men to attack rather than responding to what my argument actually is, but this is just one thing I've come to expect from you.
Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:01pm.
You're still ignoring scope.
Please see my follow up at the current end of this thread. I hate these skinny comments.
Congratulations. This is the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:55pm.
Congratulations. This is the exact argument I have been making to bkeyser, or did you not read the conversation? Like the leftists, he wishes to restrict personal liberty and the freedom to make choices for one's own life.
There IS a difference
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:12pm.
Yes, but consuming red M&Ms and Big Macs is a TEENSY bit different from consuming illegal drugs. People who do consume illegal drugs like the hippie lettuce do in fact effect me whether you like it or not.
I'd be with Blonde in calling you an anarchist, for not even the Constitution of the United States means s*** to you. But you want government in charge of dishing out allowance money to everyone, so you love a powerful central government as much as the Leftists you so decry.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sachtmo is for handing out
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 5:25pm.
Satchmo is for handing out money? Where's mine? LOL
No you had it right the first time, he is an anarchist, I agree with Blonde. If this is the same person who posted at the ACOC when I did years ago he is an extreme libertarian bordering on anarchy regarding the legalization of drugs.
I have no idea what ACOC is.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:56pm.
I have no idea what ACOC is. If I were an anarchist, I would be advocating for no government. On the contrary, I am in favor of limited government as the Founders envisioned. There are many lip service conservatives who too often are aligned with leftists in their arguments. A few can be found in this comments section.
Ann Coulter Official Chatroom
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:04pm.
Ann Coulter Official Chatroom
The only moonbat here
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:04pm.
....is you, Incestmo.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sound it out phonetically, Incestmo.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:06pm.
.
No. This is one of many of
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 6:59pm.
No. This is one of many of Unsane's lies regarding the FairTax.
Fair tax, you mean the
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:08pm.
Fair tax, you mean the national sales tax at what? 23% or some such level excluding food and clothing??? No, it's not fair to me especially IF I sell my house, no stinking way anyone is going to afford a 23% tax on a house sale! Buy a $40k car or truck and pay an additional $10k tax?? NO WAY! And a definite killer of business unless you are exempting commercial B to B sales to make this a retail only tax.
No, it doesn't exclude food
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:19pm.
No, it doesn't exclude food and clothing. It is not an additional tax, it is built into the cost. The 23% rate is an inclusive tax, not an exclusive one. Meaning, it isn't added to the final sticker price; it is included in the sticker price. Currently, all goods have approximately 23% of embedded taxes in them. It just replaces those embedded taxes. And the FairTax is not assessed every time someone sells a house or a car; it is assessed at the first, final point of retail. So the first owner of the house, or the first owner of a car. If you purchased a car for $1000, 23% goes to the federal gvmt. If the car was $500, 23% goes to the federal government.
Additionally, there is no allowance money given out to anyone.
And I thought Krugman was a true genius.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 7:25pm.
"It's not embedded like now, it will be built-in."
Don't bother responding, BTW.
Who are you quoting? I never
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 8:17pm.
Who are you quoting? I never said that. I said it REPLACES current embedded taxes. Why must you lie?
Oh, that's even way worse as
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 8:13pm.
Oh, that's even way worse as you describe it. Zero profit for the seller in essence unless the price is jacked up which it has to be to cover the 23% addition to the bottom line or cost of the product. NOPE, NO SALE!
There is no 23% addition. I
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 8:43pm.
There is no 23% addition. I said, it's an inclusive tax, not an exclusive tax. The prices wouldn't be jacked up at all. If anything, prices would actually fall because you're not taxing everyone down the line of procurement to production to retail shelf.
Idiotic
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:54pm.
But there IS a 23% addition, exactly like the 6.25% state sales tax I pay and the 2% local tax I pay. And taxation WILL be factored into the price regardless, thanks to state and local property taxes, among many many many others.
Prices aren't going to fall, sick freak. Prices are going to jump 23%.
"Taxing everyone down the line of procurement to production to retail shelf?" Since WHEN have we had a VAT?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Which is it?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 04/09/2011 - 8:33pm.
Oh, so NOW there is no "prebate check" as you stated before on the same thread where you vigorously defended incest?
So which is it, sick freak?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
How unfortunate, Incestmo
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:06pm.
Unfortunately for you, it isn't a lie. Giving people checks to cover "necessities" IS FREAKING ALLOWANCE MONEY. I do not care what YOU call it or what anyone else calls it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Isn't that cute.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 4:47pm.
Pervmo Satchmo the Stupid Troll has yet another fetish - beating on people with copies of the constitution. How cute.
NB's Supreme Expert
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:49pm.
Incestmo thinks himself as a Constitutional scholar (and the supreme expert on every imaginable topic), but yet he is disgusted by the Constitution. He sees it as a silly garden-party invite that states can honor and leave as they damn well please. Nothing more.
In fact, I'd argue that nothing means s*** to Incestmo.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I thought his preference was
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:55am.
I thought his preference was to swat people on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
...or what that his dog?
Laughable
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 9:44pm.
This laughable post coming from an intellectual poser (and sick freak) who does nothing but spout ill-formed arguments and then behaves as if they are the literal, perfect work of genius.
Not to mention this is coming from a poster who is extremely angry at the existence of federal law enforcement agencies, but yet wants a tyrannical government that is in charge of giving allowance money to every citizen based on some bureaucrat's calculations, nothing more.
One more thing: you have no business calling anyone here a "Leftist". You are no conservative, that's for damn sure.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Laws against recreational use
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 9:12pm.
Laws against recreational use of marijuana existed back in the 19th century. You had to go to Chinatown to smoke it, where it was de facto decriminalized, because the police didn't really want to enforce the law there. The only change that happened in the 30s was that the actual substance came under proscription. Prior to that, marijuana had been used for medicinal purposes and in certain drinks advertised as medicinal; but so had cocaine -- original formula Coca Cola had cocaine in it, as did nerve tonics -- what was happening was that people were re-thinking what substances were ok for people to take.
I wish politics would stop fudging history.
Anyway, a better analogy to challenge Cenk with is drinking age laws... young people are always going to get alcohol, so why create restrictions? Better yet, if marijuana were legal, we'd have laws that restrict the sale to young people too. Why?
Whatever our drug laws are, we need them to be rational, not the result of bumper sticker politics.
Actually, what happened (in
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:57am.
Actually, what happened (in regards to marijuana) was that Randolph Hearst launched a fear campaign against hemp in his papers because hemp production was a threat to his mills and investments. He purposefully chose the foreign-word marijuana to stoke that fear, and would print false stories attributing all sorts of crimes and deaths to marijuana. He bought off some politicians and railroaded the legislation through Congress.
Get off it insestmo
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 2:34am.
Half the allure of marijuana is its illegality.
You tryin' to bankrupt the pusher man?
So, Randolph Hearst
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 6:19pm.
single-handedly set about to deny stoners the use of MJ? Wow, how prescient of him.
From what I can find it would seem that the states were the ones who lead the way in regulating the possession of cannabis. So, in your scheme of things, the evil Feds weren't the first ones at the gates, it was the states. It seems that 27 states passed laws criminalizing marijuana use, between 1915 and 1937. As usual, the self-appointed expert on everything doesn' t know his fourth point of contact from his elbow.
"He bought off some politicians and railroaded the legislation through Congress". Incestmo, we're talking about marijuana, not Health Care, ok? Do try to pay attention.
Now you all understand why I will be refraining from Drug War
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 12:23am.
...debates from now on.
It's just like the abortion debate - everybody has their mind made up before the debate even starts.
For me, it's all about freedom and liberty.
Period.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yeap, just like having a
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:35am.
Yeap, just like having a hypothesis, you propose how something works, you perform an experiment to confirm what you propose and then upon getting the results you want you vigorously bate others to prove you wrong.../sarcasm/
Liberty - the right to disagree with everyone for any inane reason. LOL
Follow up Satchmo
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 10:35pm.
Alcohol, tobacco and gambling are all currently legal and criminalizing them would create both economic and legal hardships. Illicit drugs and drug use are currently illegal; maintaining that condition and criminalizing the other vices are not on equal footing. Its an apples and oranges argument.
Slavery, Secession and War [for Satchmo, dscott et al]
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 2:09am.
As you may (or may not) recall, the following is what I argued on this and another thread about a week and a half ago in connection with the above topic::
"... No one who knows anything about the period would insist there were not myriad reasons for the gradual and inevitable fracturing of the relationship between the North and the South (social, economic, political,etc.), and anyone who knows anything about Lincoln is aware that he was first and foremost a Unionist and a pragmatist willing to subordinate--but with crucial qualifications--his antipathy toward the institution of slavery to his overriding, near monomaniacal, objective of preserving the Union. And although he was not to be found in the camp of the radical abolitionists [nor were the majority of Northeners], there was no mistaking his support for the ultimate demolition of slavery as demonstrated by his unconditional opposition to its spread to the western territories and future states. The pro-slave South--in which many of the state governments were controlled by the planter elites and slave-holding fire-eaters equally determined to maintain the "peculiar institution"--was well aware of these views of "Black Lincoln" [as he was derisively called] and the dire implications for the future of slavery occasioned by his election. When you have the time, read the accounts of the secessionist speeches by the governors and other leaders of the Confederate states. That the root cause of secession and ultimately war was slavery is an inescapable conclusion and simply overwhelms any serious analysis."
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/03/31/drug-laws-c...
"...Please review the speech of the V-P of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens. The founding principle, the very cornerstone of the Confederacy was the essential and demonstrable state of inequality between the races and the right of the South to maintain the institution of slavery. Lincoln was committed to preventing the further spread of slavery--which the pro-slave southern states recognized would gradually but inexorably shift the balance of power in favor of the free states and would ultimately prove fatal to the institution itself. To suggest the issue of slavery was totally disconnected from the Civil War is sheer folly."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/03/30/libya-interview-sawy...
In the past couple of days, I have had the occasion to view a presentation on C-SPAN [which I had previously recorded] by Gary Gallagher, Professor of History at the University of Virginia and a noted Civil War scholar and author of numerous books and articles on the conflict. I likewise finally got around to reading an article by Winston Groom (writer of fiction {Forrest Gump} as well as non-fiction works on the War Between the States and other historical topics] entitled A Shot in the Dark and published in America's Civil War concerning the dramatic backdrop regarding the firing on Sumter.
First, Professor Gallagher's opening remarks (after alluding to the concept of "Union" and its paramount importance in animating the citizenry of the North to contest by force of arms the Southern effort to dissolve it and how most Northern inhabitants--including the majority of Federal soldiers] gave little thought to emancipation. But Gallagher then emphatically points out the following:
"...[however] issues related to the institution of SLAVERY PRECIPITATED SECESSION; let's just get that out of the way right now; it was NOT states rights, NOT the tariff; it was NOT unhappiness with manners and customs that led to secession and eventually to war; it was clusters of issues profoundly dividing the nation along fault lines delineated by the institution of slavery! Period! That's what it was and we need to come to terms with that..." [emphasis in CAPS]
(Later in his address he also recommends reading Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone speech.)
And this excerpt from the opening paragraph of Groom's article:
"On November 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president on a Republican Party platform that would have made slavery illegal to any new territory or state of the Union, but did not call for the outright abolition of slavery in the South, where it already existed. A number of Southerners still saw this as a threat to their political power, because it would eventually install a permanent majority of the U.S. Senate hailing from free states, who would be in opposition to Southern interests, and in due course would probably lead to the abolition of slavery by federal law...Other Southerners saw the Republican victory more perniciously--as an immediate and direct threat to the South's "peculiar institution". This was the result of 30 years of haranguing by Northern abolitionist groups who had now associated themselves with the Republicans, and the distinctions between what the Republicans were actually saying, and what the abolitionists were advocating, were fatally blurred because the abolitionists continued to shout so loudly...."
Your reactions and responses are welcome.
Jer
[edited a couple of times to correct annoying typos]
Some additional ramblings
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 9:16pm.
People DO in fact forget that for quite awhile the strategy was for Congress to admit states on the basis that new free states and new slave states would balance each other out. Thus, when FL and TX were admitted in 1845, IA and WI were admitted shortly thereafter (1846 and 1848 respectively, IIRC). (For one example).
Indeed, the South looked to the West for the future as much as anyone else, and as wisely pointed out, they saw a future where they would be, in essence, surrounded by free states who could, say, ratify a 13th Amendment without needing the approval of a single Southern Congressman, Senator or State. This made Southern planters and elites VERY nervous, again, as wisely pointed out.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As you correctly noted the other day, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 10:04pm.
The politicians continued "kicking the can down the road" by concocting every ingenious, yet only temporary, and ultimately flawed "fix" that the nineteenth-century American mind could conceive. They kept trying to balance and spin more and more plates on the end of a stick, knowing it would all come crashing down sooner or later.
Jer