Posted on 07/07/2012 4:51:17 AM PDT by raulgomez05
Aging rocker and reality TV personality Ted Nugent is emerging, even ahead of Donald Trump, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s most embarrassing public supporter.
Nugent is at it again, reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act by writing in the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times that America would have been better off had the South won the Civil War.
A full Nugent rant, which might be subtitled “Robe Rage”:
“The bottom line is that Chief Justice Roberts’ traitor vote will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes and put almost 15 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devised by man: our out-of-control federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.com ...
“but holding others in bondage is simply not right.”
So why did the North do it? One could argue that if it weren’t for the civil war the North, too, would have kept slavery alive for some time. You seem to assume, wrongly, that the North had clean hands about slavery.
The federal government hadn’t done a single dang thing - Lincoln had vowed to only prevent further expansion of slavery into the western territories, and he hadn’t even been sworn into office when the southern states seceded. They had no legitimate grievances, they just stormed out in a huff when an election didn’t go a way they liked.
If left on its own that might have been true in some, though not all, Southern states- but the CSA was based as a nation on the preservation of that institution, and there is no way politically that slavery would be left to die off by 1885. It would be propped up if need be, and protected, but it would be kept going. The only way that I could see it as being finished by the late 1800s is if the Europeans (upon whom the CSA, a weak, agrarian nation with an fairly un-business-like culture) would be extremely reliant on for investment, credit, and as political backers against the US) basically forced them to do it.
How brutal indigenous practices of African tribes somehow excuses the practice of chattel slavery in the United States I cannot see.
Now buy what we tell you to buy, or we will fine/tax/punish you!!!!
Wait who won what war when?
The federal government has existed ever since the Continental Congress created one in 1777. Life in the American colonies under George III, those were the good ol' days?
>> and it will be again after it is gone <<
There won't be an America after its gone (I haven't heard a nation yet that exists without a national government, unless you're describing "transitional" states like Somalia) Perhaps you're describing "successor" post-America states, like the American southwest becoming Aztlan.
Of course I don’t assume that. You guys assume everyone born north of Maryland is a liberal wanker.
You guys just seem to forget that the south had slaves. Just because your family did not, doesn’t make defense of the government that upheld it right.
And the arguments that it would have petered out are just obscene. How long, exactly, is petered out, or withered away?
Slavery is and was indefensible. While it may still take place in Africa, I am proud that my great grandfather and his family took a walk south and stopped it. You can be proud that your people defended their homes...I get that. But please do not pretend to be proud of defending slavery.
I guess in the end, that is all the CSA folks need to admit—and most folks could agree with the states rights thing.
The Southern states were economically dependent on slavery, and the Northern states agreed, by ratification of the Constitution, to the practice in order to get them into the Union.
If the Southern states had known they'd be expected to give it up and have their economies destroyed as soon as the wars were over and the Northern states didn't need those resources any more, they never would have joined. They got lied to, and they were pissed about it.
“Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.” - TN
That is a perfectly reasonable statement.
BTW - I’ve always thought that “stay in our group or we will kill you” is a clear signal to get out of the group ASAP.
> BTW, “minding their own business” is what allowed the
> holocaust to occur.
An excellent point.
Maybe that's why he is very publicly clear he adamantly opposes using them?
Really?
You CSA nuts defend the indefensible. What else am I supposed to think?
And slavery was abolished without a war in my state. How come it took 600,000 lives to get it abolished in yours?
Are you aware that the ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ freed exactly zero slaves under the control of the Union? (If not, I suggest you read it. The EP is clear and concise.)
Slavery was legal and in practice in the Union at the beginning and end of the civil war.
(’Stay in our group, or we will kill you’ - is a statement of power and control.)
Your crazy. The South makes a ton less money then the North....The Southern states take WAY more federal funding then the North. If not for the North, the United States would be worse off. I hate to break this to you but the United States NEEDS the North.
And when Lincoln did issue the emancipation proclimation, it only covered the secceded Southern States, NOT the North or the slaves in the North. And the proclimation was done in the latter part of the war, when the North was losing.
The war was about states' rights. More states' rights would give us a smaller, less over-reaching federal government.
Slavery, as an institution was on it's way out in the South, And, no, everyone didn't get machinery overnight - but you don't teach and entire class of people to read, write, and handle money overnight either. Turning people (whatever their race) out of the only homes and way of life they knew with NO abilty to manage in the outside world is just wrong. The transition from slavery would have happened, and it could have been done in such a way as not to immediately create a starving underclass. But no, the North marched in, set them free and walked away from them.
I want you to adjust a copule of those states based on recent events.
First, take OUT Wisconsin (Scott Walker!) and replace with Minnesota.
New Hampshire, if it can deport all the Massholes, should be an independent republic.
Depopulate Portland, Oregon; send them packing back to San Francisco, and you would have a very conservative state, and Pacific coast access, too.
Colorado and Nevada are teetering on the brink...
It is just in your insecurity. If you think that the North is looking down at the South then do something about it. Clean up your act. That is the only way to impress people. I think it is in your head though. It is like those crazy folks who see two people whispering and the person thinks they are talking about them and in reality they are just talking about the weather. Either ignore what you think people are saying abut the South or change. By the way, I lived in the North my entire life and I actually see Southern folks talking down about Northern people, but people in the North tend to be secure and can rise above people from the South talking down to them. That is what grownups do.
“Who looks back with more shame and regret: The Nazi’s or the southern racists?”
The southern racists are today’s Democrat party.
The same evil behind racism and slavery back then is alive and well today, in different form.
Racism and hatred are interchangeable poisons. And they are chemically identical to self righteousness, envy and resentment. These last three gave us things like Obama, OWS and the recent Supreme Court disaster.
Who is to say that slaves wouldn’t have been kept to run the machines? By your logic, if tech advances would lead to less slaves then the cotton gin should have ushered in the end of slavery.
That may be true but the quickest way to stop that BS is to break away from the enablers. You think we southerners like the Feds for doing that? Enabling laziness, buying votes? You are rally stupid if you believe that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.