WORST President (3/3)?

[FreeTraveler]

Yeah and people on this board who despise Lincoln read a couple of revisionist books on history .......The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked and now all of a sudden are experts on Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and the Constitution. Give me a break. Libertarians are starting to sound like the same brainwashed Republicans and Democrats they so despise. Some of you sound like anarchists.

Why thank you! Some of us don't consider anarchist a bad word, and the fact that you do tells me more about you than I care to know.

Actually, I responded to ask if you have any factual response to my post, or if you were just defending what you learned in school without any facts to back it up. The opportunity to thank you for recognizing me as an anarchist is just icing on the cake.

Anarchy, in its broadest sense, refers to the situation in which a human society exists without Government.

How terrible that sounds, a society without a group of thugs who claim the right to terrorize and even kill people if they don't do as they are told.

 

[LiveFree79]

Why thank you! Some of us don't consider anarchist a bad word, and the fact that you do tells me more about you than I care to know.

Actually, I responded to ask if you have any factual response to my post, or if you were just defending what you learned in school without any facts to back it up. The opportunity to thank you for recognizing me as an anarchist is just icing on the cake.



How terrible that sounds, a society without a group of thugs who claim the right to terrorize and even kill people if they don't do as they are told.

I'm not going to give you a detailed book report on the two books by DiLorenzo which among his and others is where most of this hogwash comes from. His books are as bad as the ones that glorify Lincoln. I suggest you actually read the books first. Secondly, you may not have a problem with being an anarchist but it has nothing to do with a Constitutional Republic. America is a country of laws......even our founding fathers knew this. Many countries across the world have lived in pseudo-anarchist societies and have failed miserably. History shows this. As society gets more complex and as more people inhabit the earth there will always be a need for government of some sort. Just like a child is always better raised by a mother and a father. Sorry that's science not wishful thinking. There where always need to be some sort of collective regulation and oversight by groups of people over other groups of people in order to limit human greed and other negative aspects of human nature.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Blah, blah, blah... typical statist apologia. Like I said, you learned your lessons well in that government indoctrination camp. You are doing nothing but proving my case with this regurgitation of popular opinion.

Just one example: a country of LAWS? lolololol. Explain the murderous bastards who got medals for murdering Vicky Weaver. How about the Chicago cops that just got off for murdering an unarmed man with over 50 shots fired in his direction? How about hundreds of erroneous home invasions and not one cop convicted of wrongdoing.

Is that kool-aid good?

I'm not going to give you a detailed book report on the two books by DiLorenzo which among his and others is where most of this hogwash comes from. His books are as bad as the ones that glorify Lincoln. I suggest you actually read the books first. Secondly, you may not have a problem with being an anarchist but it has nothing to do with a Constitutional Republic. America is a country of laws......even our founding fathers knew this. Many countries across the world have lived in pseudo-anarchist societies and have failed miserably. History shows this. As society gets more complex and as more people inhabit the earth there will always be a need for government of some sort. Just like a child is always better raised by a mother and a father. Sorry that's science not wishful thinking. There where always need to be some sort of collective regulation and oversight by groups of people over other groups of people in order to limit human greed and other negative aspects of human nature.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Let me see if I can demonstrate the significance

So why are we "right" and why are they "wrong"?

It has to do with truths being held by our founding fathers as "self evident" and "unalienable." This carefully established truth written in the Declaration of Independence reduced down to a natural law or what is also referred to as a law of nature.

First off, we have to go back all the way to Galileo when he was being persecuted by the Catholic Church for challenging Aristotle to understand what is going on. During this time the Catholic Church had adopted the prior discovered works of Aristotle as God's natural laws. They actually read Aristotle's works as if they were divine scripture during this time.

Anyway, Aristotle was an empirical scientist in that he backed all of his evidence with experience. In oder to prove that the earth was not rotating, Aristotle dropped a stone off a tower to see if it would fly away from its wall because of the earth's rotation.

Aristotle figured the following:

Major premise: The earth is rotating.
Minor premise: The stone is falling towards the center of the earth. (Aristotle did not believe in gravity. He believed that heavy things with "violent" motion fall towards the center of the earth while lighter things with "natural" motion like the orbiting moon and sun floated in an orderly fashion further away in space).
Conclusion: So, the stone should fly away from the wall of the tower.

What Galileo countered with was the following:

Major premise: The earth is rotating.
Minor premise: The stone has motion relative to the earth's motion.
Conclusion: So, the stone falls straight along the wall of the tower.

Anyway, this caused the world to take a second look at the use of logic. Rather than completely scrapping it, logical mathematicians like Descartes and Spinoza reconsidered the problem. While Descartes argued that we shouldn't even trust the evidence that we can observe with our 5 senses (I think therefore I am), Spinoza argued that the "final" cause in Aristotle's 4 causes should be dropped from consideration when explaining science linguistically.

Science ultimately compromised by narrowing its conclusions down to dropping the use of such terms as 'all' from such statements as "all men are mortal." To be on the safe side, one should never use such absolute terms.

Anyway, this leads up to the point in history where science believed that it could create a metaphysical conclusion. An example of this type of conclusion would be tic - tac - toe. In the game of tic - tac - toe, one doesn't need to learn to be logical; rather, one needs only to learn the metaphysical rules as how to play the game to always win the game with at least a tie.

This is a much different kind of conclusion than the kinds today that incorporate theories because no opposing theory was thought necessary. It was because of competing nations that opposing theories even got created.

For example, the theory of Lamarckian evolution in France was a challenge to the theory of Darwinian evolution in Britain.

So, why were our founding fathers right and the others wrong? It was because they reduced the truth down to a natural law. Such a self evident Declaration had no opposing theory because its truths reduced unalienably into the conscience of every human soul.

 

[sophocles07]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...panther+party&ei=5O0bSP2QPJm-qQKtnLTEAg&hl=en

Watch that

I'm drunk, and got on this line of idiotic videos; this is funny; I can't believe these videos exist. This shit is funnny.

 

[sophocles07]

"Yeah, you'll have to go."

 

[sophocles07]

"Gah...."

 

[Kludge]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...panther+party&ei=5O0bSP2QPJm-qQKtnLTEAg&hl=en

Were I not fearing the racist label, I'd put it in my sig.

 

[LiveFree79]

Blah, blah, blah... typical statist apologia. Like I said, you learned your lessons well in that government indoctrination camp. You are doing nothing but proving my case with this regurgitation of popular opinion.

Just one example: a country of LAWS? lolololol. Explain the murderous bastards who got medals for murdering Vicky Weaver. How about the Chicago cops that just got off for murdering an unarmed man with over 50 shots fired in his direction? How about hundreds of erroneous home invasions and not one cop convicted of wrongdoing.

Is that kool-aid good?

Kool-Aid? sounds like you drink plenty of it as you have the mentality of a 10 year old. Sorry to burst your bubble son but life is not a utopia. There will always be bad people, corrupt politicians/cops, and injustice in this world. Anarchy is not the answer. We can go back to the cowboy and indian days.....or we can even live like nature where the weak shall die and the strong shall survive...every man for himself....is that what you'd like? It's unfair to criticize government on a whole for the actions of a few. Yes there are major problems with the U.S. government. But anarchy? Come on! That's like taking a step back 2000 years.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Abraham Lincoln was the right man for the time, but if he came up for election today, I'd find him almost as frightening as our current president.

The other two are fine by my book.

 

[nate895]

Abraham Lincoln was the right man for the time, but if he came up for election today, I'd find him almost as frightening as our current president.

The other two are fine by my book.

Umm, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, both in uniform and inncoents, is the right thing to do when someone exercises a Constitutional right?

 

[FreeTraveler]

Kool-Aid? sounds like you drink plenty of it as you have the mentality of a 10 year old. Sorry to burst your bubble son but life is not a utopia. There will always be bad people, corrupt politicians/cops, and injustice in this world. Anarchy is not the answer. We can go back to the cowboy and indian days.....or we can even live like nature where the weak shall die and the strong shall survive...every man for himself....is that what you'd like? It's unfair to criticize government on a whole for the actions of a few. Yes there are major problems with the U.S. government. But anarchy? Come on! That's like taking a step back 2000 years.

Okay, let's see. How much of your hard-earned assets have you lost to crooks, excluding government crooks? How much has been taken from you by the government crooks?

I am not criticizing government for the actions of a few, I'm criticizing every government employee for their theft of my production, their arrogance in assuming that they can better determine it's use than I can, and the fact that they hide behind some fictional "greater good" as they smugly invade my pocketbook.

Can you honestly say that you get anywhere near value for the prices they charge? Would you willingly step up and pay the prices they charge for the meager services they offer?

If "people are bad" is the answer to the question "why do we need govt" then how do you assure that the bad people don't gravitate to the LEGITIMIZED THEFT AND POWER that the govt represents?

Are people really bad? Do you have trouble trusting your neighbors, or other people that you get to know? Of course not, it's the nameless "others" that the govt wants you to fear, and expect protection from.

If govt is about protecting people, how come police departments are not held responsible for protecting people? If govt is about protecting people, then why are crimes against "the state" and not the victims? If govt is about protecting people, why is the judicial system about retribution instead of restitution?

Read some history of the "wild west" and you'll find it wasn't as "wild" as it's portrayed on TV. ALL crime rates were a fraction of what they are today. Problems with "bad guys" were settled locally, and quickly. The black markets that funded the Mafia during Prohibition and currently are funding inner-city gangs during the War on Drugs wouldn't exist without your precious government telling people they can't buy some particular product.

Do you live an "every man for himself" existance except where constrained by law? How lonely that life must be.

If man is inherently evil and needs control, as you seem to believe, how can you believe that some group of men that declares themselves in charge of other men will suddenly be good?

Why would you willingly choose to turn the power of life and death over to a group of men, just because they say they know how things need to be done? Have you no sense of self-responsibility or self-worth?

Once upon a time, I was a Statist, believe it or not. I've lived long enough now to realize some basic truths. Not all men are evil, but evil men seek power over others as well as unearned wealth. The most fertile ground in existence for breeding and cultivating evil is government, which is BASED on power over others and the reappropriation of unearned wealth.

The world is made of two kinds of people... producers and moochers. Believing anything else is fooling yourself.

Garden-variety moochers can be dealt with by shunning, personal self-defense, or, in the worst cases, the county sherriff. Government-sponsored moochers apparently can't be dealt with short of the Second Amendment.

So government is good... why???

On edit: Sorry for the threadjack, but some things just had to be said.

 

[Danke]

...
So government is good... why???

On edit: Sorry for the threadjack, but some things just had to be said.

Nice post.


I assume you are familiar with:

"The Law"
by Frederick Bastiat

 

[FreeTraveler]

Nice post.


I assume you are familiar with:

"The Law"
by Frederick Bastiat

Yes, but it's been a long time. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Umm, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, both in uniform and inncoents, is the right thing to do when someone exercises a Constitutional right?

Constitutional right to secede from the union?

Considering the alternative and the plantation economy the South wanted to preserve... yeah, I say that's the blood that fertilizes the tree of liberty.

 

[Kludge]

Constitutional right to secede from the union?

Considering the alternative and the plantation economy the South wanted to preserve... yeah, I say that's the blood that fertilizes the tree of liberty.

Well fuck - what are we doing trying to revert back to principles thru politics?

Let's kill some shit.

 

[Sidestreamer]

Well fuck - what are we doing trying to revert back to principles thru politics?

Let's kill some shit.

Hyperbole. Our nation isn't literally splitting up.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Hyperbole. Our nation isn't literally splitting up.

You really believe that? Driven through Harlem or Watts at night lately?

 

[nate895]

Constitutional right to secede from the union?

Considering the alternative and the plantation economy the South wanted to preserve... yeah, I say that's the blood that fertilizes the tree of liberty.

Yes there is a Constitutional right to secede. The states were independent bodies that created the Constitution, and they were sovereign. Nothing in the Constitution says they lost their sovereignty, and any sovereign body can withdraw from a compact if it wishes. That is what the South did, they rescinded their ratification of the Constitution and then attempted to assert their independence. They were attacked and vilified for doing so. While slavery might have been a contributing factor, it was not the end-all, be-all. It probably would have happened with or without slavery in the picture, slavery only served to hasten the coming of those events. The problems between the north and south are so many (and they still exist to this day, if you look into it) that it takes both sides adhering to the Constitution for them to be satisfied to be in Union. They are like the pairing of England and Scotland, tenuous at best with one side holding all the cards and the other one looking for an excuse out of the game.

 

[josephadel_3]

Yes there is a Constitutional right to secede. The states were independent bodies that created the Constitution, and they were sovereign. Nothing in the Constitution says they lost their sovereignty, and any sovereign body can withdraw from a compact if it wishes. That is what the South did, they rescinded their ratification of the Constitution and then attempted to assert their independence. They were attacked and vilified for doing so. While slavery might have been a contributing factor, it was not the end-all, be-all. It probably would have happened with or without slavery in the picture, slavery only served to hasten the coming of those events. The problems between the north and south are so many (and they still exist to this day, if you look into it) that it takes both sides adhering to the Constitution for them to be satisfied to be in Union. They are like the pairing of England and Scotland, tenuous at best with one side holding all the cards and the other one looking for an excuse out of the game.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Confederate Army attack first at Fort Sumter? Or was the attack a result of intimidation from the Federal Army?