See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Fall of the South: A Sesquicentennial Wake By Bill Buppert
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=3964
Published: Apr 10, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-04-10 12:45:59 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 4100
Comments: 204
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” -Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee: A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman. On this day, 9 April in 1865, the Lincolnian project to enslave the entire nation under the yoke of Union supremacy, central planning and a country administered by national political fiat and the naked fist of government aggression prevailed. The South and the Confederacy for all it flaws died at Appomattox. Lee is often erroneously quoted as saying the following: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand. Supposed made to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870), as quoted in The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, pp. 497-500.” No lesser literary luminaries and historians have said this is false than Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Dade Foote, Jr. and Bruce Catton. This appears to be historical myth-making by Mr. Dabney. My casual research and interest in Lee find this simply does not fit in his character; now there were certainly Confederate worthies who professed such sympathies. Lee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West. A far more competent and talented warrior than the base incompetency and abject martial malpractice of George Washington; he joins the ranks of Douglas Haig (WWI) and Pompey (Rome) for an exaggerated sense of warrior skills untethered to reality. Lee was at the forefront of a Confederate high tide that was destroyed by the Gettysburg debacle and worsening political travails in the South as Davis tried to emulate the Sovietized system of the Union to salvage a victory. At least the South fought to fight a just war in defending their own soil from invasion. I am amused at Union apologists who claim that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. Let me employ a tortured analogy; you buy a house and the owners refuse to vacate and bring friends with guns to ensure you can’t possession of your rightful property. Such was the case in Sumter where the Fort commanded the entry and exit to richest transportation hub in the south employing constant threats against the indigenous community it sat in the middle of. The War Between the States was a Second American Revolution, the last gasp of trying to unshackle the nation from the Constitutional straitjacket that extinguished liberty at every turn. Alexander Stephens, the Vice president of the Confederacy had other ideas. He is no hero of abolition nor a moral man in regards the disposition of humans in chains: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Lincoln claimed this was his only disagreement with Stephens but the curious ability of Lincoln to free all slaves outside his legal jurisdiction and maintain it within his control regime. Historian Clarence Carson has astutely commented: “It should be noted, however, that as of the moment it was issued and to the best of Lincoln’s knowledge, the proclamation did not free a single slave. It did not free a slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, nor in any state or portions of a state within the Confederacy occupied by Union troops…In short, Lincoln freed only those slaves over which he had no control. No doubt that was by design.” As Al Benson Jr. notes: “What it amounted to was, that, as an effective propaganda tool, the proclamation freed only those slaves that the North had no jurisdiction over and it didn’t free any slaves over which the North had some jurisdiction.” Author Webb Garrison, a former dean of Emory University noted that: “…the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – not an edict issued in a dramatic move to better the lives of blacks. No one knew this better than the author of the proclamation. Nine months after it was issued, he told Salmon P. Chase ‘The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure’.” There was no major politician except Charles Sumner on either side interested in the least in emancipation much less abolition of black chattel slavery. Sumner would famously ask Lincoln: “Do you know who is at this moment the largest slaveholder in the United States?” Sumner informed Lincoln that he was the largest slaveholder because the President “holds all the slaves of the District of Columbia.” This ended on paper in 1862. This war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit. The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. Go guerrilla indeed, what would the future have wrought? Poster Comment: "The birth of Empire. Not a damned living soul has lived under the Constitution as it was intended in 1787-1791 – or at least as it was said to be intended."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 187.
#5. To: X-15 (#0)
The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. The above is about all I can agree with. The author doesn't like Lee's "No, Sir, not by me" quote -- why? Even if it's true about Lee and Gettysburg, he appears to buy the notion that slavery was this huge evil deal. "The disposition of humans in chains" -- please. The point is that the entire war was the embodiment of yankee arrogance and hypocrisy and totally unnecessary. It itself is a stain much bigger and blacker on our history than slavery will ever be -- and it's really a blotch on the New England states and the covert Jew from hell they elected in 1860 and '64. Nota bene, I value a good Northerner as much as anybody and treasure the many of them who have supported the modern Southern rights movement. But they're not yankees, they're present and former Northerners -- major difference. Many of them, however, have had to work to shake off the diversity dementia most people are born with beyond Dixie's borders. The Yankee Problem in America http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html
I got into a typical war-like debate with war on this very topic not long ago here. It was of course laden with the typical reading comprehension issues and challenges in logic that war seems to be perpetually faced with. Debating with him is like watching a dog chase its tail in circles but never catching it. Lincoln worship in this country is akin to Churchill worship in England. Both men were personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the moral basis of their very nations, in one case terminally for an empire, in the other the forerunner of the nation that we've become and on the cusp of the destruction of a similar empire.
Lincoln worship in this country is akin to Churchill worship in England. Both men were personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the moral basis of their very nations, in one case terminally for an empire, in the other the forerunner of the nation that we've become and on the cusp of the destruction of a similar empire. Very astute. I'd say there's no point even dialoguing with war anymore -- in some thread I asked him doggedly whether it's true he's an Obongo-loving "progressive" who was banned from here once, and he doggedly didn't say one word in response -- so even if he should do so henceforth, he's already admitted it in my book. EVERYBODY LISTEN TO YOUR FRIEND NN -- don't waste any more time debating war! What do you say we just stonewall the gliberals who come around here? Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS! BTW, I have to agree with Cynicom's and X-15's answers to you here. "Why not firebomb Berlin, Hanover, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, etc. too then?" The Jew world order makes sense sometimes but not others. Could be the world was so shocked by Dresden they didn't want to repeat it. Remember, Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened to have unusually large Christian presence for Japan.
Don't forget about the first person of their unholy trinity: Abraham Lincoln. For several years, 4 of every 5 editions were dedicated at least in part to exalting that mass murderer. Then a couple of years ago they switched over to Reagan/Churchill idolatry, and I thought that perhaps their formerly incessant philosiminianism was only a case of temporary monkey love. But the latest issue (March 2015) disabused me of that foolish notion, and it appears that they were only recoiling a little that they might strike the better. Lincoln is again the Supreme One, from whose mouth and pen flow rivers of wisdom and righteousness. The ape and/or his memorial are mentioned 16 times. And in the spirit of trinitarian propriety, Churchill and Reagan also garner a couple of mentions each. Oh, and the statue of liberty -- "the greatest light since the Star of Bethlehem." Have a five gallon emetic bucket handy when you read it, especially the last two sentences: ".. the moral regeneration of America that (Frank) Capra had hoped to bring about will require more than a Capra. It will require a Lincoln."
Have a five gallon emetic bucket handy when you read it, especially the last two sentences: ".. the moral regeneration of America that (Frank) Capra had hoped to bring about will require more than a Capra. It will require a Lincoln." Yeah, I mentioned Lincoln in 18. what do we expect though from someone with those credentials, they're mired in establishment politics. Anyone approaching that on the basis that the foundation is not flawed can only come up with conclusions well outside the bounds of reality. The vast majority of Americans believe that, it's stunning. Many agree on the symptoms, but on the playing field handed to them by the government, not on one that makes any holistic sense.
Still not getting the semi-colon *thingie*, eh?
Always good to hear from you war. You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale. It's OK though, these days the government is squarely in the corner of the less intellectually fortunate. So you've got that going for you.
Chyea...but @ *49* I'm still @ a comfortable 4x's higher than you. Have no fear...you do still rank quite high on the not normal scale of the intelligence curve. Here's a helpful hint: When you want to insult someone over their level of *intelligence* either learn how to write a clear and concise sentence or find someone to ghost for you...I'm sure that the G-Man who is watching you from inside of your closet will be *happy* to *help*. It's OK though, these days the government is squarely in the corner of the less intellectually fortunate. Oh...he already is...carry on...
I'd bet you money that your IQ is not within 20 points of mine. Either way, yet one more classic post by you demonstrating that your ability to focus and coordinate thoughts is abjectly defunct.
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
I'm bored, actually looking for a little one-upper contest here. There's nothing real to debate, the poster's a fool thru and thru. I'm not biting on anything worth discussing. war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people. Then, when challenged, he becomes frantic, adversarial, refuses to consider anything else while insisting that he/she is open-minded. Classic Americanism.
Just to defend myself here, if it's not hockey or a movie or, maybe a Law & Order or M*A*S*H rerun, I'm not watching TV at all.
Oh, boy -- Mash and Law and Order, two of the most libjew shows ever! I would advise you not to defend yourself any further, conflict! ROTF....
Is that why I feel so compelled to eat crackers and drink sweet wine - all over clean white linen - when I watch them?
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
Well...Saltines and Riesling and we WASPs always have white linen around..w.e just usually don't eat crackers and drink sweet wine over it... On the other hand, it has been a while since I've had a pint of the old Mad Dog 20-20...
There are numerous white so-called liberals, it's true, and you're notably still not denying that part -- a consistent pattern for weeks or months now. Let the record show you are a so-called liberal. AH -- too late to deny it. Silence has been connoting assent for too long!
I am a proud liberal, mon frère... How has anyone gotten it in to their head that I am not or somehow *refuse* to admit to it?
How has anyone gotten it in to their head that I am not or somehow *refuse* to admit to it? I've only challenged you on it 4 or 5 times. Why the coyness? So, what are you doing here in a conservative site? Feel sure I've asked you that too. Aucun libéral ne sera mon frère!
My *Tab* key doesn't work...
Another cheap evasion..... Yep. You're liberal. As misdefined today at any rate. Evasions and name-calling are all these individuals have. How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
Frankly, I'm not a fan of Senators running for POTUS. I've run organizations...some small...some rather large...it's always BETTER to have someone in there with executive experience...Governors have always been the better Presidents... That said, I was unhappy that he caved on the size of the stim but understood at the time that he was looking for a bipartisanship that shares a similar existence to a virgin prostitute...the stim did one part of its job, tho, but it should have been extended...I was further disappointed when he took the Medicaid buy in option out of his health care plan but I believe that ACA has been highly effective. I'd still like to see a Medicaid buy-in for those who are just above being covered under the expansion... I was not a fan of the Libya campaign which, I think, he got goaded in to by believing that Kaddaffy would give way to a consensus government ala Kosovo... That said, I believe that he's done a decent job of it...much, much better than his predecessor...but not as good as Clinton...
It's good to have in on the record here that you support the biggest liar yet to hit the campaign trail. You're "not a fan of the Libya campaign", how do you like his stomping one country after another to death to please Izrul after promising to bring the troops home? To cite just one of the whoppers he worked before getting himself into the Oral Office (as it's been called since your other hero Slick Willy). Notice I'm not saying "since he got elected." I don't believe he ever has been, not legitimately.
It's not even close...Dumn Dumb was, without a doubt, the biggest liar as well as dumbest POTUS that this nation has ever seen. Fortunately, history is treating as one of the worst... how do you like his stomping one country after another to death Huh? One...huh after a what? IF McCain were POTUS the draft would have to have been reinstated to provide enough soldiers for his adventures...if anything, Obama has kept us out of war, not an easy task given how militarized this nation has been since WWII... after promising to bring the troops home ...from where? Iraq? Notice I'm not saying "since he got elected." I don't believe he ever has been, not legitimately. And why would that be?
No, Obozo is a bigger liar, ptly because he's throwing far more "wars" (actually national rapes). The comparison with McCain is so lame as to be laughable. The only thing that matters is how Obozo rates compared to what he promised and compared to his Constitutional job description -- and he's worse than a mere zero on both. He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American, and is in any case a total traitor to everything that's normally gone under that rubric. Indeed the whole system is corrupted or he'd be no more than an obscure dishwasher at Man's Country Adult Entertainment.
He has a birth certificate that says he's an American from the State of Hawaii, with legal signatures and seal.
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
If it has the raised seal, and the correct signature stamp, its genuine. What turned out to be fake was the guy claiming Obama's bc was a forgery.
Where is it to be viewed, warsmom, why did he balk for so long at showing it, and why did they seal the records in Hawaii? The governess no less! http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79174/ Even if he were an actual citizen, there's still too much fraud and mystery all around him. As a mulatto, communist, warmonger and perpetual liar, he is NOT the founding fathers' and mothers' original intent for chief executive of this country.
Here is a timeline, and an image of the BC www.politifact.com/truth-...rth-certificate-timeline/ Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not.
By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville. OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit.
2.OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever. 3. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. 1. What logic leads you to that conclusion? 2. It is so lame, it couldn't be a forgery. It looks exactly like it would look if the original were bound (along with other birth certificates) and photocopied onto security paper. All anyone ever gets is a COPY of the original document. It is the seal and signature stamp that makes it genuine and legal. 3. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something I rarely say - I am correct.
3. YOU LOSE. You might as well quit. 1. What logic leads you to that conclusion? 2. It is so lame, it couldn't be a forgery. It looks exactly like it would look if the original were bound (along with other birth certificates) and photocopied onto security paper. All anyone ever gets is a COPY of the original document. It is the seal and signature stamp that makes it genuine and legal. 3. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say something I rarely say - I am correct. 1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning! 2. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here.
2. Sorry, but this supposed copy simply won't do. Not for a communist pseudo- president or even the jerk as 2008 candidate. And he did balk -- there was much controversy over the B.C. till this blatant fake was finally produced. You have to remember it, it was only 7-8 years ago. (Copying a doc with a plain background onto security paper? They're just flaunting their fraud like they love to do, cf. how they laid Vince Foster out in Fort Marcy Park and then claimed it was suicide!) 3. You admit you're wrong most of the time -- that's progress. And momsy, I can't promise to discuss it further with you. If you support Obozo you're delusional and don't even belong here. 1. If by original intent you mean the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human being, then yes. Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. 2. Obama released his short form certificate before he was ever asked, that's what started the whole birther movement. Speaking as a professional, I can tell you it would be much more difficult to produce what you think is blatant fake than one that would pass your test. What is outrageous about putting a sheet of security paper in a photo copier to make an official copy of an existing document? 3. I don't recall reading that love, hate, or just plain indifference to Obama was a requirement for forum membership. Perhaps you would quote the relevant text. What I love is the truth.
Far from irrelevant, the belief that blacks were inferior and not counted as full human beings was an integral part of slavery. This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were. What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also.
what started the whole birther movement What you call the birther movement (in deriding shorthand of the Left about Advocates of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement of natural born citizenship for the Presidency) was reportedly started by Democrats regarding the likelihood of McCain's citizenship status being non-qualifying, before Obama's was questioned also. How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there? Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. (You are no slouch in the deriding department) You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began.
Southerners wanted the benefit of increasing their representation in Congress - that's why they wanted their non-voting, non-citizen slaves counted. Of course it wasn't the interests of the slaves that was represented, it was their white owners. Actually counting slaves as 3/5 of a free person did increase the slave holding states representation by a third, giving them considerable power in Congress. Doesn't matter so much, imo, how many other Slaves there might have been or not as it does that any Slaves, being considered then to be non-citizens, were counted at all in the census. Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero -- Repeat: Zero...not even fractionally -- but non-citizen Blacks not free to be taxed were counted higher as three fifths? I'm still astonished. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the South would have been glad to have them all counted fully to increase its Congressional representation and power. I am usually, I'd say. Practice daily at trying to stay polite and courteous always but still slip sometimes. Alrighty then. I'll take your word for the four day interval assertion because I don't have time now to verify it. Good that we can dispense with anymore caricatures of "birtherism" as Conservative "persecution" of Obama's citizenship status particularly. Btw, it wasn't just Democrats who were questioning McCain's citizenship status prior to questions about Obama. I know that to be so because I was among the questioners of McCain's status, even though I am a Conservative (not a Democrat, possibly motivated only to reduce competition instead of it being simply a matter of Constitutionality).
No. The US government made treaties with Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were located within the borders of the US but separate from it.
#195. To: lucysmom (#187)
(Edited)
No. The US government made treaties with Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were located within the borders of the US but separate from it. I'm fairly certain that we didn't have treaties with all of the Indian tribes and, in fact, we were still at war with the Apaches then, iirc. Might we have had formal Trade Treaties or Slave Trade agreements of record with some African countries that Black Slaves here would have been considered citizens of and their descendants? Probably but treaties are, imo, beside the point of any non-citizen/foreign nationals within the borders of the US being counted at all and, worse, counted differently ... a Black Slave in this country for one day counted higher -- 60% higher -- than Native Americans born here and living here all their lives counted as Zero. If you're ok with that, I don't even want to hear about it. I've done what I can to address this topic that you brought up. If all you've gotten from it by now is that the South would have been ok with counting Slaves fully but it was the North that wasn't ok with it so much because then the South could have about doubled its Congressional representation and power (enough to maybe repeal some taxes, as well as reroute such revenues from the North's profiteers), I'll count that as something more than nothing. Not much more, though, because it should have been common knowledge already by simple common sense and not another exercise in Leftist stonewalling.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit.
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
#18. To: Katniss (#7)
(Edited)
I got into a typical war-like debate with war on this very topic not long ago here. It was of course laden with the typical reading comprehension issues and challenges in logic that war seems to be perpetually faced with. Debating with him is like watching a dog chase its tail in circles but never catching it.
#55. To: NeoconsNailed, Katniss (#18)
Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS!
#63. To: StraitGate, NeoconsNailed (#55)
Don't forget about the first person of their unholy trinity: Abraham Lincoln. For several years, 4 of every 5 editions were dedicated at least in part to exalting that mass murderer. Then a couple of years ago they switched over to Reagan/Churchill idolatry, and I thought that perhaps their formerly incessant philosiminianism was only a case of temporary monkey love. But the latest issue (March 2015) disabused me of that foolish notion, and it appears that they were only recoiling a little that they might strike the better. Lincoln is again the Supreme One, from whose mouth and pen flow rivers of wisdom and righteousness. The ape and/or his memorial are mentioned 16 times. And in the spirit of trinitarian propriety, Churchill and Reagan also garner a couple of mentions each. Oh, and the statue of liberty -- "the greatest light since the Star of Bethlehem."
John Marini, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School. He has also taught at Agnes Scott College, Ohio University, and the University of Dallas. He is on the board of directors of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a member of the Nevada Advisory Committee of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
#64. To: Katniss (#63)
Yeah, I mentioned Lincoln in 18. what do we expect though from someone with those credentials, they're mired in establishment politics.
#77. To: war, All (#64)
#86. To: Katniss (#77)
(Edited)
You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale.
#88. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
#91. To: Katniss (#88)
#96. To: NeoconsNailed (#91)
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
#105. To: Katniss (#96)
war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people.
#111. To: war (#105)
Just to defend myself here, if it's not hockey or a movie or, maybe a Law & Order or M*A*S*H rerun, I'm not watching TV at all.
#112. To: NeoconsNailed (#111)
#113. To: war (#112)
#114. To: NeoconsNailed (#113)
Since you're such a liberal, yeah -- matzohs and Manischewitz on a heap of nice silky tallitot.
#115. To: war (#114)
#116. To: NeoconsNailed (#115)
#117. To: war (#116)
I am a proud liberal, mon frère...
#118. To: NeoconsNailed (#117)
So, what are you doing here in a conservative site?
#119. To: war (#118)
(Edited)
#120. To: NeoconsNailed (#119)
How are you liking your putative president's work at this point?
#122. To: war (#120)
#124. To: NeoconsNailed (#122)
It's good to have in on the record here that you support the biggest liar yet to hit the campaign trail.
#125. To: war (#124)
#128. To: NeoconsNailed (#125)
He's illegit because he's never proved he's an actual American
#129. To: lucysmom (#128)
#132. To: NeoconsNailed (#129)
Got a picture of it? hopefully not the one where the contents are straight though the background design clearly curving.
#135. To: lucysmom (#132)
#137. To: NeoconsNailed (#135)
Even if he were an actual citizen, there's still too much fraud and mystery all around him. As a mulatto, communist, warmonger and perpetual liar, he is NOT the founding fathers' and mothers' original intent for chief executive of this country.
#144. To: lucysmom (#137)
(Edited)
Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not.
#150. To: NeoconsNailed (#144)
1. By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville.
#152. To: lucysmom (#150)
1. By your logic we should tear up the Declaration, Constitution, common law and rename Washington Obamaville. 2.OK, I had it backwards on that so-called birth certificate. The background pattern in flat and the stuff printed on it bends, making it one of the lamest forgeries ever.
#171. To: NeoconsNailed (#152)
1. Apparently you didn't read my short post fully -- I was referring to your statement that "Obama was elected twice in the 21st century, it doesn't matter if the founding fathers, many of which were slave holders, would have approved of him or not." In other words you trash original intent and attempt to hang the issue instead on the total irrelevancy of slave-owning. Yep, the TOTAL irrelevance of slave-owning!
#177. To: lucysmom (#171)
(Edited)
the belief that blacks were inferior to whites, and counted for only 3/5 of a human
what started the whole birther movement
#180. To: GreyLmist (#177)
This isn't a Slavery issue and they weren't American citizens or being counted for taxation of them. Liberals shouldn't be paid to teach History classes in this country because they don't do that. They are primarily indoctrinators of dummified PC illusions. The phrase is "three fifths of all other Persons", which isn't an exact definition of Black Slaves only. Could just as readily be applied to Oriental Slaves of Oriental residents and Arabic Slaves of Arabian residents or something. Alaska hadn't been acquired yet but even the Eskimos had Slaves and that Slavery was abolished after Lincoln's War. To which advantage was it, mostly, for Black Slaves (some being Slaves of the North but fewer than those in the South) to not be counted fully? Answer: Not to the South's advantage. Counting them fully, even though they weren't considered to be citizens of America, would have given the South more Congressional representation and power -- possibly enough to stop the North from continuing to funnel taxes unfairly into its benefitings at the expense of Southerners, the vast majority of which weren't Slave owners but many freed Blacks in the South were.
#186. To: lucysmom (#180)
(Edited)
How many Asian, and Arabic slaves were there?
(You are no slouch in the deriding department)
You are correct, Hillary supporters did question Obama's citizenship, but it was conservative Jim Geraghty who suggested that Obama release his bc to prove his middle name was not Muhammad. Four days later the Obama campaign did publish Obama's short form bc - then the real fun began.
#187. To: GreyLmist (#186)
Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero --
Replies to Comment # 187. Aren't you astounded in the least that Native American Indians not taxed considered to be non-citizens were counted as Zero --
End Trace Mode for Comment # 187.