Lincoln: An invented hero

National Post via Canada.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Kevin Gutzman

[EveningStar]

The Abraham Lincoln of popular perception is a mythological figure. He has little to do with the actual 16th president.

[catfish1957]

I don't even remember the pictures. And in your case have shown that you are a liar, and your credibility is near zero.

Add that to your unhealthy obsession with male geneatalia, I'd say you are one of du's best, or worst so to say.

[donmeaker]

Sorry, I did make a mistake on which lost cause loser posted the dirty picture and which asserted his admiration. Sorry about that.

Perhaps you could ask your friend to share his dirty picture with you using a different venue.

That way I need not trouble the admin moderator to buck up standards.

[donmeaker]

I guess you have such a stash of dirty pictures that one more doesn’t stand out, but you did feel the need to express your appreciation for that one.

Again, you are the one with the problem. I got the dirty picture removed from the thread. You expressed your appreciation for it. See how that makes us different?

[catfish1957]

No skippy. You are the one fixated on male gentalia. Like I said, I guess FR needs gay freepers like you. Go get ‘em California boy.

[catfish1957]

I do know one difference between us. You have been proven to be a liar.

[BroJoeK]

OneWingedShark post #186 on US "full faith and credit": "That makes no sense.
You cannot have something that is fuller than full.
Either "full faith" is not full, whereby something can be added to it, "

Think of your own credit scores.
They can go up or down, depending on creditors' changing beliefs in your good "faith and credit".
The 14th Amendment simply guarantees the Federal Government's "full faith and credit".

What exactly is your problem with that?

OneWingedShark: "And that unquestioning has brought us to the point where other people are questioning our trustworthiness;
IOW, there is nothing stopping us from becoming '1920s Weimar Germany, where their paper money became worthless' because the 'rest of the world' will not have any faith in the stability of the US or the validity of its debt."

Now you're the one talking nonsense.
The 14th Amendment simply guarantees the the full faith and credit of US federal debt.
This keeps interest rates low and allows the government to borrow ever more.
It also prevents anyone from suggesting the US should default on its debts, since that would require a new constitutional amendment.

Of course there are other ways for the government to accomplish the same thing -- printing ever more money being the historical option of choice.

OneWingedShark: "There is a way which the US could stop the downward spiral of no-faith: revert to the Gold (or silver) standard."

Agreed, except that a congress unwilling to discipline its own spending is unlikely to vote for a gold based currency.
And if it were willing to discipline spending, a gold based currency would be unnecessary.

[OneWingedShark]

The 14th Amendment simply guarantees the Federal Government's "full faith and credit".

No, it does not.
Article. IV, Section. 1 does:
Full Faith and Credit[...]

This keeps interest rates low and allows the government to borrow ever more.

The interest rate is controlled by the Federal Reserve, a wholly extra-constitutional entity, and therefore not part of the 14th amendment.

It also prevents anyone from suggesting the US should default on its debts, since that would require a new constitutional amendment.

Ha! Take a look at how much the Constitution is respected (in the legislature, in the executive, and in the judiciary) and tell me that it offers any protection.

Agreed, except that a congress unwilling to discipline its own spending is unlikely to vote for a gold based currency.
And if it were willing to discipline spending, a gold based currency would be unnecessary.

I like the idea because it would force that discipline, even if they were unwilling.

[BroJoeK]

OWS: "I like the idea because it would force that discipline, even if they were unwilling."

Sad but true: Congress has long demonstrated, and the Supreme Court confirmed, that when mere scraps of paper (i.e., the US Constitution) stand in the way of their socialistic agenda, words can always be found to justify whatever Congress wants.

Really, there's only one solution: informed voters elect candidates who at least claim commitment to limited, constitutional federal government.

[rockrr]

Unfortunately going back to a 19th century economic system that eliminates growth and global competition isn’t the solution.

[OneWingedShark]

Really, there's only one solution: informed voters elect candidates who at least claim commitment to limited, constitutional federal government.

No, there's another solution: it involves bloodshed.
And no, it is not illegal, the Constitution does not confer 'immunity' for actions contrary to itself: that is to say that any authority acting contrary to the Constitution has become a rebel and therefore is illegitimate. The illegitimate, even under color of law, is still illegitimate and therefore the law cannot protect them without itself becoming illegitimate.

[BroJoeK]

OWS: "No, there's another solution: it involves bloodshed.
And no, it is not illegal..."

The Constitution is very clear about any actions which can be classified as "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "treason", "invasion" and "other crimes".

The Constitution also provides a "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." -- so nothing Constitutional "involves bloodshed" to change the government.

Really, the only Constitutional solution is to talk to your neighbors and convince enough of them to think & vote the same way you do, FRiend.

[sauropod]

mark

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Unfortunately going back to a 19th century economic system that eliminates growth and global competition isn’t the solution."

In an age of super-computers, we will never return to 19th century economic mechanics.

However, from the founding of the republic in 1788 until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, and excepting times of war, the Federal Government consumed 2% to 3% of US gross domestic product.
During that time the US economy grew at rates that we now see in China and India.

Today the Federal government alone consumes circa 24%, and continues to grow unchecked.

So today "conservatives" are anyone who just wants to reduce -- not the size of government -- but the rate of its growth.

I'm saying this is insane, and cannot continue forever.
In Republican primaries, candidate Romney promised to restore the post-WWII average of 18% and even that was considered "radical".

Long story short: two equally unlikely things need to happen:

1. Restore basic fiscal sanity to the government's finances -- income = outgo.
   
2. Return all non-constitutional federal programs (meaning, most of them) to the states.
   States can then fund as much as they are willing to tax for.

That's the conservative solution.
It does not suggest trading in our super-computers and super-tankers for 18th century sailing ships and Thomas Jefferson's "polygraph": ;-)

[rockrr]

Why, that’s Dodo Bird thinking! ;-)