The GREAT Presidents...

[hgc]

Oooooh someone's a democrat...

Why is state not allowed to leave the country? Since you apparently have this view, can you state why the states belong to the nation?

The issue of slavery aside, the government should be composed of states that make their own laws, not having a majority of other states dictate what programs and policies they must follow (although that's what happens today). Why can't they leave if they are getting a raw deal? Why can't, say, Hawaii (haha) decide to leave if they feel bullied?

...

Fair questions. Goes to the definition of what constitutes the nation. Funny, we still call them states, but they're not states in the, um, catholic (small c) sense; not the same as the broader meaning of the word as used around the world. But then that's the great lament of Libertarians -- the transformation from These United States to The United States, isn't it? Lincoln gets painted as the villian because of this outcome.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: The GREAT Presidents...

How can any honest person of integrity put Lincoln any higher than the bottom of a very putrid dungheap?

Didn't some people in that dungheap write the constitution that you seem to like?

 

[Tony]

I can't recall what you're referring to, exactly. Refreshen my mind.

Anyway, all throughout history, all other presidents stepped down their second term. AND FDR DID run for a third term.

http://www.juntosociety.com/uspresidents/troosevelt.html

With the assassination of President McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, not quite 43, became the youngest President in the Nation's history. He brought new excitement and power to the Presidency, as he vigorously led Congress and the American public toward progressive reforms and a strong foreign policy.

What I believe is that the property of the rich does not belong to the poor; and vice-versa. You're not entitled to be able to ride a train, make a telephone call for cheap, or get gas for 10 cents a gallon. In fact, nobody even has to sell it to you. If you're still willing to pay for it, even if the price is "high", then you're still benefiting by choosing to pay. If the price is too high, you'll find another alternative.

Like most capitalists and communists, you're heavy on theory, light on practical application. Under this logic, a person who controls the global supply of food is perfectly within his rights to deny food (thus starving) to people he doesn't like or deems unworthy.

Just because you're rich and everyone else is poor does not mean that you owe other people money because they exist.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not gonna cry when the poor inevitably revolt against the rich and powerful (which go hand in hand). Darwinism in action. You support the conditions which lead directly to the formation of situations like the one in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Soviet Russia.

You accusing laissez-faire capitalism of being the cause of slavery and of robber-barons shows that you neither know history nor what free market capitalism is.

No, it shows I don't follow such ideals with a dogmatic fervor.

 

[Tony]

No, it didn't. Government produced those things.

Yeah yeah, we know your speil. If something good happens, credit goes to the "free-market", if something bad happens, blame goes to government.

 

[shanek]

Yeah yeah, we know your speil. If something good happens, credit goes to the "free-market", if something bad happens, blame goes to government.

I have presented copious evidence for my side. Your side has presented nothing but assertions.

 

[corplinx]

I didn't argue that government or the free market was resposible for slavery or if it would have died out due to technology.

My stance is:
* nullification is wrong
* secession is the right of any state
* Lincoln's war against the breakaway states was wrong

Its really that simple.....

 

[Tony]

I have presented copious evidence for my side.

I've seen evidence for both sides, problem is, you refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your POV.

Your side has presented nothing but assertions.

What is my side?

 

[Larspeart]

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not gonna cry when the poor inevitably revolt against the rich and powerful (which go hand in hand). Darwinism in action.

To which i would answer that the rich and powerful need to be just that; rich... and POWERFUL. People have this belief (mostly based on the example of the FRENCH Revolution... and we all know how good the French are at fighting...) that the poor can overtopple the rich.

not if the rich are willing to be wise and machiavellian (sp). Crush usurpers immediately, and dispatch their families. That'll teach those ruffians.

 

[Larspeart]

BUT... once again, Shane has detroyed another well-intended topic AND made libertarians look like crazies. You make my libertarianism harder and harder to defend, dude.

GET BACK ON TOPIC! READ THE TITLE! LIST THE GREAT PRESIDENTS! IGNORE SHANE!!!

, lol!

 

[Tony]

To which i would answer that the rich and powerful need to be just that; rich... and POWERFUL. People have this belief (mostly based on the example of the FRENCH Revolution... and we all know how good the French are at fighting...) that the poor can overtopple the rich.

not if the rich are willing to be wise and machiavellian (sp). Crush usurpers immediately, and dispatch their families. That'll teach those ruffians.

So we've come full circle, a libertarian (I assume you are) is now justifying the rights of kings, lords and their tyranny.

 

[BPSCG]

BUT... once again, Shane has detroyed another well-intended topic AND made libertarians look like crazies.

I was wondering how long it was going to take him to run this train off the rails.

 

[Larspeart]

So we've come full circle, a libertarian (I assume you are) is now justifying the rights of kings, lords and their tyranny.

i was joking, dolt, .

 

[Hutch]

I was wondering how long it was going to take him to run this train off the rails.

Heck with that, when's CF Larsen going to join in the thread?

 

[Tony]

i was joking, dolt, .

I had a feeling you were, but I didn't know for sure. After the 1inChrist episode, I've taken the position that no post is too stupid not to be taken seriously, butthead.

 

[shanek]

My stance is:
* nullification is wrong

What are you referring to here?

I agree with your other points.

 

[shanek]

I've seen evidence for both sides, problem is, you refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your POV. [/quote\

Such as?

What is my side?

Just what you said: that the free market was responsible for slavery and robber barons.

 

[crimresearch]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tony
So we've come full circle, a libertarian (I assume you are) is now justifying the rights of kings, lords and their tyranny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i was joking, dolt, .

You misspelled 'insolent peasant'

 

[crimresearch]

"....And Japanese internment, while not as bad as what the Nazis did, is ultimately the same method: putting certain races and ethnic groups in concentration camps."

And later this year, I will be helping to put thousands of Boy Scouts into fenced compounds, where they will be forced to sleep in tents, cook their own meals over open fires, and not allowed to leave until the authorities permit it..

Just another 'concentration' camp as well?

 

[Tony]

Just what you said: that the free market was responsible for slavery and robber barons.

Ok, but that's not really "my side", that's just an objective observation I've made. If I have a "side" it is the side of freedom, life, the individual and humanity.

Such as?

I'm not going to get into it with you. I agree with you a lot, but you've demonstrated time and time again that reason is something you easily abandoned when discussing this topic.

 

[Larspeart]

People (ESPECIALLY YOU SHANE!) stay on topic, or don't bother posting and go off and create your own!