Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 03:45:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Who's your least favorite president from each party?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Print
Author Topic: Who's your least favorite president from each party?  (Read 38893 times)
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: July 09, 2009, 11:41:52 pm »
Ignore

Wow, Libertas is a mega FF. Keep up the good work! Glad to see someone is finally 150% correct around here. That's almost to the "t" my platform!
Thank you, glad there is someone else here with a sense of historical reality.

Just was trying to have a civil discussion but right away the Lincolnites drag the whole debate down into mud-slinging and childish insults.

Does it make you feel like any more of a man knowing that your ancestors were too lazy to work the land themselves, unlike mine, who were some of the first sodbusters in the region? Are you any more "proud of your heritage" when you realize that these lazy peckerwoods - quite in contrast to the industrious and individualistic laborers in the North - enslaved the "means of production" for collective use, like good, uneducated proletariat?

Wow, so now one's ancestry is relevant to political debate? Very racist and collectivist.

Most certainly so. I am convinced that the world-historical laziness and lack of competence of Southerners is heritable, the result of a genetic bottleneck.

That is so racist it doesn't even warrant a response. If you said that same thing about my (Jewish) race, nobody would hesitate to call you a neo-Nazi.
Logged

Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #151 on: July 09, 2009, 11:46:38 pm »
Ignore

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known. It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.

Quote
"Protectionism" had nothing to do with stopping U.S. goods from being exported to a country they were at war with. That you would be mistaken about the meaning of a basic economic policy is laughable and betrays your total lack of knowledge beneath that thin veneer of arrogance.

See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.

Quote
Making things up now? Lincoln's stubborn policy from day one was to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the C.S.A. in his fanatical devotion to the mythical "Union."

Uh, no. Lincoln received Southern emissaries prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter; he quite simply refused to recognize their independence, and justifiably so. Therefore the Southerners launched a war of aggression against the North.  

*snip socialist revanchism*

I bet he went to school in my state, CA. My US history AP teacher made us write an essay about the Great Triumvirate. I was absent. When I made up the assignment, I wrote about Webster, Clay and Calhoun. She had told all of the other students that the Great Triumvirate were the three branches of the federal government! She actually tried to fail my essay because she didn't know that was what the Triumvirate actually was!

That was one of many mistakes she made, significant ones. Keep in mind, AP teacher. Imagine the lower level classes......

CA is screwed up. All propaganda in these schools.
Logged

people suck
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5231
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #152 on: July 09, 2009, 11:48:24 pm »
Ignore

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.

Quote
[And, assuming that you are correct, the Federal government "bought and paid" for Fort Sumter with money stolen from taxpayers. Thus, the "puchase" was illegitimate. And I am as far from a communist as you can get. I would question whether you are a communist, since you believe that the State has the right to own property.

Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military?

Quote
So would Saddam Hussein have been justified in imposing a Baathist dictatorship in America because we 'attacked "his" property', if he were capable?

Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: July 09, 2009, 11:53:42 pm »
Ignore

Even if I accept all of your bullsh**t about the Civil War, wouldn't the appropriate response be to recover the lost property, rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people that had nothing to do with the incident?

The rest of the South provided material and moral support to the terrorists who attacked Fort Sumter; ergo, they were responsible for the ensuing War.

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Quote
Quote
[And, assuming that you are correct, the Federal government "bought and paid" for Fort Sumter with money stolen from taxpayers. Thus, the "puchase" was illegitimate. And I am as far from a communist as you can get. I would question whether you are a communist, since you believe that the State has the right to own property.

Have you even read the Constitution, dipsh**t? Right there, in the Preamble, it states:

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

How else is the Federal government, as made responsible for "domestic Tranquility" and the "common defense" in the Constitution, to do so without first establishing and ordering a military?

Why should I care about the Constitution? It is an void document. Plus, no citizens of the United States were killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and no civilians were under attack.

Quote
Quote
So would Saddam Hussein have been justified in imposing a Baathist dictatorship in America because we 'attacked "his" property', if he were capable?

Quite frankly, yes. To the victor goes the spoils.

I can only hope you are joking and don't actually believe in mass murder like you describe. If you do, I would suggest psychiatric help.
Logged

Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #154 on: July 09, 2009, 11:57:07 pm »
Ignore

Um, protectionism had to do with tariffs and trade restrictions to make domestically-produced goods more competitive with foreign (primarily European) imports, and it went on long before the Confederacy and the war came into existence. Like other Northern Republicans, Lincoln would have advocated such an economic policy because it was politically advantageous to do so.

Wow. This... wow. What are they teaching you in the schools down there?

Lincoln's economic plan is well known. It entailed the temporary nationalization of industries related to the war effort (once more, to ensure that they did not supply the Confederacy with weapons or ammunition and to ensure the Federal government's monopoly over the same), along with plans to restructure the Southern economy towards an industrial focus, eventually integrating the Freedmen into the free-market structure.

On the whole, this is a remarkably non-statist economic platform for the time; in comparison, Brazil's conservatives completely nationalized all industries during its own civil war.

See above. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have no real knowledge of the issues involved whatsoever.
When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

We're not talking about Lincoln's wartime economic policies, we're talking about protectionism as an economic philosophy. An economic philosophy which Abraham Lincoln ran on in his race for the presidency and which was a prime source of Southern dissatisfaction with the federal government.

 Obviously the South could not have seceded over Lincoln's wartime policies.

That you didn't know the meaning of "protectionism" has already shattered any illusion of credibility you may have held.

Quote
Uh, no. Lincoln received Southern emissaries prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter; he quite simply refused to recognize their independence, and justifiably so. Therefore the Southerners launched a war of aggression against the North.  
Yeah...as I just said, Lincoln refused to negotiate; in particular he refused to even recognize the existence of the potential negotiating partner.

Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5231
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2009, 12:00:26 am »
Ignore

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?

Quote
Why should I care about the Constitution? It is an void document.

Hahaha, riiiiiight.

Quote
Plus, no citizens of the United States were killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and no civilians were under attack.

So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5231
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #156 on: July 10, 2009, 12:04:07 am »
Ignore

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

Quote
We're not talking about Lincoln's wartime economic policies, we're talking about protectionism as an economic philosophy. An economic philosophy which Abraham Lincoln ran on in his race for the presidency and which was a prime source of Southern dissatisfaction with the federal government.

You will now, of course, provide evidence that Lincoln ran on an unduly 'protectionist' economic platform, and that this was the prime motivator for the War of Southern Secession?

Ah, wait, but you can't. Because Lincoln was not a protectionist, and in fact had joined the Whigs only hesitantly, at the behest of his law partner; his chief objection to them being their protectionism. The only economic ideas he had at all endorsed, in fact, were the Transcontinental Railroad and land-grants for colleges - hardly 'protectionism'.

*snip prattle*

Quote
Yeah...as I just said, Lincoln refused to negotiate; in particular he refused to even recognize the existence of the potential negotiating partner.

Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 12:06:00 am by Einzige »Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: July 10, 2009, 12:06:05 am »
Ignore

That is ridiculous! You don't attack civilians for the actions of their government! You can't possibly know if the entire population supported their actions, so any attack on civilians is murder.

Ah, right. So you will therefore condemn Lee's 1864 invasion of Pennsylvania as an act of unwarranted aggression against United States civilians.

No?

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

Quote
Quote
Why should I care about the Constitution? It is an void document.

Hahaha, riiiiiight.

Wow, you went through that book fast. Do you care to give a summary?

Plus, even if we do accept the Constitution as valid, then you must condemn all of the unconstitutional actions of President Lincoln, including the deportion of a Congressman, censoring the telegraphs, confiscating weapons, not declaring war on the Confederacy, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists, imposing an income tax, etc. If not, it would appear that you have not read the Constitution.

Quote
Quote
Plus, no citizens of the United States were killed in the attack on Fort Sumter, and no civilians were under attack.

So I am unjustified in defending my own property, even if nobody was killed in the course of its destruction?

You haven't answered how a State can own property when it's income is confiscated from taxpayers?
Logged

SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: July 10, 2009, 12:08:50 am »
Ignore

When you've gotten yourself this deep into a hole, it's generally a good idea to stop digging.

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

The defender of victors' justice, racism, collectivism, and mass murder says this.

Quote
Quote
Yeah...as I just said, Lincoln refused to negotiate; in particular he refused to even recognize the existence of the potential negotiating partner.

Uh, no. As I just said, Lincoln happily received the agrarian socialist envoy; he simply refused to give into their whining, and they forthrightly stormed out, tears welling in their eyes, and threw a hissy-fit like spoiled children that lasted five years.

So, you believe that people should be forced to be governed by a government against their will? Sounds like slavery, and last time I checked, two wrongs do not make a right.
Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5231
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #159 on: July 10, 2009, 12:10:17 am »
Ignore

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.

Quote
Plus, even if we do accept the Constitution as valid, then you must condemn all of the unconstitutional actions of President Lincoln, including the deportion of a Congressman, censoring the telegraphs, confiscating weapons, not declaring war on the Confederacy, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists, imposing an income tax, etc. If not, it would appear that you have not read the Constitution.

Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason. 

Quote
You haven't answered how a State can own property when it's income is confiscated from taxpayers?

When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #160 on: July 10, 2009, 12:21:23 am »
Ignore

Right. Which is why I advise you to leave the thread posthaste.

Quote
We're not talking about Lincoln's wartime economic policies, we're talking about protectionism as an economic philosophy. An economic philosophy which Abraham Lincoln ran on in his race for the presidency and which was a prime source of Southern dissatisfaction with the federal government.

You will now, of course, provide evidence that Lincoln ran on an unduly 'protectionist' economic platform, and that this was the prime motivator for the War of Southern Secession?

Ah, wait, but you can't. Because Lincoln was not a protectionist, and in fact had joined the Whigs only hesitantly, at the behest of his law partner; his chief objection to them being their protectionism.
Continuing to just type whatever comes into your head? Your claims here have no basis in reality, and your link doesn't even mention trade policy.

During his time in Congress, Lincoln had a thoroughly protectionist, pro-tariff record. Lincoln ran in 1860 supporting the protectionist Morill Tariff and using the slogan "Protection to American Industry"; both his Democratic opponents opposed the Morill Tariff. And during his administration, Lincoln would sign two additional Morill Tariffs, each higher than the previous, into law.

Lincoln's own words:


"My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank ... in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff."

"I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject [the need for protectionist tariffs] than any other. I have not since changed my views."
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: July 10, 2009, 12:23:29 am »
Ignore

All attacks on civilians are unjustified. You have yet to condemn the war crimes commited by Union forces.

I'll do that just as soon as you revanchists reject the numerous assaults on American citizens by secessionists. I see that no apology is forthcoming, however.

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Quote
Quote
Plus, even if we do accept the Constitution as valid, then you must condemn all of the unconstitutional actions of President Lincoln, including the deportion of a Congressman, censoring the telegraphs, confiscating weapons, not declaring war on the Confederacy, suspending habeus corpus, imprisoning journalists, imposing an income tax, etc. If not, it would appear that you have not read the Constitution.

Sure, I disagree with many of the measures that Lincoln took in pursuit of the war, many of the same, in fact, that Bush took during his wars. But unlike the "War on Terror", the Civil War was eminently justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

And I will not even tolerate the notion that the Constitution is no longer applicable; suggesting such is tantamount to treason. 

Fighting a war to eliminate people's right to free association, by not letting the Southern civilians have the government of their choice is not libertarian. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as killing civilians and destroying the right to free association is NOT libertarian.

Also, I notice that you are too close-minded to even read the essay. It is not applicable because I have not signed it, just like any contract that I have not signed is inapplicable. You use circular logic, the Constitution is legitimate, so suggesting that it is illegitimate is treasonous, so the Constitution is legitimate.

Quote
Quote
You haven't answered how a State can own property when it's income is confiscated from taxpayers?

When that right is granted to the State in its chartering document, then that State can own property.

Even ignoring any arguments from natural law, could you point to the specific clause that gives the federal government the right to own property. Keep in mind the governments are delegated powers, not rights, so I doubt you will find that anywhere.
Logged

Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5231
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #162 on: July 10, 2009, 12:38:15 am »
Ignore

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!

Quote
Fighting a war to eliminate people's right to free association, by not letting the Southern civilians have the government of their choice is not libertarian. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as killing civilians and destroying the right to free association is NOT libertarian.

Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian.

Of course you don't have this problem, since you're quite clearly a communist. For that matter, I'd suggest you tone down your attitude with me, little boy.

Quote
Also, I notice that you are too close-minded to even read the essay.

I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly.

Quote
It is not applicable because I have not signed it, just like any contract that I have not signed is inapplicable.

Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom.

Quote
You use circular logic, the Constitution is legitimate, so suggesting that it is illegitimate is treasonous, so the Constitution is legitimate.

The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate.

Quote
Even ignoring any arguments from natural law, could you point to the specific clause that gives the federal government the right to own property. Keep in mind the governments are delegated powers, not rights, so I doubt you will find that anywhere.

Quote
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
Scam of God
Einzige
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5231
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #163 on: July 10, 2009, 12:42:15 am »
Ignore

Continuing to just type whatever comes into your head? Your claims here have no basis in reality, and your link doesn't even mention trade policy.

During his time in Congress, Lincoln had a thoroughly protectionist, pro-tariff record. Lincoln ran in 1860 supporting the protectionist Morill Tariff and using the slogan "Protection to American Industry"; both his Democratic opponents opposed the Morill Tariff. And during his administration, Lincoln would sign two additional Morill Tariffs, each higher than the previous, into law.

Your ignorance is overwhelming, quite like, I imagine, the peculiar odor that rises from the fetid swamps of Louisiana on particularly balmy nights.

The Morill Tariff, you twat, was solely intended to raise funds for the United States military against the Confederacy - which it did. It was adopted on March 2, 1861 - nearly a full month after the Peace Conference I mentioned above fell through, and was pushed through after it became obvious that war was coming, as a means to ensure that the United States would have the funds to defend itself.

Sorry, try again.
Logged

Life is change --
How it differs from the rocks
I've seen their ways
Too often for my liking

New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
And be alive
For you


- Jefferson Airplane, "Crown of Creation"

The right to die in Iraq was a right not previously possessed by Americans for twelve long years.  Bush rectified that.
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: July 10, 2009, 12:58:39 am »
Ignore

I already condemned their actions and will do so again if you deem it necessary. The Confederate Army commiting their share of crimes, and that is awful. However, at least they were not trying to coerce the other side into being their subjects, unlike the Union Army. So, yes, I condemn the Confederate Army's actions that harmed civilians.

Oh, not at all! They were only coercing slaves - human beings - into becoming property. That's not at all at odds with the basic libertarian principle of self-ownership, no siree!

I never said it was. However, you asserted that the Union army's actions were libertarian, when in fact they were no better than their Confederate counterparts.

Quote
Quote
Fighting a war to eliminate people's right to free association, by not letting the Southern civilians have the government of their choice is not libertarian. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as killing civilians and destroying the right to free association is NOT libertarian.

Fighting a war to preserve a socialist economic system that enslaves the individual man in order to recompense one's self from doing physical labor is not libertarian, either. Either become a libertarian or stop referring to yourself as one, as enslaving individuals against their will for one's material benefit is not libertarian.

Please show me where I defended the Confederates' actions as liberarian. I have not condoned chattel slavery, but you have condoned political slavery.

Quote
Of course you don't have this problem, since you're quite clearly a communist. For that matter, I'd suggest you tone down your attitude with me, little boy.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

Quote
Quote
Also, I notice that you are too close-minded to even read the essay.

I see no reason to subject myself to your socialist pipe-dreams, quite frankly.

Where have I described myself as socialist or shown support for socialist ideas? Please provide a quote.

Quote
Quote
It is not applicable because I have not signed it, just like any contract that I have not signed is inapplicable.

Hence the concept of popular sovereignty, which you'd know about if you'd actually spent time inside of a classroom.

I know and reject the idea. I cannot be bound by a contract I don't give consent to; anything else is slavery.

Quote
Quote
You use circular logic, the Constitution is legitimate, so suggesting that it is illegitimate is treasonous, so the Constitution is legitimate.

The Constitution is legitimate because it derives its support from the people. The people continue to support it; ergo, the Constitution is legitimate.

I doubt that every single individual in the country supports the Constitution. Therefore, it is illegitimate since the Constitution presumes their consent when they have not given it.

Quote
Quote
Even ignoring any arguments from natural law, could you point to the specific clause that gives the federal government the right to own property. Keep in mind the governments are delegated powers, not rights, so I doubt you will find that anywhere.

Quote
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

Article I, Section II quite clearly grants to Congress the power to collect taxes, with which to buy property. Please, try again.

It never gives the federal government the right to property, since they cannot possess it. Having the power to collect taxes != the right to own property. Only individuals and voluntary associations of individuals can own property.



BTW, it is telling that you must constantly midrepresent my positions in order to continue your argument.
Logged

Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #165 on: July 10, 2009, 12:59:11 am »
Ignore

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict. Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union. Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway.  

SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

Libertas, you keep referencing industrialists corrupting Lincoln, yet you don't cite them nor even give any of their names.

As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

From Wikipedia, and yes, I checked, it was cited, "This meeting left the future General Sherman "sadly disappointed" at Lincoln's seeming failure to realize that "the country was sleeping on a volcano" and the South was "preparing for war." As you can see, Lincoln didn't expect war, therefore didn't want to start a war.

Quote from: SPC
I doubt that every single individual in the country supports the Constitution. Therefore, it is illegitimate since the Constitution presumes their consent when they have not given it.

The Constitution was contract signed by the states. It is therefore legitimate. To break said contract, I would say at least a super majority, if not all parties involved in the contract must reject it for it to be invalid.


Take that!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 01:02:15 am by Midwest Lt. Governor Vepres »Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #166 on: July 10, 2009, 01:09:59 am »
Ignore

Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.
You can't just keep repeating lies hoping to make them true. In his own inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would have no objection to having the "slavery forever" Corwin amendment put into the U.S. Constitution. He was no abolitionist.

Lincoln's position on slavery changed with the political winds.

Quote
High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.
No he didn't, and how does lack of internet access make punishing half the county to reward the other half anymore justifiable?

Quote
Libertas, you keep referencing industrialists corrupting Lincoln, yet you don't cite them nor even give any of their names.
That's because I'm not here to discuss unnecessary details.

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.
Then you're clearly not concerned with the truth then. The issue of Fort Sumter has already been discussed in this thread.

Quote
From Wikipedia, and yes, I checked, it was cited, "This meeting left the future General Sherman "sadly disappointed" at Lincoln's seeming failure to realize that "the country was sleeping on a volcano" and the South was "preparing for war." As you can see, Lincoln didn't expect war, therefore didn't want to start a war.
Future war criminal Sherman got his feelings hurt? I don't see how that proves Lincoln didn't know exactly what he was getting into.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: July 10, 2009, 01:17:37 am »
Ignore

Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

Quote
Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.

Quote
Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!

Quote
Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union.

And they could just move the capital.

Quote
Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway. 

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?

Quote
SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.

Quote
Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?

Quote
Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.

Quote
High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Quote
From Wikipedia, and yes, I checked, it was cited, "This meeting left the future General Sherman "sadly disappointed" at Lincoln's seeming failure to realize that "the country was sleeping on a volcano" and the South was "preparing for war." As you can see, Lincoln didn't expect war, therefore didn't want to start a war.

Take that!

Actions speak louder than words. He had threatened war if the Southern states didn't pay their tariff revenue.
Logged

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #168 on: July 10, 2009, 09:25:24 am »
Ignore

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9544
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: July 10, 2009, 10:55:56 am »
Ignore

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, Einzige lost this debate already when he made absurd statements. I know he's hopelessly brainwashed and too close-minded to win over, but if someone stumbled on this thread and saw this debate, it would be quite clear who the winners were, or at least who the loser was, based on all of the absurd statements and logical fallacies Einzige made.
Logged

Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #170 on: July 10, 2009, 11:22:26 am »
Ignore

SPC and Libertas, you guys are spinning your wheels in the mud with those that have been brainwashed by the school system.

Roll Eyes


Let me ask you SPC. If California succeeded from the union (purely to make a point, it would never happen) and attacked a military base owned by the US there before they could leave, wouldn't you be furious? Wouldn't you consider that an act of war?

Well, as a Californian, I would be on my states' side. Plus, Lincoln was sending supplies to Fort Sumter, not ordering troops to leave, so the analogy is invalid.

What if it was another state then? A state bordering yours.

Quote
Quote
Lincoln was justified in suspending habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

That power is delegated to Congress, otherwise it wouldn't be in Article I of the Constitution, which specifically deals with Congress.

In March 1963, Congress passed the habeas corpus act, which endorsed Lincolns actions on the issue, both past and present.

Quote
Quote
Why did he do this? Because many of the anit-war protesters were just asking for conflict. Lincoln was protecting the US citizens from even more conflict.

Very Orwellian. Protecting them from conflict by instigating it!

I'm no historian, but to my knowledge many were actively calling for conflict in the Union states.

Quote
Quote
Justified in my opinion. Much of these suspensions were used in Maryland, for if Maryland succeeded the US capital would be surrounded by the enemy, which could cause a collapse of the Union.

And they could just move the capital.

True, but don't forget how many people lived there.

Quote
Quote
Certainly if you walked down the street, peacefully protesting the war, without try to cause or imply violence, they wouldn't have been arrested. They all received trials after the war anyway. 

Even though many of them were just newspaper publishers peacefully exercising freedom of speech? And what good is it for them to receive trials AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER?

Because they may get out or be proven guilty.

I would bet that many of these newspaper publishers were calling for conflict, adding fuel to the flame if you will.

Quote
Quote
SPC, regardless of what the Union did, the confederates chose to solve it through violence, instead of diplomacy. They started the war.

No, the Union chose to solve it through violence by refusing to recognize the independence of the CSA.

Uh, no. Lincoln himself said on multiple occasions that he intended to solve the problem through diplomacy.

Quote
Quote
Libertas, Lincoln was opposed to slavery.

Even though he said that he would be willing to save the Union without freeing a single slave?

In his inaugural he said he would not force the states to do anything regarding slavery. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Therefore the south had no reason to succeed. It's like if Texas really decided to succeed because Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric would hurt them, even though Obama has done little to suggest he would outright end NAFTA.

Additionally, Lincoln was very pro-states' rights, so why should the southern states succeeded. They still had voices in congress as well.

While the southern states had every right to be mad that the candidate they opposed was elected, to succeed because of that is unjustifiable and in a way goes against the spirit of democracy.

Finally, a Lincoln quote, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate itóbreak it, so to speakóbut does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" This makes perfect sense to me. As a Libertarian, even you believe in the enforcing of contracts, no?

Quote
Quote
Radicals never get anything done, and often alienate people from their cause. Lincoln realized that a pragmatic approach was needed. If he took a hard line approach to slavery, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland may have succeeded as well. The Confederates would also rally their people better to fight against the Union. Strategically unwise.

On the contrary, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the areas that the Union Army didn't control. It was pure strategy.

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.

Quote
Quote
High tariffs were much more viable an option then they are now. There was no internet, no telephones, no airplanes. Einzige gave good justifications as well.

The government functioned for several decades w/o high tariffs.

I concede this. However, didn't Thomas Jefferson, a man you libertarians admire so much, push for a unilateral embargo. Besides, I'm not going to let one position cause me to hate a President.

Quote
Quote
As far as I'm concerned, the Confederates started the war. They fired the first shot. They were contesting the border states, instead of allowing them to vote for whether they wanted to remain in the Union or join the Confederates.

Just like the Poles started WWII by "firing the first shot" at Gleiwicz, right? Roll Eyes

Hitler claimed Poland belonged to Germany and was preparing to invade, though he had no reason to.

Quote
Quote
From Wikipedia, and yes, I checked, it was cited, "This meeting left the future General Sherman "sadly disappointed" at Lincoln's seeming failure to realize that "the country was sleeping on a volcano" and the South was "preparing for war." As you can see, Lincoln didn't expect war, therefore didn't want to start a war.

Take that!

Actions speak louder than words. He had threatened war if the Southern states didn't pay their tariff revenue.

Citation please.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #171 on: July 10, 2009, 11:27:21 am »
Ignore

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #172 on: July 10, 2009, 11:33:04 am »
Ignore

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #173 on: July 10, 2009, 11:40:20 am »
Ignore

Again, it is well documented that Lincoln opposed slavery from a young age. His own pastor was anit-slavery.

The strategy was to not force the slave states to rescind slaver, but to prohibit slavery from spreading, thus letting it whither and die.
The best you could do is make the argument that Lincoln was a flip-flopper on the issue of slavery. There is no way you could successfully argue that he was any sort of dedicated abolitionist.

Did you even read the page I linked to? With an open mind I might add.

Yes, and it contains little more than baseless speculation to try to explain away the many occasions in which Lincoln made clear he didn't have a problem with slavery.
Logged
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10908
United States


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: July 10, 2009, 12:00:56 pm »
Ignore

Federalist
John Adams

Democratic-Republican
James Monroe

Whigs
Milliard Fillmore

Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson

Republican
Benjamin Harrison

Just curious, why Harrison compared to the other largely interchangable Gilded Age presidents (Grant, Arthur, etc)?
Logged

Your self-serving slacktivism is propelling America to new heights.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines