Free Republic

Member since 9/2008.

That says it all.

I am for the most experienced person — Mitt Romney. This country needs someone with his business background at this time.

This country doesn't need someone with his Romneycare background, especially seeing as the liberal/socialists are hell bent on trying this nationwide, even though poll after poll show it to be wildly unpopular.

Sorry, Romney is done (imo).

"Poor soul, he was just too high strung..."

;>)

. . . . . . . . .

.......

. . . . .

G.F.Y.

Is that the citation from "the Founders" that you were fishing for?

Gosh - have to admit that I've never seen it...

;>)

Your disdain for the Founders, whom you liken to ordinary politicans, is palpable. Your willingness to twist and subvert their words and cherry pick their meaning is sickening. That you admit to not giving a ‘rats ass’ what James Madison’s true feelings were during one of the early constitutional crises facing this nation, reveals you for the ‘situational’ weasel you really are.

Let me spell it out for you (YET AGAIN), SHIT FOR BRAINS - I cite Mr. Madison's public opinions, because they are logically irrefutable.

Care to argue his (& my) point(s)? Of course not - you revert (yet again) to "FEELINGS."

Not only will I suggest that every living (or dead) politician live or die by their own written words, I will suggest that you feel free to byte me, if you disagree...

(How's the wife doing? Hope your taxes won't go up too much under Obamacare. Happy holidays... ;>)

I can assure you the only twink on here is NS. If you saw his picture, you would agree. Now STFU since you don’t know what you’re talking about.

G.F.Y.

Poor soul, he was just too high strung...

;>)

Your disdain for the Founders, whom you liken to ordinary politicans, is palpable. Your willingness to twist and subvert their words and cherry pick their meaning is sickening. That you admit to not giving a ‘rats ass’ what James Madison’s true feelings were during one of the early constitutional crises facing this nation, reveals you for the ‘situational’ weasel you really are.

Just to help you out, as my personal friend (yet again):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissant

;>)

Liar! Sophist! Or is it Senility? Those are NOT Madison's own words.

Care to be more specific - or are you simply a "Liar! Sophist! Or is it Senility?"

Ante up - piss ant...

;>)

WIJG==> And I have repeatedly cited James Madison:

But it is objected that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort… … the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly… supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other [federal] departments, but that the [federal] judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the [States as] parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the [constitutional] compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the [federal] judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature. However true, therefore, it may be, that the [federal] judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other [federal] departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve. - Report on the Virginia Resolutions, 1799 http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.htm

Liar! Sophist! Or is it Senility? Those are NOT Madison's own words.

However in F.W. Randolph's End-notes there are several references to Mr. Madison's PRIVATE letters as supporting evidence /lmao.

Unfortunately (for you) Madison's authorship of the Virginia Resolutions was NOT publicly known or claimed at the time.

Unfortunately (for you), I have not cited "the Virginia Resolutions." Try to keep up - dip sh!t.

Furthermore he and Jefferson exchanged a series of private letters on the subject of rebutting the Alien and Sedition Acts, private musings if you will (lol), that far more accurately document the true feelings and beliefs of the two men than either of their anonymously crafted political statements for public consumption.

"[T]rue feelings!" LOL! Let me spell it out for you (yet again), sport - I don't give a rat's @ss for a politician's "true feelings." Politicians are hired help - they are required, by the oaths they swear, to honor the Constitution - NOT THEIR "FEELINGS." Once again, you suggest that private communications somehow carry more weight than public pronouncements, including those made while serving under oath of office, because they supposedly somehow "far more accurately document the [politician's] true feelings and beliefs." WHO CARES, DUMB@SS?!?! If you actually believe that the "true feelings" of a politician are somehow more important than that same person's statements made in public, or under oath, feel free to argue the point...

And just to rain on your parade, 'This Buds for You'(dialed down to what I estimate to be your level of perception):

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

As was stated before, either your problem with the private correspondance [sic] of Madison is 'situational', or you are dismisssive [sic] (and by default immensely ignorant) of a wide swath of American history.

Please see my specific statement(s), regarding public statements/promises by specific politicians. If you would actually care to debate a specific statement I made, please do so - with quotes.

You are also guilty of twisting the founders written words to fit your narrow viewpoint.

"[T]wisting the founders written words?" LOL!!! That's more than 'rich' coming from someone who posts a lot of unsubstantiated personal opinions, and not too d@mn many citations from "the founders."

Ante up - sport...

;>)

Incorrect - Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings in support of ratification helped sell the people of the several States on the supposed relative benefits of ratifying the new Constitution. And Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings prior to the election of 1800 helped sell the people of the several States on the supposed benefits of the republican agenda. That is not only "settled judgment," but indisputable historical fact. Want to claim otherwise, sport? Go for it. And anyone who attempts to equate the private musings of an individual with the same person's public writings, decades after the fact, is nothing but a scam artist.

Unfortunately (for you) Madison's authorship of the Virginia Resolutions was NOT publicly known or claimed at the time. Furthermore he and Jefferson exchanged a series of private letters on the subject of rebutting the Alien and Sedition Acts, private musings if you will (lol), that far more accurately document the true feelings and beliefs of the two men than either of their anonymously crafted political statements for public consumption.

As was stated before, either your problem with the private correspondance of Madison is 'situational', or you are dismisssive (and by default immensely ignorant) of a wide swath of American history. You are also guilty of twisting the founders written words to fit your narrow viewpoint.

Pardon the typo(s)...

;>)

Good for you. You're entitled to your opinion that the public writing has more weight than private writing of politicians...

Correct (no thanks to you) - because if we do not hold politicians to their public, written, promises, we might just as well select our representatives at random from the phone book.

..but you are NOT entitled to treat that opinion as settled judgment generally or as it pertains to Mr. Madison specifically.

Incorrect - Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings in support of ratification helped sell the people of the several States on the supposed relative benefits of ratifying the new Constitution. And Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings prior to the election of 1800 helped sell the people of the several States on the supposed benefits of the republican agenda. That is not only "settled judgment," but indisputable historical fact. Want to claim otherwise, sport? Go for it. And anyone who attempts to equate the private musings of an individual with the same person's public writings, decades after the fact, is nothing but a scam artist.

Your refusal to entertain Madison's thoughts as expressed in private correspondence...

Incorrect - I have not 'refused' to "entertain" his private thoughts; I merely consider them less important than his public writings, for the reason(s) I have explained. And I consider the logic of many of Mr. Madison's public arguments (including those expressed in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, see my Post #167 for one example), to be absolutely inarguable.

...coupled with your inability to cite Madison's public communications that support you position...

Liar - I have cited Mr. Madison's comments repeatedly, including his statements in the federal constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, and in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (Posts #167 & #168, for examples), with links. You might actually read the thread, before you jam both of your feet into your big mouth - sport...

...leave the rest of us wondering whether your opinions on this matter(and others), are 'situational'.

Actually, given you obvious lack of interest in the facts, it's more than obvious that it's your own opinion that is "situational. And I doubt that anyone here would ever be surprised that you were left "wondering," in any situation whatsoever...

;>)

Anyone can check back on this thread and see who pinged you to it

Aren't you just the clever one!!!

From there its easy to determine who is 'projecting' and who isn't.

When you and boyz get together, are you the 'projector' or the 'projectee'. My money is on the latter.....

My simple observation

'Simple' observations are your limit.

was that you and mojitomo sound like a couple of twinks.

I'm thinking that you know a hole lot about twinks.

Speaking of which, don't you have somewhere to blow off to, truckstop? Aren't they pinging you to some I95 rest area or something?

Anyone can check back on this thread and see who pinged you to it and what your comments were once you got here Brokeback. From there its easy to determine who is 'projecting' and who isn't.

My simple observation was that you and mojitomo sound like a couple of twinks. Noting you've said here since changes that.

But a problem has been posed by the fact that they turned Abraham Lincoln into a hero. An undeserved hero.

Just yankee revisionist history.

The fact is that the only president that is even close to being as bad as disHonest Abe is the yankess new heroic president from Illinois, Barack Insane Obama and, of course, the yankee revisionist history will portray BO as the greatest president ever.

But a problem has been posed by the fact that they turned Abraham Lincoln into a hero. An undeserved hero.

You're projecting (again) Brokeback. Who pinged you over to thread?

I guess that you'd be the one that knows about 'projecting', truckstop. (You still hanging around those?)

Who pinged you over to thread?

Your boyfriend NS. You jealous?

Your boyfriend was being attacked so you rode in on your rainbow unicorn to rescue him.

You're projecting (again) Brokeback. Who pinged you over to thread?

-btw Do the Riveria Beach PD still have yer photograph? (lol).

Sure. Why don't you go ahead and post it here since you know where it's at.

Oh! You mean you're lying about that!!

It's not surprising that one of NS's boyztoyz would be a flaming liar as well as something else that flames.

You wanna translate that from gaylick to American for us brokeback?

Sure. Your boyfriend was being attacked so you rode in on your rainbow unicorn to rescue him.

Is that plain enough?

-btw Do the Riveria Beach PD still have yer photograph? (lol).

How chivalrous!

You wanna translate that from gaylick to American for us brokeback?

DO "hold just the opposite." If a politician makes a public promise, or a public claim, I will hold their sorry @ss to the fire in that regard - after all, that promise is the specific grounds for their holding public office (and, in the case of Mr. Madison, for the ratification of the Constitution). You, on the other hand, would suggest that such public promises mean nothing, because the person making them [supposedly] changed his mind decades later, and happened to mention the fact in a private letter to his Aunt Lucy.

Good for you. You're entitled to your opinion that the public writing has more weight than private writing of politicians, but you are NOT entitled to treat that opinion as settled judgment generally or as it pertains to Mr. Madison specifically. Your refusal to entertain Madison's thoughts as expressed in private correspondence coupled with your inability to cite Madison's public communications that support you position leave the rest of us wondering whether your opinions on this matter(and others), are 'situational'.

Proof that we’re going the socialist way of Scandinavia inasmuch we now emulate the same stupidity in the kind of scientific research we spend money on by the pork barrelful.

“you should apologize to all for your flagrant lies.”

Nonstarter, would have us believe that ‘his’ side paid tribute to Madison and Jefferson OR the founding principles.

“Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union . The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence . . . . Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas , ever was a sovereignty. . . . (Special Session Message to Congress, July 4, 1861)Lincoln

This is negated as follows:
“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; and he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, proprietory and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”

Daniel Webster :
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.

“Jefferson is clearly talking about separation with the agreement of both sides of the issue. Hence all that stuff about ‘why should we take side’ and ‘God bless them both’. And in that I certainly agree with him.”

Non-sensical,

Defending actions by twisting words? No, Jefferson and Madison would have never agreed with Using Force to Coerce a State!

As Madison properly observed in 1787:
‘The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. ‘

James Madison would certainly not agree with your whole “agreement of both sides” Non-Sense:
“a breach of any one article by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved.”

Madison and Jefferson would agree more with the following than any statement from Lincoln:

“The rights of Louisiana as a sovereign state are those of Virginia; no more, no less. Let those who deny her right to resume delegated powers, successfully refute the claim of Virginia to the same right, in spite of her expressed reservation made and notified to her sister states when she consented to enter the Union.”Judah P. Benjamin

As Jefferson told Madison :
“determined…to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government…in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.”

Thank you. :) Merry Christmas!

good luck with it and good for you.

Maybe hollywood would one day make a movie on how the south was after the war and how southerners were treated.

I will not hold my breath though

I have this on a t-shirt ... love it! (and BTW, GREAT home page ... you have an awesome picture collection!!)

You’re exactly right ... and it wasn’t just after the war that all that happened, either. However, while I’m simply the researcher, not the author, and don’t have a lot of input into what goes into the story (this is a historical novel based on fact, not a nonfiction/textbook), there’s discussion of a second (and perhaps a third) book that will carry the story through the present day and I’m certain that the issue of the maltreatment of the South would appear in at least one of the three.

You two sound like a couple of pinks.

How chivalrous! Coming to his lovers rescue!!!

No, NS sounds like a pink and looks like one. I call it like I see it buddy. He’s a geek.

I’m betting that NS ain’t that good looking.

You two sound like a couple of pinks.

Is that you? It doesn’t look like the photos I saw.

Jefferson is clearly talking about separation with the agreement of both sides of the issue. And in that I certainly agree with him.

Jefferson never mentions agreement of both sides. He clearly states "If those of the Mississippi valley should see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants?"

So, you'll detract your statement that "Secession without the consent of the other states is not supported anywhere in any writings of any of the founders." In addition, you should apologize to all for your flagrant lies.

and you will be the first to proudly stick your nose up Barry the Marxist Kenyan's as* and wear t-shirts

If I did, how would you know?

Using the slaves as a scapegoat towards the end is what lead to the creation of the Klu Klux Klan by disgruntled and defeated Democrats. Ask Senator Byrd.

If memory serves, the Klan was established after the rebellion had ended by Southern Democrats, and they were the ones using newly freed slaves as scapegoats. I don't think Byrd was in at the founding since it happened in Tennessee, but the bastards so old it wouldn't surprise me if he was.

Wonder why ML King’s nonviolent civil rights movement was so successful? The 1960’s did more for equal rights than Lincoln’s so called “emancipation” ever could.

It was non-violent in the face of violence directed towards it by the governments in the Southern states. King's welcome wasn't much warmer up North - I was a kid when he got hit by a brick in Cicero - and it isn't a pretty chapter in our nation's history for any part of the country. But he didn't have police setting dogs on him or turning fire hoses and shooting tear gas at him or jailing him in Union states like he did in Southern ones.

Maybe you will eventually stop worshiping Lincoln when you realize the truth about this Republican, homicidal tyrant who disregarded the constitution and human life as well.

The only people who worship Lincoln, or who hate him as much as you and your friends do, are the ones who haven't done any reading on the man.

You’re probably drunk by now since it’s 8 PM.

No, I decided to call it a night. I didn't want to get in the way of your daily bender. And judging from your posts you were multi-tasking.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

Yeah, so?

It's interesting that your cartoon claims Lincoln's real reason was taxes, and then includes a quote that says his real reason was to save the Union. It contradicts itself, wouldn't you say?

If Lincoln was so much opposed to slavery, why did he not endeavor to abolish it peacefully through a scheme of compensated emancipation?

Lincoln supported compensated emancipation all his life. When he was president, he proposed compensated emancipation plans on several occasions. The D.C. Emancipation Act in 1862 was a compensated plan. The problem is that outside of D.C., where Congress could order slavery ended, such plans were voluntary, and required slave owners willing to be compensated in return for giving up their slaves. Slave owners in the Union proved to be as unwilling as slave owners in the South to give up their property so the plans went nowhere.

And as late as the Hampton Roads Conference in January 1865 Lincoln said he remained open to some form of compensation to Southern slave owners for their lost property, so it could be said that Lincoln supported compensated emancipation to the very end.

I’ve read it, though I confess that I don’t normally read much fiction I made an exception in Tommy’s case.

I resent your implication that I was attempting to draw attention away from McCain by making a statement regarding the vetting of zero.

Regardless of your post, I disagree with you on most points. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain in 2008, but, as I said, he is conservative on some issues.

Your attempt to change my mind on this, is useless. You seem to be in a cynical mode. So, we’ll agree to disagree.

I'm gonna let this one go - there is no more debate. We can see who's posting picture of little girls and who acted respectfully.

You're right, the warriors paid their repect to each other and their fallen brothers over the years and we should take note of those powerful images and accounts of their reunions.

It's really a bad time to pick on the South - we are the last hope for conservatism in America.

not important merely a question.

I’ve noticed your post was deleted too.

Have you now thought how disgusting and ignorant your post was?

That’s a question too though I will not hold my breath for an answer.

night