Soback Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 LOL, and how would lazy people who can't support themselfs support each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 quote:LOL, and how would lazy people who can't support themselfs support each other? They don't! It's perfect! Anyhoo, on to my serious post. quote: Originally posted by: Simparadox Again, this is just completely wrong. Coupled with the rest of your proposed prerequisites you're creating an elite minority that will actually be allowed to vote. In general this minority will never vote for anyone willing to change the system, even if that reflects the general will of the people. Not only is that unconstitutional, it's just plain wrong. You destroy the idea that Congress represents the people, since all Congressional members know they can only be re-elected if they pass laws that benefit the voting minority. You are absolutely correct, and Jaguar, I feel the need to tone down the extremity of what you propose. At the very least, I would say that only those who pay taxes, thereby contributing to the government should have a voice. Those who are without jobs, and sit on welfare, have one special vote buying provision - who promises to give out the most handouts for the least amount of effort? Democrats because to the Dems it is political. I believe that only those who contribute to the government in some form should have a voice in that government - including those who no longer support it through taxes but retired after having supported it for most of their life. Government "handouts" however should only be enjoyed by a select few - the military. I say this because they sacrifice the most and should enjoy more benefits than the guy who sits on his couch all day watching tv.Let's not forget that the great majority of those people who are poor are poor by choice. They choose not to work. Here's where I have to draw the line. If they choose not to work, it is synonym to choosing not to eat. If they have no choice in the matter (i.e. handicap etc.) they are eligible for *charity*.All handouts to non-supporters of our government should be regulated by non-profit organizations that have guidlines as to who is and isn't able to draw money. Those who have chosen not to work need not apply. quote:Remember that a reactionary can be as dangerous to freedom and rights as a radical. A good thing to keep in mind. quote: By Charles Taxation without representation. Ring a bell? Deciding who can and who cannot vote would be just that. However, those who aren't paying taxes obviously deserve no representation, would you agree? I'm saying that those who don't contribute to this countries government should have no voice in how that government runs things. Contributing is as simple as getting a job, $5.00 an hour even, and keeping it while paying taxes. Those who don't even do that aren't worthy of representation or tax money. It's different if the person is handicapped or whatever, but if they are able to do ANYTHING even if it means being a greeter at Wal-Mart, they should do it. The only excuse I see to not doing something is if you are bed-ridden and medicine ridden to the point you are unable to coordinate your body, or mentally incompetent. Other than that what excuse is there beyond laziness? Sorry but those who are "lazy" should not eat. quote: By Jaguar Sorry if I sound hardcore here, but I am tired of my constitution being trampled on because EVERYONE and his brother has the right to vote. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW. democracies do not work and have NEVER worked, it is called MOB rule!! This is a republic, and if what it takes to get it back on track is kick out every bozo in office and making prerequisites to vote, then so be it. I love my country and want it here for my children, but at the rate things are going, it's not gonna be!! I'm sick of it too Jaguar, but we have to compose ourselves. Leave the Democrats and Liberals to their temper tantrums. It was after all Republicans who perfected temper tantrums until they were able to gain control of both houses of Congress.I know what you mean about this country for our children , however I am doing my best in raising mine to obey the constitution and to keep in mind what this country was founded on. I refuse to send them to a government school ever.I would rather my children look up to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington than Elton John and Eminem. I believe in a mostly Libertarian ideal that everyone has the right in this country to do whatever they so desire as long as it does not impact anyone's right to do the same.Namely the rights to life, liberty, and the "pursuit" of happiness.I will do what I can, and raise them the best I can, to survive in a world that is growing more corrupt and keep their ideals and faith in a better tommorow strong. What else can we do? It's too late to change anything and too early to shoot the bastards. About Social Security, yes it's a socialist ideal the way it is now, but my idea is the same as yours Jag, privatize and number everyones account so that the money that they draw is limited to what they paid in. That goes with my idea earlier, that social security could be a supplemental income should you fall out of work for any reason, you should be able to draw up to 2/3 of what you were making while working, for a certain amount of time (until it's gone), that way, there is incentive to find another job QUICKLY. Whatever you have paid in over the years you can choose the 2/3 method after retirement *or* you can draw it all at once, to invest any way you like.I would start a social security debate, but I think my idea sums up what I would say there.Like I said about liberals however, they follow good intentions without worrying about repercussions. After all, the USA had good intentions helping Fidel overthrow the government in Cuba. The USA had good intentions helping Ho-Chi-Mign in World War 2, only to meet him again heading Vietnam.And for the ultimate irony: We had good intentions training Arabs from other countries how to fly.We don't need "save the world" good intentions. We need a practical system that meets the needs of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simparadox Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Anyhoo, on to my serious post. Woohoo! Lots to respond to! Here goes.. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: At the very least, I would say that only those who pay taxes, thereby contributing to the government should have a voice. Let's not forget that the great majority of those people who are poor are poor by choice. They choose not to work. Here's where I have to draw the line. If they choose not to work, it is synonym to choosing not to eat. If they have no choice in the matter (i.e. handicap etc.) they are eligible for *charity*.However, those who aren't paying taxes obviously deserve no representation, would you agree? I, for one, agree with you completely here. If they're not paying taxes then they aren't contributing to the country in any way what-so-ever. And since they're not eligible to pay taxes that clearly means they're not even contributing to the economy in any sort of meaningful way. They do not, in any way, deserve an actual voice in government. They have nothing to contribute to our government, our society, or our country and thus do not get to have a say in how it's run. Simple. quote:I would rather my children look up to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington than Elton John and Eminem. I believe in a mostly Libertarian ideal that everyone has the right in this country to do whatever they so desire as long as it does not impact anyone's right to do the same.I thought you sounded a bit like a Libertarian. It's too bad you don't live in Connecticut, even the rich people here (and there sure are a lot of 'em) are liberals - we can use more people who don't think Bill Clinton is God. quote: About Social Security, yes it's a socialist ideal the way it is now, but my idea is the same as yours Jag, privatize and number everyones account so that the money that they draw is limited to what they paid in. That goes with my idea earlier, that social security could be a supplemental income should you fall out of work for any reason, you should be able to draw up to 2/3 of what you were making while working, for a certain amount of time (until it's gone), that way, there is incentive to find another job QUICKLY. Whatever you have paid in over the years you can choose the 2/3 method after retirement *or* you can draw it all at once, to invest any way you like.I like this. Honestly, Social Security is a much better idea than Welfare. I know for a fact that, without it, my grandparents wouldn't have been able to keep up the quality of life they had before retirement. Is it their fault for not planning for retirement more carefully? Probably, but they still spent a huge amount of time as part of the work force, paying into social security - they deserve to get something back. And as a fall back for bad situations it works well. The idea of privatizing it is a good one - take it out of the government's hands and you no longer risk your money being spent elsewhere. You know it's there and that you have some help if things should get bad. quote:We don't need "save the world" good intentions. We need a practical system that meets the needs of the people.Couldn't have said it any better myself . Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simparadox Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Soback: LOL, and how would lazy people who can't support themselfs support each other?It could be an evil, sneaky trick to get them off welfare. You just have to hope they're smart enough to get a job when they realize they have to use the money the government gives them to pay for all of the other blood sucking leeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderJohnson Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Simparadox: It could be an evil, sneaky trick to get them off welfare. You just have to hope they're smart enough to get a job when they realize they have to use the money the government gives them to pay for all of the other blood sucking leeches. That's the whole point. You WANT the scum sucking leeches to have to pay for each other, because eventually the money will run dry and they'll have to get a job if they want to stay alive. Or they can die pounding on the doors of government offices (that much closer to the "Health Department", that way they can bury the bodies quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted December 11, 2001 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Why I don't like guns. I just don't. Not because I had a bad experience with them or anything of that nature but simply because of what they are. They are a tool for killing. That's something I don't want to be a part of; something I don't want to be capable of. I've shot a gun. I was a cub scout. Some little .22 rifle I think. The stock (?) against the shoulder, look down the sights, aim at the target, pull the trigger, and hear my bullet go skittering off into the woods. I've also had a roommate who had two very large rifles. We had them on a gun rack in the living room. My chess set still bears the scar where it fell when he was moving out. I also had a BB gun around here somewhere. I remember shooting it at rocks. I was having cat difficulties I was going to take care of. I think one of the roommates snuck back in and got it though. I'm not scared of them. I just don't want one. You may have yours. The Constitution says so. Someone's got to carry the damme things. I don't. I have wondered what would happen if I did own a gun. Would I carry it? If I did carry it and some criminal jumped me with theirs already pulled could I get to mine? Would it be worth it? Things might be different if I lived in a big city or frequented higher crime areas but I don't. Come to think of it there have been some car jackings at malls. Doubt they'll want my escort but they might want my wallet. I might just go buy a decoy wallet, fill it with like a five and a bunch of ones and give that one away if I ever get mugged. I just dont' want a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderJohnson Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 You don't want a gun! That's ANTI-AMERICAN! If you don't want to exercise your right to bear arms, that's not exerting your rights as an American as much as possible! You are also denouncing your right to a speedy and fair trial since you should go out and kill someone so you can exercise your right to a fair and speedy trial by your peers right now! You are denouncing your right to free speech since you haven't been standing up in the middle of KKK rallies and saying that you think minorities are the greatest group to ever come to America! YOU ANTI-AMERICAN PERSON!!!!(If you didn't notice the sarcasm/joking/totally harmless nature of this post, don't worry about it, it is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Charles,I am sorry, but I just cannot relate.I feel naked without my gun, I carry it with me EVERYWHERE!! As a matter of fact it is on my belt as I type this. Nice littel CZ-70 .32 caliber, 9 in the mag, and one in the chamber, and spare mag next to it.A gun is the tool I have to equalize a situation, I am a small statured man, and bullies are everywhere. I almost had to pull it a month ago at the movie theater parking lot when some thug decided that I took his parking space, (he was nowhere near me) and pulled a big old 5 cell mag lite on me and threatened to pummel me with it. I'd be in the hospital still if I had not warned him to back off or I'd shoot a hole in him. (He was arrested by the way, and I pressed charges)That is only the 2nd time I have ever had to threaten with my gun, otherwise it sits in it's holster, just like a hammer or a tape measure. It is there for when I need it, and most of the time I don't.And yes, I have concealed carry permits for both the state of Washington and Oregon, and when they finally decide to give out a federal CWP I will get that as well.An armed society is a polite society.But, I am glad to see that you respect my right to carry a firearm, and if there is ever a need, I hope that someone with a firearm will be there to protect you, just as I know that there are people out there that will do thier best to protect me, although, my personal security, is my responsibility and mine alone. The police cannot be everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 *Pops in briefly, with raised eyebrow at opportunity to IMPOSE opinion on others*I believe that mandatory military service (aka the draft) should be an option. HOWEVER, the only time I think that it should be actually employed is if the US homeland is actually threatened itself and manpower is required. I do NOT believe that people should be forced to fight wars of "interest" (ala Vietnam). I honor all of those who fought in Vietnam but hold great disdain for the leaders that sent them there. So, in summary, keep the Selective Service system, but only use it when our nation itself is in jeapardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Owning a gun is the same as owning fire insurance on your house. You may not need it, but if you do need it you are SOL if you don't have it.That's the simplest way I've thought of to let people know why I feel the need to have guns around the house.I don't have many guns anymore, just my Mossberg 500 12 guage pump shotgun with pistol grip(loaded) sitting on top of the air conditioning unit, my 243 with a scope in the corner, next to the AK 47 with 9 30 round magazines and 400 rounds of 7.62 X 39mm ammunition.Each within 3 steps of me. Once I turn 21 I am going to be carrying a glock, I started to get one now, but the laws are kind of funny about being under 21. Though it would be possible for me to take all the Alabama loop holes and carry it now, I decided to wait till it's less of a hassle and I don't have to worry about cops who are ignorant of the laws they enforce.[AFTER EDIT] I know any liberal reading this probably has soiled himself and whined "assault rifle!". But like I said, in the event I ever need any of the above weapons I have them.[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Silk,PUT THOSE PUPPIES IN storage!! Do not take them with you in the military. They will REQUIRE you to lock them in the armory.If you need storage space, I got a killer safe here, and I would take VERY good care of them for you!!! If you live on post, DO NOT have a firearm in your apartment/house/unit, they will have hissy fits, I know, but I am just stating facts. And if you live off post, DO NOT let them know that you have firearms, they again will require you to lock them up in the armory.Just giving you fair warning!! And what's with this 400 rounds bit? I have at least 1000 rounds for EACH weapon on hand. Yeah, a little crazy, but let's see you go to the corner gun shop during a riot!! [ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 I haven't exactly had enough money to purchase EVERYTHING I want so I've had to expend about another 400 rounds without being able to replace as of now.Thanks for the heads up, but my wife will be watching them until I get base housing or whatever, and then I will decide what to do with them. Thanks for the offer though, and if I need a place to store, you will be the person I contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Geez, guys, I just have an HK 45 with 50 rounds laying around somewhere ready. More than adequate for anything I'd ever need...I have a few other weapons but those remain locked up unless I feel like shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted December 12, 2001 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 quote:I believe that mandatory military service (aka the draft) should be an option. There was supposed to be a "not" in there wasn't there? quote:So, in summary, keep the Selective Service system, but only use it when our nation itself is in jeapardy. Yup, signing up for it should remain mandatory. The military would still have right to refuse a candidate but also have the right to recall previous rejectees if things got really dire. Let's hope it doesn't get that way. quote:I am sorry, but I just cannot relate. That's ok. Keeps things interesting. quote:However, those who aren't paying taxes obviously deserve no representation, would you agree? I was going to. It sounds nice. But you'd have to change the constitution. quote:THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW.Is so. It's democratic because every one can vote. quote:democracies do not work and have NEVER worked, it is called MOB rule!! You are talking about a pure democracy. You are right, the US isn't that. quote:This is a republic, Because we vote for representatives. But we vote democratically. I have only seen the term once here but I believe it's a democratic republic. But it's just so much nicer to call it a democracy. Start calling it a republic and it starts reminding people of the People's Repulic of China, and the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Technically we are a republic but I think the term democracy was cultivated very carefully. Now that I've upset everyone........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 quote: Technically we are a republic but I think the term democracy was cultivated very carefully. Yes, It was, and the reason is that the Democrats wish everyone to think that we are a democracy.The Founding Fathers would have a fit IF ANYONE ever said to them that we were a democracy, they would have a TOTAL COW!! They knew what a democracy was and wanted NOTHING to so with it!!See the 17th amendment to see how the Constitution and the rights of the states was screwed to the wall. This amendment in my opinion was the beginning of the end for our great republic, along of course with the 16th amendment.[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 quote:There was supposed to be a "not" in there wasn't there?Uh, no. I believe it should remain an option. quote:Yup, signing up for it should remain mandatory. The military would still have right to refuse a candidate but also have the right to recall previous rejectees if things got really dire. Let's hope it doesn't get that way.Yeah, though I think you kind of miss my point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 ... and to the Republic, for which it stands...-A quote from a little song about some flag... maybe you've heard of it... BTW, get you a copy of the constitution & the declaration of independance, and compare how many times you see the word Republic, as compared to the word or words Democracy, Democratic, Socialist, Communist, etc. [ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2001 Report Share Posted December 12, 2001 Since we were discussing guns, I thought that I would throw some humor in here.This says it all right here, because I have been called this. quote:"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"OK, now that was one of my favorites, here's my other favorite. quote: "Anybody worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." OK, Now the rest, I get a real laugh out of these. quote:The World According To ClintClint Smith, director of Thunder Ranch, is part drill instructor, part stand-up comic. Here are a few of his observations on tactics, firearms, self defense and life as we know it in the civilized world.Tactics: "So a guy says, ‘I’m good! I move, I shoot, I communicate.’ Yeah, but can you do it on the ground? Because that’s where you’re gonna be in a fight."Gunfights: "It’s real different when the bad guy shoots back. It doesn’t mean you’re going to lose, it just makes the story more interesting afterward."Caution: "The best example of good training is to never get in a fight."Defensive Driving: "If you’re accosted, don’t get out of the car. Put it in some other gear and put both feet on the gas. Clint’s school of driving-add power!"Running Out Of Ammo: "If pointing an empty gun at your opponent makes him duck, you may live for an extra two seconds-and who knows? I may find another gun, the bad guy may give up, or the ammo fairy may drop me a magazine."Target Recognition: "If we’re going down a hall and I see the end of a double barrel shotgun, I better communicate to my partner, ‘cause I can be pretty sure it’s not the Easter bunny on the other end."Marksmanship: "Open up the ground between you and the threat. At arm’s distance, you opponent doesn’t have to be good, he just has to be lucky."Coordination: "It doesn’t do me any good to have a partner and shoot ‘em-although I’ve had some partners I’d like to shoot."Verbal Skills: "You better learn to communicate real well, because when you’re out there on the street, you’ll have to talk to a lot more people than you’ll have to shoot, or at least that’s the way I think it’s supposed to work."Big Bore Sixguns: "...He asked, ‘Did you hit him?’ Hey, I don’t know, but he was smokin’ when he ran outta here."Counting Your Shots: "It’s our experience that in a fight you will continue to shoot the gun until the threat goes away or until the gun is empty."Hesitation: "Don’t be a deer caught in the headlights of the Kenworth of life!"Long Guns Vs. Handguns: "They say you can’t use a rifle or shotgun indoors because a bad guy will grab the barrel. Yeah? Well, he better hang on, ‘cause I’m gonna light him up and it’ll definitely be an "E" ticket ride."Conserving Ammo: "People ask, ‘What do you do if the guy’s on drugs?’ Shoot ‘em! ‘But what if it doesn’t work?’ Shoot ‘em some more!"The Defensive Mindset: "The only reason we would plant our feet is to dig ‘em real good so we can run, ‘cause we’re about to get the hell out of here."The Survival Instinct: "Anyone can understand shooting to protect themselves. You give me five minutes and I’ll make anyone on this planet mad enough to shoot me. The real question is, will they have that much time in a fight? You need to make that decision before you start to fight-only you life depends on it."More: "The handgun would not be my choice of weapon if I knew I was going to a fight. I’d choose a rifle, a shotgun, an RPG or an atomic bomb instead.""The two most important rules in a gunfight are: always cheat and always win.""Every time I teach a class, I discover I don’t know something.""Don’t forget, incoming fire has the right of way.""Make (your attacker) advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he’s gonna have to beat me to death with it, ‘cause it’s going to be empty.""If you’re not shootin’, you should be loadin’. If you’re not loadin’, you should be movin’. If you’re not movin’, someone’s gonna cut your head off and put it on a stick.""When you reload (in low light encounters), don’t put your flashlight in your back pocket. If you light yourself up, you’ll look like an angel or the tooth fairy - and you’re gonna be one of ‘em pretty soon.""Do something. It may be wrong, but do something.""Nothing adds a little class to a sniper course like a babe in a ghille suit.""Shoot what’s available, as long as it’s available, until something else becomes available.""If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?""Don’t shoot fast, shoot good.""You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or use any other word you think will work, but I’ve found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much the universal language.""You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it.""You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family.""(Thunder Ranch) will be here as long as you’ll have us or until someone makes us go away, and either way it’ll be exciting." Thought I'd share, yes, I have a strange sense of humour, so sue me!! [ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian1 Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Just a couple of tid bits.Even though I'm a Canadian I am involved with joint business venture with USA firms and they have held conferences about the foundations of the states where I attended. (speakers where USA citizens/historians/business owners). Based on the discussion here you may find some of the points they made interesting:1) Founding father's didn't have jobs. Back then almost everyone had there own business. You had a farm, you where the tanner, you where the store owner or your parents where. The job mentatlity of today is significantly different from when the immigrants, who started and ran businesses, first made the USA.2) The states is actually not a pure 'democracy'. In a true democracy the majority can vote to away the property of any minority. Rather, the United Sates of America are founded as a 'democratic repulic'. Recall 'and the repulic for which it stands'. What that means is that the democracy of your voting ability is below the power of the rights and freedeoms all citizens have. Thus the majority could not just vote to take your possessions and the majority can not just vote to have all of a minority thrown into a cell. The individual has rights and freedomes until such time as they individually violate those of others as per the laws of the repulic.3) In terms of certain people not being able to vote the USA has at least two wars fought over that issue. The first being the War of Independece, the other being the Civil War over the rights of slaves.While I currently feel people should make efforts to contribute to society I have mixed views on a mandatory program. One with benefits yes. Should those benefits directly prohibit rights and freedoms... I feel no.Interesting point has been raised on the Bread&Circuses. I haven't thought of that view before. But yes... those on welfare vote toward a continuation of welfare. Those with the ambition to create and produce avoid such. It's the difference between the welfare 'what the world owes me' versus the business 'what I achieve in the world' thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 quote: 3) In terms of certain people not being able to vote the USA has at least two wars fought over that issue. The first being the War of Independece, the other being the Civil War over the rights of slaves. OK, now I agree with the first part, but the slavery issue for the civil war is not correct. The civil war was fought on states rights, slavery was a very MINOR issue. It was fought because there were 2 different beliefs, first one was that the states gave up thier soveriegn rights when they voted to become part of the US, this was the belief of the North, second was, the states could choose to get out of the US by a majority vote, they gave no soveriegn rights away when they voted to become part of the US.You know who won, and the federal government has become the monster it is because of this.If the South had won, Slavery still would have ended, and I believe civil rights would have come faster to Blacks, but because it was forced on the south, it took a much longer time for Blacks to get the rights they have now. IMHO...The civil war was mainly about states rights, slavery was a secondary issue.Now let's see how hard I get smacked!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted December 13, 2001 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 quote:Yes, It was, and the reason is that the Democrats wish everyone to think that we are a democracy.And what's wrong with that? Honestly? It makes people feel empowered. It certainly makes me feel empowered to believe I am in a nation where everyone has a say in things. And we do. By voting we say who we want to represent us. People know this and we still call it a democracy. We can also complain directly to elected officials and have a say. Don't get me wrong; a say is not your way but everyone can contribute. You did mention Democrats though. I'm curious about that. quote:The Founding Fathers would have a fit IF ANYONE ever said to them that we were a democracyI'm still maintaining the difference between a generally democratic society and a pure democracy. I saw an old 20/20 or something show where they featured a town that was a pure democracy. Everyone voted. It did seem like chaos. But I bet it wasn't that bad in that small town. In the grander scale we need reps though.Even today there are things that are voted on by state wide referendum. At least down here. Everyone votes on a particular issue. It doesn't happen often but it happens. Pure democracy? No. The representatives still proposed whatever it is being voted on. I just don't see the harm in saying we are a democracy. Especially when everyone knows they are voting for someone to represent them. quote:Yeah, though I think you kind of miss my point...Hopefully not by much. Should we keep it? Yes. In my mind everyone of age should therefore register with it. Then of course we would only use it when we need it. quote:... and to the Republic, for which it stands... -A quote from a little song about some flag... maybe you've heard of it... Never heard it sung.I pledge allegiance To the Flag Of the United States of America And to the Republic For which it stands One nation Under god With liberty and Justice for all.The Pledge of Allegiance. Do I get a star? quote:BTW, get you a copy of the constitution & the declaration of independance, and compare how many times you see the word Republic, as compared to the word or words Democracy, Democratic, Socialist, Communist, etc.Did that Monday night. I read the Constitution, The Declaration of Indepence, and the Magna Carta. Didn't copy them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 quote:OK, now I agree with the first part, but the slavery issue for the civil war is not correct. The civil war was fought on states rights, slavery was a very MINOR issue.That is incorrect. Slavery was the driving issue that plunged the states into war with each other. And it wasn't even the abolishing of current slavery laws that did it. The main cause was the debate between whether or not slavery should be permitted in western territories.States rights was an extension of this issue saying that the federal government cannot intervene with state slavery laws. The Confederates were, of course, quite wrong in that because slavery was a direct violation of the Constitution which is the ONLY thing that is supposed to limit state's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 Sorry Aramike,Totally disagree, slavery was not the major issue that most historians make it out to be. It helped create the situation, but WAS NOT the main issue leading to the war, as a matter of fact the issue of Tariffs is the main culprit that pushed it into open hostilities.And don't bring up the emancipation proclamation, That procalmation was a red herring by Lincoln to make the war about slavery, but if you read it closely, it did not free ONE slave anywhere. No, the main issue was states rights and taxation, or unfair tariffs if you want to be specific. The Southern states believed they had been trod upon by the federal government and wanted out, so they created thier own government based on the original constitution except that the federal powers were even more spelled out.Again, Slavery was a MINOR issue, States rights was the driving force that pushed it into open hostilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 Jaguar, that's just plain wrong man. Those were minor justifications, not the catalyst of the war. Read this article for more info: http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?ti...7354&sid=28#s28 Read part 2: Causes of the Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 And I will say again, the civil war was not about slavery, it was turned into that by Lincoln, Lincoln promised in his inaugural address that he would not touch that peculiar institution.It was about states rights, whether most historians agree or not. The victor writes the history Aramike. The South only wanted to be left alone to thier own devices. They voted to remove themselves from the United States because they felt that the industrial North was taking advantage of them through unfair tariffs and taxes. Slavery only became a major issue AFTER the war had started, because Lincoln needed the moral high ground in order to continue his assault on the South.Sorry Aramike, we will never agree on this, I have studied this in depth and most Civil War historians would agree with me.If you really want to see what happened, look at what Lincoln did to the constitution during the civil War, ever wonder how West Virginia came about, how about Lincolns dropping the writ of Habeus Corpus during the war, and the use of military tribunals for crimes by civilians.Lincoln was not the hero he is made out to be, he ignored the constitution in order to save it, and that was just plain wrong. Slavery was dying already, and would have died on it's own through the social outcasts it would have made of slaveholders. I believe that blacks would have recieved thier due rights in less time had the slavery issue not been forced on the south. I believe they would have gotten thier civil rights before WWII if the South had not had it forced upon them. Slavery is and was morally wrong and that feeling was getting VERY strong before the war even started. That is just my opinion of course, and there are no real facts to back it up, just a feeling, after studying history and where it might have gone had the south been successful in thier attempt to secede.Again, the victor writes the history, and having lived in the south for a number of years, and talking to people who's grandparents and parents had fought in the war, and after reading personal diaries etc, it is my belief that the South NEVER considered the civil war about Slavery, and niether did the North, until Lincoln decided to make it so, to give him the moral high ground. Also, my Great Grandfather was a HUGE civil War buff, and studied extensively about it, this is where I got my interest in it. He would have agreed with me as well.And last but not least, less then 5% of all southerners actually owned slaves, why would a majority vote to go to war when in fact it had nothing to do with them, because they DID NOT own slaves? Why, because it was not about slavery, it was about the soveriegnity of states and states rights.[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now