It's Time To Part Company (Maybe Walter Williams is right)

Jewish World Review ^ | 9/13/00 | Dr. Walter Williams (Rush's occasional fill-in)

[Nowhere Man]

Unfortunately that question was answered bloodily in 1861-1865. Those who want to be left alone will be kept in the marriage by force of arms by those who want to control.

I don't always agree with Walter Williams but he is right on in this case. You hit the nail on the head, basically the Civil War was about two nations, one with 22 million people, fairly industrialized beating up on another nation of around 9 million that is agrarian. The former, which is stronger, won although to some or many, the right side lost. I do think The South did have legit grievances and they would have had my support if I lived then but the Civil War decided how far the Federal government can go despite the limitations of the Constitution and State's Rights. It's a shame, really. Of course this could happen in the future, so who knows.

[JHBowden]

The founding fathers were not anarchists who opposed taxation in principle. They opposed taxation without representation. It was George Washington himself who invoked martial law and put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

[JHBowden]

Current socialist policies do have the consent of the governed. While I have great contempt for them, legitimacy isn’t a function of sentiment.

[x]

We have extreme poles, but the majority of the people are closer to the middle than the poles.

When people start talking about politics they divide everyone up into two hostile camps, but that polarization doesn't correspond to how most people live their lives in the real world.

[Nowhere Man]

Lets face it: the Blue state majority don't believe a war to oust a horrible dictator who has killed over 1 million people, used WMDs on his minorities, used rape as tool of government repression, and put living humans into plastic bottle shredders and watched them be torn to bits ..... they are unlikey to go to war over a few states opting out of FedGov.

These people could not possible logically support a war to force free Americans who had expressed their will in a free and open election to adhere to a political entity they no longer wanted to be apart of.
Well, I saw some of that yesterday. I posted my ideas on how we can bring odwn the high price of oil and gas here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2008074/posts?page=12#12

A few of the ladies I work with, actually I'm the only "rooster" in the room, complained about high gas prices and blames the oil companies and President Bush, another said, we need electric cars. I tried to explain what really needs to be done, most of it from my postings in the referenced article but they would hear none of that, sort of like "talk to the hand" deal. I, in the back of my mind, just shook my head in disgust. I feel like Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" where he shouted that people "cannot handle the truth!" Same thing, I feel like Charleton Heston yelling "Solyent Green is made of people!" Most are for Hillary and one leans towards Obama. I guess I'm the right wing nut and warmonger of the room that does support McCain although he wasn't my choice at first.

[x]

There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.

Could Texas and Lousiana even get along with each other?

Maybe, since they're not in the same conference.

It would be different with Texas and Oklahoma.

[Nowhere Man]

Sorry about the italics all though the message, my reply is from the second paragraph down.

[CodeToad]

“It was George Washington himself who invoked martial law and put down the Whiskey Rebellion.”

Yeah, but that was totally against the very things the founding fathers fought against; the idea of lavish taxation.

[Eaker]

I’m a bit confused, could you name these elements?

All 118? Are you mad?

[Eaker]

I copied your post# 11 to the Texas Locale page.

Thanks,
Eaker

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

McCain will do no such things.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

“Choose wisely my friend, your future depends on this choice.”

There is no choice.

If voting could really change anything, it would have already been designated a felony.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Tim McVeigh?

Try Hussein al-Husseini

[anglian]

What John McCain “gets” is what Obama doesn’t. It is the correct instinct of a commander: you can yield nothing to an enemy. Do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And you stand by your allies. McCain has stood firm in support of the war when many others were pulling their coats over their heads and running for the exits.

“McCain’s right. Unless you figure out what’s going on, you’re going to see the Democrats continue to tempt people to give away their liberty and prosperity in return for government benefits and that has to stop. I think that the one year McCain freeze on discretionary spending can be very helpful to let Americans realize what the real choice is between parties. It’s either that their future will be moving towards individual liberty, empowerment, and prosperity or towards government dependency.” More on McCains plans here. http://www.rightwingnews.com/

[MileHi]

It starts with a tax code that lets a bunch of freeloaders vote for freebies. Or maybe it starts with career politicians who don't give a damn about the peoples work. Or maybe I have no idea where it started, but I am pretty damn sure I know where it ends.

I no longer consider these folks to be legitimate authority.

Thanks for the ping...

[GulfBreeze]

will too

[roamer_1]

The November 2008 choice will be between McCain and Clinton or McCain and Obama.

That is yet to be determined.

Can we just get on with things? Elections are not wish lists. They are choices and in America on presidential general elections they are choices between TWO people.

Sure we can. That means of course, trashing liberals wherever we find them, which does include John friggin McCain. Oh, and there will be more than TWO PEOPLE on the ballot.

I cried the day Ronald Reagan past away. But he ain’t coming back and he won’t be on the ballot.

True, but a Reagan Conservative will be on the ballot- And if there isn't, then I would encourage you to write one in. That is certainly what I am going to do.

So, while McCain is certainly not everything I wished he was and there are several problem areas that he has failed us on.

*blink* *blink* : |

Oh! you mean like 'character', 'conservatism', and stuff like that?

There are hundreds of reasons to vote for McCain and push him as opposed to the other candidate. Here are a few:

McCain will tax less... Yeah. Cap and trade, socialized health care, welfare to amnestied illegals... without taxing...
McCain will hold the line on terror better... Not without guarding the borders...
McCain will do better on borders... You are smoking crack.
McCain doesn’t hate the military...So? There will be another that can be said of...
McCain will do more to protect the unborn... He will do nothing to protect the unborn.
McCain will spend less... Cap and trade, socialized health care, welfare to amnestied illegals... without spending... riiiiight.
McCain will have more respect from foreign leaders both friend and foe... Why? He is traitorous, dishonorable, and ignoble. How does that inspire respect?
McCain will do more to keep the death tax suspended... eh~ maybe... but I bet it is on the table for negotiations.
McCain has a more attractive spouse... Ooh, there's a great reason /not
McCain will hold the line on communist expansion in South America better... Why would he? He is a socialist.
McCain is LESS succored in re: global warming... Bullcrap.
McCain will appoint better judges... Unproven.
McCain will give more respect to the right to keep and bear arms... He flunks with GOA...
McCain will give more respect to free speech... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're kidding, right? LOL!

[Dead Corpse]

Mr. Williams is inviting me to commit treason.

Wrong. Those in Office perverting our Constitutional Republic are the ones committing treason.

This goes FAR beyond mere economic policy as well.

[Dead Corpse]

Consent of SOME of the governed, maybe. But it takes more than that to over-ride the Constitution.

"A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government." — Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1867)

"Those who sell their liberty for security are understandable, if pitiable, creatures. Those who sell the liberty of others for wealth, power, or even a moment’s respite, deserve only the end of a rope... America’s historic misfortune is that her people have seldom been equal to the ideals upon which their nation was established. "— L. Neil Smith, The American Zone (2001)

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

[redgolum]

Two questions.
What do we do now?
If it comes to that, where do we go?

The ideal of the Republic died a long time ago, and we are in the death throes of the Democracy. Tyranny comes next, but what should we do?