Is a new America civil war inevitable and unstopable at this point?

Troianii · Nov 20, 2013

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

My understanding is that the only thing ending in 1808 was the importation of new slaves. They certainly didn't need any since, as I have mentioned, breeding new ones certainly wasn't difficult. Slavery was dying when the Constitution was written and not expected to last much past 1808. However, they did not reckon with the cotton gin, which made cotton, even cotton picked by inefficient slaves, profitable.
Click to expand...

Yes, the slave trade became illegal in 1808, but the slave population was still far shy of being self-populating. Most wanted to abolish it, but it was a compromise made to put it off for a time.

danielpalos · Nov 20, 2013

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

My understanding is that the only thing ending in 1808 was the importation of new slaves. They certainly didn't need any since, as I have mentioned, breeding new ones certainly wasn't difficult. Slavery was dying when the Constitution was written and not expected to last much past 1808. However, they did not reckon with the cotton gin, which made cotton, even cotton picked by inefficient slaves, profitable.
Click to expand...

The distinction is that the several States no longer retain their former States' right regarding immigration into the Union. That being the case, anyone born in the US should have been a US citizen with recourse to Article 4, Section 2 of our supreme law of the land.

Lil Mike · Nov 20, 2013

Phoebe Bump said: ↑

I wish that was true, but even the low-life Tim McVeigh is considered a hero and a martyr in certain parts of this country.
Click to expand...

Which part of the country considers him a hero and martyr?

CaptainAngryPants · Nov 20, 2013

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

Nationalism is only dangerous to the people's liberties when tyrants use it to endanger them and the people are not vigilant to protect them. Slavery clarified the issue, since we couldn't have abolished it as anything but a single nation and couldn't have survived any longer as a free people with it.

Redefining is open interpretation, or part of it.

Webster's wasn't written until after the Constitution but I think that using it makes for a clear enough document. The very fact that you do not agree with something does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The Constitution shouldn't be easy to change and that's as it should be, but it shouldn't be easy to keep laws within it either. That's why our legislatures should be staffed with wise and trustworthy people

You are right there. The Soviet Union was ready to collapse in 1953, but we kept it alive by our Cold War, which gave it a sense of national purpose and, most paradoxically, by continuing to sell them grain to make up for their chronic shortfalls, (Shortfalls which went back to the very beginnings of Russia, btw, and are a main reason it's so big). The REAL main man who destroyed the SU was, wait for it, Jimmy Carter, the first one ever to put morality before profits and refuse to sell them wheat after they invaded Afghanistan. Forced to go on the world market and pay higher prices their economy was so damaged that they fell a decade later, just in time for Reagan to take the credit.

And you are a good example of a wannabe tyrant masquerading as a protector of our "freedom". The SCOTUS has declared these Act Constitutional and our system says that we take their word over yours. Why do you hate America?

You both do realize you can appeal anything a building inspector tells you? You can ask him for a reason and he has to give you a good one, as adjudicated in a court of law

Hey, birds do it all the time, shouldn't we be one with nature?

Largely because they're not so. The commerce and necessary and proper clauses are meant to be interpreted broadly because they are WRITTEN broadly. The only way to interpret them "narrowly" is to give them no power at all, and I don't think the Writers would have put them in had that been their intention.

Possibly, but if your "freedom" results in America BECOMING Mexico or Belize then I have a problem with it. If I buy the house you've built from you or your heirs I want to be able to rely on it's safety. And, like I said, you do have the right to appeal anything a Building Inspector tells you, though the much easier course is to go to the Inspector first. You'd be surprised at how many are friendly chaps and are quite forthcoming with free info that will give you a better job for less money

Actually most plantation owners would have killed for a good cotton picking machine. Slaves were expensive both to obtain and maintain and getting work out of them made a talented overseer one of the South's more lucrative professions. The value of the slave was that many were skilled craftsmen and enough of them could do nearly everything needed on a big farm to make it a self-sufficient unit which could sometimes actually dock and load oceangoing ships in the numerous coves of the South's emerging coastline. There is also the fact that Southrons somehow actually liked to be waited on hand and foot and breeding pretty young slaves was sure a lot more fun than masturbating bulls for insemination, I don't care how many prizes they'd won. This may have been a partial reason why slaves were the greatest store of capital stock existing in the South, or, indeed, the entire USA, by 1860.

Okay, let's hear your solution. Feel free to start another thread and link to it

Some of them don't seem to realize that what they're talking about is MURDERING PEOPLE. You ought to hear when I suggest that's what they're actually proposing when they start all this "the 2nd Amendment is so we can protect our freedoms" stuff. I mean, what do they mean to do, just BRANDISH the gun, or what? Of course there is a large contingent that is fully aware that's what they're talking about, and anxious to get started.

I REALLY hope they'd just say fine, go ahead. Then close the borders and cut off trade. That IS our legitimate right as a sovereign nation..

My understanding is that the only thing ending in 1808 was the importation of new slaves. They certainly didn't need any since, as I have mentioned, breeding new ones certainly wasn't difficult. Slavery was dying when the Constitution was written and not expected to last much past 1808. However, they did not reckon with the cotton gin, which made cotton, even cotton picked by inefficient slaves, profitable.
Click to expand...

Secessionists don't have my permission to dismember my country.

Ronstar · Nov 21, 2013

civil war started yet?

danielpalos · Nov 21, 2013

we are waiting for the right to muster up enough fiscal fortitude to enact wartime tax rates to prove it is more than just talk that will result in socialism bailing out capitalism, again.

KevinVA · Nov 21, 2013

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

Redefining is open interpretation, or part of it.

Webster's wasn't written until after the Constitution but I think that using it makes for a clear enough document. The very fact that you do not agree with something does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The Constitution shouldn't be easy to change and that's as it should be, but it shouldn't be easy to keep laws within it either. That's why our legislatures should be staffed with wise and trustworthy people

You are right there. The Soviet Union was ready to collapse in 1953, but we kept it alive by our Cold War, which gave it a sense of national purpose and, most paradoxically, by continuing to sell them grain to make up for their chronic shortfalls, (Shortfalls which went back to the very beginnings of Russia, btw, and are a main reason it's so big). The REAL main man who destroyed the SU was, wait for it, Jimmy Carter, the first one ever to put morality before profits and refuse to sell them wheat after they invaded Afghanistan. Forced to go on the world market and pay higher prices their economy was so damaged that they fell a decade later, just in time for Reagan to take the credit.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union spent into oblivion in order to keep up with us during the Cold War. Their spending spree is what destroyed them, not our unwillingness to sell them wheat. Now, ironically, we're following suit.

Hafez · Nov 21, 2013

Casper said: ↑

No I do not, but we are not at the point where we could peacfully seperate and a civil war would be unlikely once one understands that the divisions are not between States but between idiologies that are pretty much evenly divided across most of the Nation. A good way to understand that is to look at the Red/Blue State maps, when ones googles the same maps based on counties one sees that the country turns purple real quick. That means IF there were a real civil war it would makes the first one look like childs play when you consider how many people we are talking about, how many are armed and that they would all be mixed together, they would have to come up with a new more appropriate term for the level of blood bath it would become. Those that advocate a shooting war have usually never seen war first hand and somehow believe they and those they care about would be spared, the reality would be far different and too horrible to even consider for most.
Click to expand...

Such escalations in violence are an unavoidable risk for civilizations as they near the type 1 classification on the kardashev scale, basically the more advanced a civilization becomes the more adept it gets at killing things. In a sense progressives are the drivers of civilization and the greatest murderers that ever existed. Right now Obama is tilting towards the murderous aspect.

danielpalos · Nov 21, 2013

Yes, socialism requires morals for free.

misterveritis · Nov 22, 2013

odinseye said: ↑

As I said the builders of our constitution designed it to change as needed. When a system was seen to not work then regulation became needed. This is the reason that we have a congress, and senate, They as well as other duties congress is charged with keeping our system of laws from stagnating. Inflexibility is not the way our system was designed, but we have people that want to sit on their thumbs in congress and scream our founding fathers said! They don't live in the here and now, by the logic that the second amendment states, if they had the materials, they could build a WMD in their living room and there could not be anything under the law be said.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read Article V? If the Constitution requires changes that is the way.

And it does need changing and Article V is the way we must do it.

Log in or Sign up

Is a new America civil war inevitable and unstopable at this point?

Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

Lil Mike Well-Known Member

CaptainAngryPants New Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

KevinVA New Member

Hafez Banned

danielpalos Banned

misterveritis Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Is a new America civil war inevitable and unstopable at this point?

Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

Lil Mike Well-Known Member

CaptainAngryPants New Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

KevinVA New Member

Hafez Banned

danielpalos Banned

misterveritis Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches