Bloomberg: Gov't has right to infringe on your freedom

[The Gold Standard]

I am not ignorant when it comes to the influence of the banks. I'm saying that there are many reasons for our downfall and the downfall of freedom and it isn't just/simply banking. That's my point.

About your 13 amendment answer, how was the passing of the 13 amendment a means of enslaving us all?

The passing of the 13th amendment by itself didn't not enslave us. The illegal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans that led up to the passing of the 13th amendment, and ended any doubt what would happen to a state government that defied the will of the federal government, eliminated the environment where anyone had any hope of being free from the control of the central government.

 

[No Free Beer]

This makes no sense. "We" are not the "market". The market is the whole matrix of voluntary exchanges between free individuals. There is nothing voluntary about having a government thug shove a gun in your face or beat the fuck out of you.

I am talking about the banking industry.

Secondly, I don't think the government is "beating the fuck" out of me.

Quit listening to everything Alex Jones says.

 

[No Free Beer]

The passing of the 13th amendment by itself didn't not enslave us. The illegal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans that led up to the passing of the 13th amendment, and ended any doubt what would happen to a state government that defied the will of the federal government, eliminated the environment where anyone had any hope of being free from the control of the central government.

I think you make a very good point and I would say that I agree with you in terms of state sovereignty. However, what led to the 13 Amendment was much more than simply the Civil War; look at Dred Scott.

This is my whole point. We are losing our freedoms on all fronts, not just by banking.

 

[DamianTV]

... due process of law ...

 

[paulbot24]

Oh sure, NOW he understand the meaning of the word "infringe." Fascist elitist greasy little baby weasel with his lips stuck to the Communist Manifesto.

 

[TheTexan]

But, in order for the amendment to become an amendment, the states had to support them.


Illinois (February 1, 1865)
Rhode Island (February 2, 1865)
Michigan (February 3, 1865)
Maryland (February 3, 1865)
New York (February 3, 1865)
Pennsylvania (February 3, 1865)
West Virginia (February 3, 1865)
Missouri (February 6, 1865)
Maine (February 7, 1865)
Kansas (February 7, 1865)
Massachusetts (February 7, 1865)
Virginia (February 9, 1865) - ratified by the Unionist Restored Government of Virginia
Ohio (February 10, 1865)
Indiana (February 13, 1865)
Nevada (February 16, 1865)
Louisiana (February 17, 1865)
Minnesota (February 23, 1865)
Wisconsin (February 24, 1865)
Vermont (March 8, 1865)
Tennessee (April 7, 1865)
Arkansas (April 14, 1865)
Connecticut (May 4, 1865)
New Hampshire (July 1, 1865)
South Carolina (November 13, 1865)
Alabama (December 2, 1865)
North Carolina (December 4, 1865)
Georgia (December 6, 1865)

You apparently have a difficult time grasping the meaning of "Or Else."

 

[TheTexan]

We are losing our freedoms on all fronts, not just by banking.

You say that but you have yet to substantiate that claim..

 

[No Free Beer]

You say that but you have yet to substantiate that claim..

The problem with your logic is the following:

You point out that the 13th Amendment created a more enslaved people's, country, way of life.

However, before you can point to the fact that Lincoln went after the south not for slavery, rather, in order to protect the union, you mus first look at WHY the South wanted to separate. That reason was because SLAVERY and you cannot dance around that. The Dred Scott case stated that the South was correct and that the North was wrong. The Court, made up of almost all Southerners, stated the Constitution allowed all states had the right to have slavery and the North had no right to ban it.

The South then said that since the North banned slavery within their borders, they had all the right to secede, which I would argue they did.

Lincoln then offered to buy the slaves from the South and/or allow the South to retain their slaves, and the South essentially said no.

Now, people all of a sudden say that it had everything to do with states rights and not slavery, but the whole point of separating WAS SLAVERY, which the southerners perceived to be their property.

So the question begs, are you willing to defend the act of holding people against their will in order to protect the white man's property rights? In other words, does a white mans property rights trump the rights of other people, in this case, black people?

You claim that we are now all slaves (which I would claim is right to an extent, but not because of this ruling), yet you ignore the fact that a group of people were subjected to slavery --- something you claim we are subjected to now today --- and complain about it.

With all due respect, although I see your point, I think you are a bit naive.

 

[TheTexan]

The problem with your logic is the following:

You point out that the 13th Amendment created a more enslaved people's, country, way of life.

However, before you can point to the fact that Lincoln went after the south not for slavery, rather, in order to protect the union, you mus first look at WHY the South wanted to separate. That reason was because SLAVERY and you cannot dance around that. The Dred Scott case stated that the South was correct and that the North was wrong. The Court, made up of almost all Southerners, the Constitution allowed all states had the right to have slavery and the North had no right to ban it.

The South then said that since the North banned slavery within their borders, they had all the right to secede.

Doesn't matter why the South left, the South had a right to secede. Are you saying they didn't? Either you didn't read my novella from earlier, or I'm not understanding your point.

Lincoln then offered to buy the slaves from the South, and the South said no.

After the war had already started.... and the South was winning (or would have, had France or Britain entered as they were going to)

Now, people all of a sudden say that it had everything to do with states rights and not slavery, but the whole point of separating WAS SLAVERY

That's not in question... you still entirely missed the point. Please read my small novel from earlier? I think you skipped over it entirely...

So the question begs, are you willing to defend the act of holding people against their will in order to protect the white man's property rights? In other words, does a white mans property rights trump the rights of other people, in this case black people?

Of course not. If volunteers from the North had chosen to go to war to end slavery I would be all for that. But that is exactly the opposite of what happened.

The North went to war to end secession and that's what they did. All other points aside, if the North had freed the slaves and then left (or maintained a presence solely for the purpose of upholding the freedom of slaves), I would be fine with that too.

But again, that is not what happened.

The end result of the war was that one form of slavery for another. Noone was freed.

 

[TheTexan]

Lincoln freed the slaves!!111!!

All hail the great liberator!!

For fucks sake, the brainwashing on this subject has no fucking boundaries

 

[No Free Beer]

You apparently have a difficult time grasping the meaning of "Or Else."

And what the fuck do you think the Federal government would do if all of those states said "fuck you"?

come on, man.

 

[TheTexan]

And what the fuck do you think the Federal government would do if all of those states said "fuck you"?

come on, man.

Huh?

 

[No Free Beer]

Lincoln freed the slaves!!111!!

All hail the great liberator!!

For fucks sake, the brainwashing on this subject has no fucking boundaries

I am not saying that Lincoln did this to free the slaves.

What I am saying is that he did what he felt was necessary to protect the Union. I would be on your side and say that the Federal government doesn't have that authority to override what the states want. At the end of the day, our system was set up in such a way wher ethe states have the approve measures for the Federal government to employ them.

However, you seem to be willing to overlook the fact that people's natural born rights were abused, while saying "we are enslaved!" Don't you see the hypocrisy?

 

[TheTexan]

I am not saying that Lincoln did this to free the slaves.

What I am saying is that he did what he felt was necessary to protect the Union. I would be on your side and say that the Federal government doesn't have that authority to override what the states want.

Correct. The Federal Government has no such authority. The states, as sovereign members of a voluntary union, have a right to leave that union at any time for any reason.

However, you seem to be willing to overlook the fact that people's natural born rights were abused, while saying "we are enslaved!" Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Lincoln's War traded one form of slavery for another. The shackles may be gone, but the threat of the whip and noose remains ever present.

 

[No Free Beer]

Correct. The Federal Government has no such authority. The states, as sovereign members of a voluntary union, have a right to leave that union at any time for any reason.



Lincoln's War traded one form of slavery for another. The shackles may be gone, but the threat of the whip and noose remains ever present.

In a sense, yes.

You are correct.

However, my overall point is that this is not as easy as "hey this should have be done. That was wrong."

Also, the 13th amendment isnt the sole reason why our country is in bad shape, nor is it simply the banks that have brought our country down. It's a mix of many things, such as military industrial complex, the federal reserve (banking), complacency, our education, etc. I could go on and on.

 

[TheTexan]

Also, the 13th amendment isnt the sole reason why our country is in bad shape

The 13th amendment itself didn't do any harm, but neither did it do much good.

, nor is it simply the banks that have brought our country down. It's a mix of many things, such as military industrial complex, the federal reserve (banking), complacency, our education, etc. I could go on and on.

Military industrial complex is funded by the bankers.

Lincoln's war is a major cause of the complacency. When you are literally helpless against your oppressors, as this nation has been since Lincoln's Doctrine of "Or Else", you give up hope, and instead try to make the best of it, and embrace the tyranny. The welfare state is another contributor to the complacency, which is, of course, funded by the bankers.

Education, while it is a cause, is not a root cause. The education system produces state-loving debt slaves because their teachers are state-loving debt slaves. Their teachers are state-loving, because - again - Lincoln gave them little choice. And they are debt slaves because bankers control higher education. The vast majority of economics professors teach a form of Keynesian economics. Professors are bought and paid for. Just look at their salaries. How do they get paid so much? Yup. Big government. Which was funded.. by... the bankers.

Are you starting to see a common thread here?

 

[TheTexan]

Income Growth For Bottom 90% In America Since 1966 Is... $59!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-26/income-growth-bottom-90-america-1966-59

Nearly all of the wealth that has been created by the technological advancements over the 50 years, all the automation, the internet, and all the increased production that goes with it, all of that went to the top 10%. (ie, the bankers)

Just as it was designed to do. This was the goal of their fraud from the very beginning.

Ask yourself this, Need For Beer. If people today weren't struggling just to put food on the table, due to this theft, might they take a bit more time to learn about what is really going on in this country?

Modern banking == Modern slavery. Keep people barely fed, with barely a roof over their head, and they will be your willing servant for their entire lives, as the bankers figure out which whore's ass they want to snort coke off on their yacht.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Secondly, I don't think the government is "beating the fuck" out of me.

Well, then, I'd suggest you aren't thinking hard enough.

 

[DamianTV]

I'd say they are beating the fuck out of me. No opportunity to provide for myself. No access to Health Care due to lack of being able to provide for myself. I feel like a criminal who's crime is that of poverty, and Im not the only one in this boat. Problem is, this boat isnt big enough to hold all the people in it with me and there is no end of the people pouring into the boat. News flash. The boat is sinking.

---

Lincoln: Greenback. That is all.

 

[S.Shorland]

Lincoln the vampire slayer now Lincoln starring Daniel Day Lewis.Wonder where these films come from.The first Pirates Of The Carribean posters were bedecked in Union Jacks when we supported you in the Iraq War.I'm sure there have been documentaries about Hollywood and American Government Policy.