Confederate States Of America (2005)

[M. Espinola #1673] I understand Queens & Brooklyn are part of Long Island

Well, I am glad that since your transplantation from your British English place of origin you have learned that Queens and Brooklyn are on Long Island. You did ask if I was originally from the NYC/Long Island area. (As in Lon Gisland).

[M. Espinola #1673] Your irrelevant nonsense is noted as irrelevant.? You disagree with my response so instead of addressing the issue you sink back into mud slinging with the comment above. It seems when dragged back into the real world of 1861 you are unable to handle the realities.

I will note that your diversionary rant has once again avoided answering the simple LEGAL question that was put to you. Evidently, you cannot handle the LEGAL realities.

IF a legal RIGHT to secede existed, does the holder of said RIGHT require a good reason to exercise said RIGHT?

What other RIGHTS cannot be exercised without providing prior justification?

Does the RIGHT to free speech extend only to speech in a good cause, said good cause to be determined by some government entity?

[M. Espinola #1673] Since when was it 'legal' for pro-slavers to

The rant is incomplete but slavery was recognized as lawful by the Constitution. It might be ugly, but your diversions and running from the truth will not change the truth.

What does the (((vague))) phrase, "supported Israel" mean?

[M. Espinola #1673] It's about as (((vague))) as supporting traitors attempting to expand their slave empire. Is that vague enough? Give me a break.

I note that yet again you must run and hide from the question with a diversionary non-answer.

Does it mean taxing Americans and giving their money to Israel?

[M. Espinola #1673] Oh no, Americans should send out tax dollars to the sand nazis of Hamas to blow up more Israelis. Would that make you happy?

The question concerned what an Arab-American would have to do to meet your litmus test for elective office. You said the Arab-American candidate must "support Israel." We are now examining what you meant said Arab-American candidate must do to meet your requirements.

Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation...

[M. Espinola #1673] Damn good idea, as in nuclear threatening, Persian Iran. Go IDF!!

[M. Espinola #1673] Your true sentiments were dramatically revealed in that little diatribe directed at Israel. Thanks for removing your mask on that issue as well.

I asked you to define where in a range of options you define "support Israel." Thank you for removing your mask and demonstrating that you would place the welfare of Israel before that of the United States.

This was your stated litmus test for you to vote for a qualified, Arab-American for elective office. It appears, by your own rant, that you would only consider voting for an Arab-American if he first proclaims his support for an Israeli preemptive strike against an Arab nation and to support such preemptive strike with American military personnel and equipment.

Notably, in case of such preemptive strike, you are not only cheering "Go IDF!!" but you are saying that an Arab-American candidate, to meet your litmus test, must be cheering "Go U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Air Force!!"

Why not just state the obvious. You will never vote for any Arab-American for elective office.

Does it include releasing Israeli spies caught spying against the United States?

You avoided this one like the plague. Come on. Speak up. I answered your questions and did not run and hide.

What should the United States do with Jonathan Pollard, for example? Should we let him sit and rot? The Victim Impact Statement, filed by the United States said, "The specific instances of damage to the national security caused by Mr. Pollard's offense will be described in a classified damage session affidavit to be submitted to the Court in camera. Generally, it can be said that the breadth and scope of the classified information compromised by Mr. Pollard is among the greatest of any espionage operation uncovered by Federal authorities. Thousands of pages of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information were sold to the Israelis by Mr. Pollard. As explained in detail in the government's in camera affidavit, Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any such further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard's activities have adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel."

Do you condemn Jonathan Pollard as a traitor to the United States?

[M. Espinola #1673] On the Supreme Court issue, in so far as the Civil War, there were two sides. Pro-Union & anti-slavery or pro-slavery secessionists.

On the Supreme Court issue, there is the law as set forth in the Constitution and those who would choose to ignore the law as set forth in the Constitution. It is obvious that you must run and hide from the law as set forth in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court found that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. The question is very simple. It is a very simple "yes" or "no" question. Do you agree with the Supreme Court statement that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

[M. Espinola #1673] Which side would you have been on in 1861? I know which side I would have taken.

Presuming I was in 1861 as a native New Yorker, I would presumably have been on the Union side. Had I been a native of Virginia, I presumably would have been on the Confederate side. While I was in the military, had I been given orders to go to the middle east and make war on an Arab nation, I presumably would have gone and made war on an Arab nation. And if I had been given orders to go make war on Israel, I presumably would have gone and made war on Israel.

More importantly, in 2005 if there were a choice between the United States and Israel, which side would you be on?

I like the idea of USA first.

I was speaking more of the mindset of "blue staters" and
"red staters"...not necessarily the actual states. I live
in a blue state, but most counties are red. Unfortunately,
Multnomah County (Portland), OR is so heavily populated with
libs that it's navy blue. Lotsa nice red staters living
in the 'burbs, though. You are absolutely right about
Hollywood.

A belated welcome to Free Republic. ;o)

..."slavery was recognized as lawful by the Constitution." It's really a shame you could not be transplanted back to the time of the early Civil War, as a slave, and then would statements defending slavery as being "lawful by the Constitution" be so freely stated?

Why not just state the obvious. You will never vote for any Arab-American for elective office.

This is an incredible statement. How do you know whom I would or would not vote for? For your information there are Arab Americans which do indeed support Israel. The question should be, after reviewing numerous comments relating to Israel is why are you so down on Israel?

There you go again....lolol

It appears, (in your view) by your own rant (I see statements you are not in full agreement, are rants), that you would only consider voting for an Arab-American if he first proclaims his support for an Israeli preemptive strike against an Arab nation and to support such preemptive strike with American military personnel and equipment. (Talk about twisting someone's words. You take the cake!

Your question on Jonathan Pollard is very tipical by those which have deep rooted problems with the either the Jewish people or the state of Israel.

I do not read any concern relating to demented Hamas bus bombers from you. Why is this?

In terms of your preoccupation with Pollard being a 'traitor' that's funny considering your repeated support for Confederate traitors. Were the Confederate secessionists traitors when they shelled a United States fort?

Presuming I was in 1861 as a native New Yorker, I would presumably have been on the Union side. Had I been a native of Virginia, I presumably would have been on the Confederate side. While I was in the military, had I been given orders to go to the middle east and make war on an Arab nation, I presumably would have gone and made war on an Arab nation. And if I had been given orders to go make war on Israel, I presumably would have gone and made war on Israel.

Does where you happen to reside dictate your morals? You sound more robotic then anything else. In other words if The Supreme Court, which you act like is the closet thing to the Almighty, handed down a ruling that all those living in your section of Long Island be immediately relocated to northern Maine, would you simply abide, since the Supremer Court mandated so?

The two Supreme Court justices you mentioned previously I too admire thus I do not understand much of your line of reasoning nor questioning. Neither one of those men would asking such a question: "More importantly, in 2005 if there were a choice between the United States and Israel, which side would you be on?

Which side? The basis of you question implies one nation is against the other, which is not the case. All Americans must defend America and secondary our most trusted allies, so considering Israel has been directly on the front lines battling the worst of the terrorist jihadists we should be aiding Israel. Since the current governments of Jordan & Iraq are making concerted efforts to stem the tide of radical jihadism, we should also be assisting Jordan & Iraq in these endeavors, would you not agree?

Oh, by the way you used the term Middle East Arab allies I hope you don't mean the Wahhabist Saudis, do you?

You have an excellent overview of the radical left & the Islamic jihadists.

The leftists are useful idiots in the greater cause of radical jihadism.

The author David Horowitz, makes the following observations in his book Unholy Alliance: This portion is from Human Events Sep 29th, 2004.

Writing for Human Events, Robert Spencer states the following:

Horowitz explains that "as long as America continues to maintain the will and ability to protect what radicals regard as the global order of 'social injustice,' all reforms and social advances within the existing structure of American democracy will be illusory." In other words, it won't be enough for the left to elect John Kerry: America itself must be brought down.'

'What's more, this creates a peculiar harmonic convergence between the left and radical Islam. "The goals of radical jihad," says Horowitz, "are purification and social justice, both of which are to be achieved through the institution of Islamic law in the states conquered by Islamic arms."

(leftists only hate wars when they're waged by conservatives - they love wars as long as they advance a leftist cause)

Recent example: Barbara Boxer's disgraceful, vicious attacks against Condi Rice.

Let's try to remain in the no-spin zone

I equated 'American Klansmen' to 'Wahhabist jihadi scum' since both burn churches. Is that not correct?

Both give the nazi style salute. Review at the photos. Correct?

Both wear hoods when committing cowardly acts of terrorism. Correct?

Both have a doctrine based on blind hate. Correct?

Both try and prevent the normal voting process. Correct?

Are these photos gimmicks? Did I invent them? Or the truth of the matter you can not handle when it comes to the revolting similarities of the nazi-like Klan & nazi-like Islamic terrorists.

Directed at you 'Now get serious and quit posting demagogic trash', and face facts, hate is hate, The Republican Party does not represent the despicable likes of those who would defend the KKK or any other hate group.

[M. Espinola #1683] ..."slavery was recognized as lawful by the Constitution." It's really a shame you could not be transplanted back to the time of the early Civil War, as a slave, and then would statements defending slavery as being "lawful by the Constitution" be so freely stated?

It's really a shame that you cannot face the fact that the Constitution recognized slavery. Your childish diversionary ranting does not change that. In discussing whether something is "lawful" or "unlawful" it is the law that matters. In discussing whether making porno videos is lawful, it is the law that counts, regardless if one holds porno videos morally repugnant. In discussing the legality of abortion, it is the law that counts, even if one finds it to be morally repugnant or infanticide.

Why not just state the obvious. You will never vote for any Arab-American for elective office.

[M. Espinola #1683] This is an incredible statement. How do you know whom I would or would not vote for? For your information there are Arab Americans which do indeed support Israel. The question should be, after reviewing numerous comments relating to Israel is why are you so down on Israel?

Please do name one Arab-American politician who supports an Israeli preemptive strike against an Arab nation, and in such case, further pledges U.S. military support, manpower and equipment. THAT is what you included in your litmus test for you to vote for an Arab-American candidate.

[M. Espinola #1683] There you go again....lolol

[M. Espinola #1683] It appears, (in your view) by your own rant (I see statements you are not in full agreement, are rants), that you would only consider voting for an Arab-American if he first proclaims his support for an Israeli preemptive strike against an Arab nation and to support such preemptive strike with American military personnel and equipment. (Talk about twisting someone's words. You take the cake!

[M. Espinola #1578] 2) If an elected official has a proven conservative voting record would you still vote for them if they were an Arab American seeking higher office? If the Arab American elected official supported Israel, of course I would vote for him.
Does it mean providing military equipment and personnel to support Israel should Israel make a pre-emptive strike against an Arab nation...
[M. Espinola #1673] Damn good idea, as in nuclear threatening, Persian Iran. Go IDF!!

That is YOUR DEFINITION of what "support Israel" means.

[M. Espinola] Your question on Jonathan Pollard is very tipical by those which have deep rooted problems with the either the Jewish people or the state of Israel.

I have a problem with -ANY- U.S. citizen who spies for another country.

You apparently do not.

Your inability to condemn the spying of Jonathan Pollard reveals that your allegiance is not to the United States first.

[M. Espinola #1683] I do not read any concern relating to demented Hamas bus bombers from you. Why is this?

Because it has nothing to do with this thread.

[M. Espinola #1683] In terms of your preoccupation with Pollard being a 'traitor' that's funny considering your repeated support for Confederate traitors. Were the Confederate secessionists traitors when they shelled a United States fort?

Presuming I was in 1861 as a native New Yorker, I would presumably have been on the Union side. Had I been a native of Virginia, I presumably would have been on the Confederate side. While I was in the military, had I been given orders to go to the middle east and make war on an Arab nation, I presumably would have gone and made war on an Arab nation. And if I had been given orders to go make war on Israel, I presumably would have gone and made war on Israel.

[M. Espinola #1683] Does where you happen to reside dictate your morals?

Presumably, it is pure coincidence that many people in Israel just happen to adhere to the Jewish faith and people in Saudi Arabia happen to adhere to Islam and people in Spain just happen to largely adhere to Catholicism. It must be something in the water.

[M. Espinola #1683] You sound more robotic then anything else. In other words if The Supreme Court, which you act like is the closet thing to the Almighty, handed down a ruling that all those living in your section of Long Island be immediately relocated to northern Maine, would you simply abide, since the Supremer Court mandated so?

In interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. It is hardly the closest thing to the Almighty. The people in their sovereign capacity can always amend the Constitution.

As for your really dumb question regarding one really unlikely event, one might look at actual events in the past. During WW2, American citizens of Japanese ethnicity were rounded up and placed in internment camps. When there is a large group with guns moving people along, they tend to move along. German citizens of Jewish ethnicity were ordered to get on trains and they went. There was little else they could do. I suppose they could have tried quoting the natural law.

The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is lawful and the abortion mills have a right to practice what they practice. Show the world you are not a robot and go march on the abortion mills and close them down. Good luck.

[M. Espinola #1683] The two Supreme Court justices you mentioned previously I too admire thus I do not understand much of your line of reasoning nor questioning. Neither one of those men would asking such a question: "More importantly, in 2005 if there were a choice between the United States and Israel, which side would you be on?

I mentioned 8 Supreme Court justices on a Northern and Republican dominated Court who held that segregation was Constitutional. You said the root cause of segregation in the South was "Aryan (white) supremacy." You have now said the element in question existed in ALL states. What was the root cause in the states outside the South?

[M. Espinola #1575] On the question of 'Aryan (white) supremacy' being an influence in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the element in question existed in all states.
[M. Espinola #1515 to fortheDeclaration] "The comparisons during the 1930's in Germany with it's government enforced segregation of the Jewish population, and state enforced segregation in the South have numerous similarities. In both stains on the history of man, 'Aryan (white) supremacy' as you stated, were indeed the root cause."

You emphatically and explicitly stated that the root cause of enforced segregation in the South was "Aryan (white) supremacy."

The question is not whether it existed in all the states, but whether 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices in 1896 were "Aryan White Supremecists"?

If those 8 justices were indeed possessed of "Aryan (white) supremacy" why did Republican presidents stack the Supreme Court with a majority consisting of Aryan White Supremecists?

If, indeed as you now waffle, "the element in question [nc - Aryan (white) supremacy] existed in all states," then why did you say that enforced segregation in the South had similarities to Nazi Germany? How did it differ from enforced segregation in the North (or elsewhere), as found Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court consisting of a majority of justices appointed by Republicans who upheld segregation.

I also mentioned a specific Supreme Court opinion which you continue to evade.

On the Supreme Court issue, there is the law as set forth in the Constitution and those who would choose to ignore the law as set forth in the Constitution. It is obvious that you must run and hide from the law as set forth in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court found that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

The question is very simple. It is a very simple "yes" or "no" question. Do you agree with the Supreme Court statement that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

[M. Espinola #1683] Which side? The basis of you question implies one nation is against the other, which is not the case.

Artful dodge. Apparently you are unwilling to state a position.

[M. Espinola #1683] All Americans must defend America and secondary our most trusted allies, so considering Israel has been directly on the front lines battling the worst of the terrorist jihadists we should be aiding Israel.

The military oath says, "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

It does not say, ""I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend Israel against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...."

Americans do not have an obligation to defend any foreign government or territory unless the United States has entered into a treaty obligating it to do so.

[M. Espinola #1683] Since the current governments of Jordan & Iraq are making concerted efforts to stem the tide of radical jihadism, we should also be assisting Jordan & Iraq in these endeavors, would you not agree?

I wouldn't know what concerted efforts the governments of Jordan and Iraq are making. I am reasonably certain it has little to do with Robert E. Lee or the American Civil War era.

[M. Espinola #1683] Oh, by the way you used the term Middle East Arab allies I hope you don't mean the Wahhabist Saudis, do you?

That phrase "Middle Ease Arab allies" was not my term. I quoted the Victim Impact Statement submitted by attorneys on behalf of the people of the United States against the American traitor Jonathan Pollard, who was caught spying for Israel and who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Here, I will repeat that VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT:

"The specific instances of damage to the national security caused by Mr. Pollard's offense will be described in a classified damage session affidavit to be submitted to the Court in camera. Generally, it can be said that the breadth and scope of the classified information compromised by Mr. Pollard is among the greatest of any espionage operation uncovered by Federal authorities. Thousands of pages of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information were sold to the Israelis by Mr. Pollard. As explained in detail in the government's in camera affidavit, Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any such further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard's activities have adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel."

If you believe that the U.S. attorney was referring to Wahhabist Saudis you should voice your concern to your representatives in Congress.

Are you looking for anything other than pro-neo-Confederate spins on Civil War history?

Your post 1673 to nolu chan reveals that you are a total #3, creating false dichotomies(sp?) to paint him as a racist and implying that he's an anti-semite, traitor to his country, and longs for the days of slavery all in one post.

You asked him a few simple questions, which he responded to directly. He asks and you cannot extend the same courtesy.

as sinful as telling people that Lincoln only wanted peace and freedom

I hope when you go to Confession you confess your lying and slander.

Lincoln did only want peace and freedom, it was the South who chose to go to war in order to keep some men as slaves.

If there had been no slave issue, there would have been no civil war.

If someone asked you or I if either one of us 'support Iran' or 'support al Qa'ida' the response would be quick and too the point in an obvious 'no!'

Isreal is akin to Iran and al Qa'ida'?

"Thanks for removing your mask on that issue as well."

Yes, the North won the war,but lost the peace.

Both North and South have suffered for it.

No people who denies the right of the consent of the governed to one people, can claim that right for themselves. Then who claimed that right in 1776?

That is why the Founding Fathers had always intended to end slavery as a moral evil.

In fact, Jefferson in his original draft of the Declaration held the King responsible for placing the evil of slavery among the colonies.

That passage was taken out on the insistence of certain Southern leaders.

However, in the Civil War, the South was fighting for slavery as a moral right.

The British did note the apparent contradiction with the colonists and slavery.

as sinful as telling people that Lincoln only wanted peace and freedom.

You must remember that the winners write the history...but the losers write the myths.

but the losers write the myths.

Amen!

If there had been no slave issue, there would have been no civil war.

Try to appeal to authority on that. I have never seen this from anyone outside of Walt, and now you. I have, many times, seen historians claim that either war or separation was inevitable; and that if it hadn't been slavery, it would have been something (anything) else.

If that is the case, by the way, then why was the country not split along the lines of slave and non-slave states?

Prior to the German unification in 1918, Saxe Coburg and Gotha was a country, and they recognized the CSA. Seems like you are either wrong or lying again

That would be the German Unification of 1871, when Saxe-Cobug Gotha became part of the German Empire. Before that it had been part of the North German Confederation since 1866. Before that it was part of the German Confederation which was dominated by Austria, which didn't recognize confederate sovereignty. The only significance of 1918 is that is when the last Duke died. Saxe-Coburg Gotha was split between Bavaria and Thuringia in 1920 and dissolved.

That is why the Founding Fathers had always intended to end slavery as a moral evil.

I'm less than convinced, especially since they codified it into the Constitution 10 years after declaring independence.

However, in the Civil War, the South was fighting for slavery as a moral right.

The South was fighting in defense of their homes, their families, and, yes, their way of life, which included slavery. If the radical islamists invaded tomorrow with the stated purpose of ending abortion (note: this should be an easier case, since the Union never made claim to end the evils of slavery), I would do everything within my power to repel such an invasion. That does not make me a defender of abortion, or an abortocrat, or whatever the next idiotic word y'all are going to make up to paint us all as lovers of slavery. None of us are. Get over it.

The British did note the apparent contradiction with the colonists and slavery.

So, then, do you believe the revolution of 1776 was immoral?

You must remember that the winners write the history...but the losers write the myths

Amen!

And you two, to write the bull$hit.

If that is the case, by the way, then why was the country not split along the lines of slave and non-slave states?

Because slavery was weakening the farther North you went. The deep south states were the most dependent on it, and had the largest slave populations. The 8 slave states to their north did not join the rebellion whe the south launched it, much to the deep south's dismay. It wasn't until the rebellion turned to an armed conflict that the remainder of the slave states were forced to choose sides. Four went with the confederacy. Two states, Missouri and Maryland, voted against secession and remained with the North. Kentucky tried a neutral stance which lasted until Leonidas Polk led a confederate army into the state in September 1861. And Delaware was firmly in the Union camp from the beginning.

And you two, to write the bull$hit.

By the way, fortheDeclaration, did anyone ever tell you what 'IOWA' was an acronym for?

Still fighting for the Lost Cause is for losers. Now it's your turn to go bail some cotton, boy :)