12
   

is the pledge unconstitutional?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 03:18 am
@Fido,
As i pointed out before, your personal disappointment with how the government worked doesn't constitute evidence of contradiction. As i also pointed out before, i'll continue to call you an idiot, with wonderful and self-evident justification, for as long as you respond to my posts with your typical drivel.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 09:44 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

As i pointed out before, your personal disappointment with how the government worked doesn't constitute evidence of contradiction. As i also pointed out before, i'll continue to call you an idiot, with wonderful and self-evident justification, for as long as you respond to my posts with your typical drivel.
Oh ya... My disappoinment...

People had to fight a civil war in this country, fight for civil equality, and fight even for the right to organize into labor unions because the government did not work, and never did mean to accomplish the goals it set before the people as a bill of goods, and you think my complaint has something to do with personal disappointment... You are an idiot... And the document is a god damned lie, and it is for that reason that the results are never compared to the stated goal of the constitution...

It is impossible for the people to change the constitution in any meaningful fashion... It is easy for the rich who run the government to get around it... To call it a contradiction is as much a damned understatement as calling you an idiot... You are by far the most educated idiot I have ever run across... Are you like that rainman, who had to be dressed every day by his father until he died??? Pull up you pants stupid, and join the human race!!!

Setthere; Why don't you look at how the Supreme Court attacked every successful method of organized labor... Each one was judged unconstitutional because they were in comflict with property rights... I have never seen a good, or accurate definition of property rights... I do know the goods listed in the preamble can be shared alike by all human beings, and that each qualifies as being of the pursuit of happiness put forward in our founding document, by Jefferson... There is a huge difference in my opinion between those rights claimed by all people because they cannot live without them, and those rights given to property which has nothing what ever to do with the welfare of a people, their nation, or of humanity...

The rights of property serve only a few, and ever less since they are not equal, but cummulative... Those with the most property have the most rights, and rights are powers, and that power makes them more than equal to those with less property, and to those with no property... This whole land, our commonwealth is going into the pockets of the rich, and this people is even now being asked to sacrifice its rights so that the rich may hold forever that part of our property it has made its own... And we must still support their rights, and defend them, and their property when they contribute nothing to the general welfare... If the preamble was ever more than lies, it is the government which must find some balance, but they are all a part of that class trying to protect their private piece of the commonwealth, and telling us to do with less... The constitution is no protection of our rights, or recognition of our needs... It is a failed document and always was... Its lies are too bold to any longer conceal...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 09:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Leaving aside that the constitution does not guarantee a democratic form of government--you still fail to identify
any internal contradiction. The rest of that drivel is just babbling nonsense.
Yes.
From the history of his posts,
it appears that he is probably not capable of better than that.
In his delusions, he is probably a deft, insightful writer.
Not everyone in this forum is in good mental health.

I don 't hold out much hope.





David
I wouldn't count on you passing any mental evaluations; and you have surely failed more than one intelligence test...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 10:06 am
@Fido,
You're the idiot here, as once again, you fail to show any contradiction in the constitution. For as long as you puke up your drivel in response to my posts, i'll continue to tell you what an idiot you are.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 10:15 am
@Setanta,
You are right idiot... The contradiction was all in us... We did not fight the civil war because the constitution was flawed in what it promised and in what it delivered... The problem was us all along...

Here is the deal dumass... It is government which should help us to resolve our problems in reaching the ends put forth in the preamble... Ours did not, and it denied to the people the means of resolving our problems short of war or revolution when it denied us democracy... It did not make possible the reaching of our goals, but teased us with them, and held them out of our reach by denying us democracy, and empowering religions, and making possible the formation of the parties...

Of course, the final blow was struck in the bill of rights which has only been selectively respected by government... But it was the want of democracy, and in the ability of government to make its own rules that led to our disempowering...We need democracy, and we always have needed it...We needed liberty to be fed, and the government fed the slave masters, and always has... You are too stupid... I will quit kicking your ****...I have had enough of your stink...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 10:32 am
@Fido,
As far as Mr. Lincoln was concerned, the civil war was fought to preserve the union. That is why he wrote to Mr. Horace Greeley, in August, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." This is just more evidence of what an idiot you are--you are profoundly ill-informed, or uninformed, and you prove it every time you type that pathetic drivel.

Every time you respond to one of my posts with your uninformed, idiotic drivel, i am going to tell you: You are an idiot.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 11:47 am
@Setanta,
Ok, we've established that you are a jerk,(which you prove with every post) and that you think fido is an idiot. Ok, fine. I don't agree, but, it's your opinion. Now we've established that, can you stop insulting each other? It's a waste of time and energy. Sorry for being productive, but that's my opinion. By the way,while preserving the union was the main goal, ending slavery became a motive to many of the union forces fighting.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 11:56 am
@hamilton,
You should know about being a jerk, given your personality. I don't see that anything you're posting is productive. I would be interested to know upon what basis you allege that ending slavery "became a motive to many union forces." I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "many." Of the more than one and a half million Federal troops under arms by the end of the war, how many do you allege had that motive, and upon what basis do you allege that?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:01 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You should know about being a jerk, given your personality. I don't see that anything you're posting is productive. I would be interested to know upon what basis you allege that ending slavery "became a motive to many union forces." I suppose that would depend upon your definitino of "many." Of the more than one and a half million Federal troops under arms by the end of the war, how many do you allege had that motive, and upon what basis do you allege that?
Me??? A jerk? When i have Been a jerk?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:03 pm
@hamilton,
Since your arrival here. Do you have an answer for your claim about the motive of "many" of the Federal troops? Can you explain how that is pertinent to the claim that the constitution contradicts itself?
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:04 pm
@hamilton,
Quote:
By the way,while preserving the union was the main goal, ending slavery became a motive to many of the union forces fighting.


You just pulled that out of a dark and private place didn't you?
Union soldiers couldn't of cared less about rescuing the darkies, preserving the union was the concern.
Try reading a few diaries.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:11 pm
@hamilton,
Mr. Hamilton,
Point of Information, if I may:

Do u allege
that there is something in the Constitution
that it is like the "Roach Motel" (TM) . . . i.e.,
that the States can check in but thay can 't check out ??

If so, will u identify it ?





David
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:12 pm
@wayne,
In view of the many race riots in northern cities immediately after the war, when freed slaves came looking for work, i found that a bit much to swallow myself. During the draft riots in New York in 1863, uncounted numbers of black men were lynched by the mobs in the streets (the most conservative number of civilian dead of which i have heard is 120, and most of those who were not killed by troops firing on the mob were black men lynched by the mob).
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:22 pm
@wayne,
Quote:
By the way,while preserving the union was the main goal,
ending slavery became a motive to many of the union forces fighting.
wayne wrote:
You just pulled that out of a dark and private place didn't you?
Union soldiers couldn't of cared less about rescuing the darkies, preserving the union was the concern.
Try reading a few diaries.
I will not dispute the diaries,
but it is a well known fact of history
that the issue of slavery was one of intensely passionate debate in the 18OOs,
similar to the impassioned intensity of the abortion debate of the 19OOs.





David
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:29 pm
@Setanta,
Yes, I think a lot of people have a misconception of the civil war.
Slavery was a political issue that the populace cared little about.
After the first year, every union soldier was concerned with getting the war over with and going home. No one really thought it would turn out to be such a war.

My great great grandfather was a teacher from Illinois, wrote a diary every day for three years, was at Shiloh.
He wasn't too fond of the darkies. The average union forces were less educated than he, so the idea that many cared about slavery seems a stretch.

0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
What we understand as debate today, wasn't the same in those days.
The average union forces were uneducated and oblivious to the political issues. They only cared about preserving their status quo, and soon enough, getting home alive.
The political debates of the day took place among the elite, who never saw a battlefield.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:38 pm
One of the big problems is that the historical myth of the civil war is dominated by the Lost Cause Myth (TM), with the inferential claim that an embattled South was defending itself in what they call "the war of Northern aggression." Concommitant is the ludicrous claim that southern military officers were superior and that southern troops were patriots who fought better and with more spirit than their northern counterparts. This ignores all the crap military commanders in the South, and ignores that even people like Robert Lee were so addicted to the tactical offensive that they squandered the lives of their men. It also ignores that the Confederate States instituted conscription before the United States did so.

The South started the war, they got their asses kicked, and they've been whining about it ever since.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:44 pm
@Setanta,
Haha, that's the power of romance I guess.
The US did everything possible to avoid a war.
They hung John Brown for his actions, I can't remember what happened to Quantrell, but I don't think the south hung him.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:53 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:
What we understand as debate today, wasn't the same in those days.
The average union forces were uneducated and oblivious to the political issues.
They only cared about preserving their status quo, and soon enough, getting home alive.
The political debates of the day took place among the elite, who never saw a battlefield.
Similar to the more recent abortion debate (that many of us remember)
the slavery debate was viscerally felt (on both sides), not requiring advanced education.





David
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:04 pm
@wayne,
They were spoiling for a fight even before Lincoln was elected. John Floyd, a Virginian, was Buchanan's Secretaryof War until he resigned at the end of December, 1860. During 1860, he shipped more than 100,000 muskets from the St. Louis Arsenal to armories in the South--and did it quite illegally, too. Article One, Section 8 give Congress the power to provide for arming the militia. Floyd, as an executive branch employee, had no authority to ship the muskets without congressional approval or an act of congress. He not only shipped the muskets, he actively encouraged state authorities to send him requests for muskets. The South was looking for a fight long before it started.

The true stupidity is that had the South remained in the Union, no constitutional power could have deprived them of their slaves. While by now, there would have been enough votes in Congress to propose an amendment (it takes two thirds of both houses), if the eleven states which actually seceded along with the four border states--Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri--failed to ratify, there would not be enough states to ratify such an amendment. Their political stupidity knew no bounds. John Breckenridge, Kentucky's favorite son and Buchanan's Vice President, ran against Stephen Douglas and the other two candidates (there were four in1860), thus splitting the Democratic Party and assuring the election of Lincoln.

Even had the North simply followed Winfield Scott's advice--"Go, wayward Sisters"--the South was screwed, because slaves who could escape could have gone north, and the South could not have enforced the fugitive slave laws. Crossing into United States Territory to attempt to recapture slaves would inevitably lead to incidents which probably would have lead to war.

What a bunch of pea-wits.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/30/2022 at 03:50:41