I post informational documentation to support my views. It almost always comes from recognized authorities in their field. You don't agree with much of it, and have trouble refuting it. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks.
Your modus operandi is to put an epithet on anything you don't agree with and can't refute. Just look at the post I am replying to. I don't participate in queer-baiting, Hitler-quoting, Marx-quoting, Klan promoting hate content. The only thing I am embarrassed about is occasionally stooping to the same level as you and your neo-reb friends.
Editorial Alert
You do pollute Free Republic. The content and demeanor of many of your ("your all") posts belongs over on DU. This is a conservative forum. "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largess, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America." Conservative doesn't mean "Brownshirt." And it doesn't mean neo-confederate either. FR is for people who, like the founder, believe in and support their country and the principles it stands for, and hope to make it a better place. You reject many of those principles; you pine for a time when states could perpetuate great social evils; when the vision of the founders for human equality meant nothing. The Confederacy was the antithesis of the nation envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and ultimately, by Lincoln. True conservatives believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. The Confederacy did not believe in equality at all.
The first tenet of the Republican Party (and I have been a proud member of it, and only it, since the mid-1970s) is "I believe the strength of the nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability, and responsibility must be honored." That is incompatible with your neo-reb denial of a binding national covenant called the Constitution. The Confederacy did not respect individual dignity and freedom, unless you were rich and white.
Another tenet of the Republican party is that "I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin." In the 1860's, this was not obtainable, but it was a goal that I believe Lincoln would have supported. Again, it is not compatible with Confederate dogma.
And the Republican Party has always stood for the ideal that "the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closest to the people." The function of the national government is to guarantee the promises of the Preamble and the vision of the Declaration. The Confederacy was not about "liberty" - it wouldn't allow liberty or the full benefits of citizenship to most of its residents. Lincoln, on the other hand, was determined that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth."
The liberty that hundreds of millions of people enjoy today is the legacy of Lincoln, because he refused to allow the self-serving southern "leadership" destroy the Union.
Your responses are predictable. Just try and keep them somewhat above their normal vulgar level.
Yes, I want to root out the Lincoln bloat.
I post informational documentation to support my views. It almost always comes from recognized authorities in their field. You don't agree with much of it, and have trouble refuting it. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks.
Farber? ROTFL. Nolu chan, GOPCapitalist et al post from LEGAL, not informational, Supreme Court decisions, the Federalist Papers, the constitutional convention debates, the LEGAL state ratifications, and the LEGAL Declarations of Secession
FR is for people who, like the founder, believe in and support their country and the principles it stands for, and hope to make it a better place. You reject many of those principles; you pine for a time when states could perpetuate great social evils; when the vision of the founders for human equality meant nothing.
No pining for anything of the sort. What is longed for is a government of checks and balances, as the founders wrote it, before Lincoln the Usurper crossed the Rubicon and became Caesar, assuming the duties of the legislative and judicial branches. Regarding your bloviating and asinine opinion about the founders vision of equality, as I posted yesterday, the very FIRST federal citizenship act applied to whites only.
The Confederacy was the antithesis of the nation envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and ultimately, by Lincoln.
The Confederacy duplicated almost everything within the federal [not national] Constitution. I reject the monarchial views held by Hamilton. Jefferson and Madison were anti-federalists, Washington and Hamilton federalists. I most decidedly reject the white supremacist/separatist views of Lincoln.
True conservatives believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. The Confederacy did not believe in equality at all.
Anybody see the pattern here? When did the Union end slavery? Ever hear of the 13th Amendment? When did all the Northern black laws end? When were blacks not discriminated against?
That is incompatible with your neo-reb denial of a binding national covenant called the Constitution.
First and foremost, nowhere does it state that it is permanent and inescapable. What it does contain is Amendment X, which states that the powers NOT delegated [look up the definition] by the Constitution [which were delegated by the states] to the federal government, and those not prohibited by it [the Constitution, not the federal government] to the states, remain with the states.
The Confederacy did not respect individual dignity and freedom, unless you were rich and white.
Anybody see a pattern here? I guess that explains all those rich, white Yankees sailing to Africa for their boatloads of human flesh, their industrial sweat shops where millions worked for subsistence wages. I guess that explains the millions of ex-slaves that fled to Union states, oops, I'm sorry, that never happened. Northern states had black codes and laws to prevent equality, to prevent emmigration by blacks into their states, even fines and punishment for doing so.
Another tenet of the Republican party is that "I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin." In the 1860's, this was not obtainable, but it was a goal that I believe Lincoln would have supported. Again, it is not compatible with Confederate dogma.
Bravo Sierra. Lincoln is on record almost till his dying day advocating for blacks to be colonized/repatriated out of the US. Days before his death he talked with Gen. Benjamin Butler about rewarding blacks with an all-expense paid trip to Panama to dig a canal.
And the Republican Party has always stood for the ideal that "the most effective, responsible, and responsive government is government closest to the people."
Not Lincoln's, anyone that thought differently was thrown into prison.
The function of the national government is to guarantee the promises of the Preamble and the vision of the Declaration.
There are no powers delegated by the Preamble, it's a statement of intent. The Declaration of Independence is not codified within the Constitution.
The Confederacy was not about "liberty" - it wouldn't allow liberty or the full benefits of citizenship to most of its residents.
Anybody see a pattern here? The Declaration Of Independence freed how many union slaves?
Lincoln, on the other hand, was determined that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth."
Was the Confederacy attempting to destroy the Union? That government never disappeared and it was never under attack. Lincoln was the consummate liar. The Great Prevaricator.
The liberty that hundreds of millions of people enjoy today is the legacy of Lincoln, because he refused to allow the self-serving southern "leadership" destroy the Union.
Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment ensuring that blacks could be enslaved forever, and wanted to deport as many as he could out of the country. It wasn't Lincoln.
Ever heard that statement about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty? Keeping an eye out for communists, nazis, and other socialist scumbags who try to infiltrate my party and government is a necessary hobby.
I post informational documentation to support my views.
No you don't. You select three or for partisan accounts, most of them by rabid left wingers, and regurgitate passages from them to no end even when those passages are shown to be in error or, worse, when you are shown to have artificially truncated them to make them sound more supportive of your position than they really are. If you tried the stunts you practice around here in virtually any university setting you would've been given the boot months ago.
It almost always comes from recognized authorities in their field.
Again, that is simply not true. Take your source on Bollman for example. Far from a recognized authority, he is a revisionist operating on the fringe of his profession by attempting to take down a 200 year old precedent with near universal acceptance in the legal scholarly field.
Then there's your sources on habeas corpus. You've got Farber, an average left of center law professor with no real distinction of any sort to his name any more than the average left of center law prof at any university has. And you've got Jaffa, who does not even hold an academic credential or formal training of any sort in the law and, by all indications, is a literature professor! Your source on Taney is even more bizarre - he's a left wing reparationist crackpot who is employed by the SPLC and whose "history" comes across as the ramblings of an agenda-driven hack (which he is) when compared to virtually any other source on Taney, be it positive (like Curtis) or negative (like Fahrenbacher). Since you have openly and wantonly professed each and every one of these persons as an "authority," thus making your argument an appeal to authority, it is far from ad hominem but rather perfectly fair game to point out that your "authorities" simply lack the credentials you assign to them.
You do pollute Free Republic. The content and demeanor of many of your ("your all") posts belongs over on DU. This is a conservative forum.
...straight from the guy who dumps untold pages of Berkleyite nutcases and SPLC-employed reparationist hacks as if they were valid "authorities" on this forum. I can see you've bought yourself a projector, capitan, but it is malfunctioning.
They always do get this way when the crosshairs start narrowing in on their secrets. The Wlat Brigade has suffered two major and public embarassments in only a few months, with the Glorious Leader outing himself as a marxist and a long time member outing himself as a neo-nazi.
With those two gone, capitan now knows that he's in the spotlight and he's drawing a lot of attention for quoting bona fide liberal's liberals as his sources and, more recently, that one of his core beliefs about US government bears uncanny resemblence to nazi political theories.
His first reaction, of course, was to project his unfortunate troubles onto others, as we saw yesterday in his repeated attempts to slap nazism on the very people who found his position so objectionable. But that didn't work so today's response is patriotism. But as Dr. Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.