ZOT! Free Republic Sucks?

[fisherspats]

Are People banned from this site? Are opposing views not welcomed? Why, YES.....Over the past 5-6 years I have had to change my log-in several times..Due to a "Banning". I have received over 132 e-mails from "Freepers" that were also banned. I enjoy reading most of the postings...I start my morning on this site. But I have learned not to reply or post any opposing views...until now. I'm sure this posting will vanish and once again I will be "banned". Until another screen name my friends.

[Publius6961]

You never heard of any definitions of "insanity"?

[Maelstrom]

As I said before I will say again...

...your interpretation...if it becomes too commonly accepted...will inevitably lead to another war. You are wrong, but I really hope you can learn the lessons of history and understand why your interpretation is a harbinger for war should the reasons for the war be forgotten in favor of your error or propaganda.

Your interpretation and insistence detail a nation that disallows any sovereignty of it's states AND disallows any sovereignty of it's citizens. It should be no great leap of logic, no surprise, nor should it have anything to do with any dark desire in recognizing how this throws the United States back into the heap of nations in history that succumb to internal revolt or becomes weakened internally to allow an external conquorer success.

Your interpretation has been rebutted time and again throughout your tenure here...the only fact of any import was the indisputeable fact that each of the seceding states was re-admitted into the Union after the war by legislatures chosen by Northern States.

That re-admission is an acknowledgement of those states' right to secede...an acknowledgement of the fact of their secession...an acknowledgement of it's legality...and an usurpation and end of states' rights under the Bill of Rights.

The success of the United States HINGES upon the limitations of it's government. IF people like you persuade enough others that those limitations are no more or that they can be avoided via modern interpreted loophole, the United States fails. I didn't post anything for which you should respond, your bin Laden buggering friend did.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The success of the United States HINGES upon the limitations of it's [sic] government.

Of course it does, and the government is wildly out of control.

That has nothing to do with this sentiment by Chief Justice Marshall:

"The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

the only fact of any import was the indisputeable fact that each of the seceding states was re-admitted into the Union after the war...

Factually incorrect.

The question was not whether the states were to readmitted -- the Union position, stated plainly by President Lincoln in his first inaugural, was that no state could legally get out of the Union "on its own mere resolve."

The issue after the war regarded the seating of congressmen and senators.

If you read the Constitution, you'll see that each "house" is the sole judge of the qualifications of its members. The Congress refused to seat representatives from the former rebel states because they were oppressing the blacks.

You can look it up.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Your interpretation has been rebutted time and again throughout your tenure here.

There have been some pretty verbose stabs at it, but without much success.

Are you saying, for instance, that the insurgents DID have a major success (excepting Chickamauga) outside Virginia?

Did rebel armies not melt away through desertion? Did the rebel government not conscript a large portion of its army?

Walt

[Maelstrom]

OF COURSE the government is wildly out of control. The limitations against government power are no longer enforceable.

You're partly to blame and can't even realize it due to your unwarranted ego.

I said you *can't* realize it because the realization is something of which you're incapabile.

I suppose one day you may be able to realize why you're partly able to blame, but you'd have to find your way to answering the question:

How did the US get to the point that the limitations against it's government power became no longer enforceable?

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your posts...as I initially said...you generate more replies specifically because you're almost always wrong.

[WhiskeyPapa]

How did the US get to the point that the limitations against it's government power became no longer enforceable?

That's got nothing to with the government per se. It's the people who have let their rights be eroded.

Really, we're at the point where we should "vote the bums out" at every election.

Walt

[goodseedhomeschool]

This IS a conservative site. Jim can choose whom he likes to post here. If he feels that people are being overly nasty or trying to cause trouble, it is his choice to do what he likes.
I would wager he does not want this to become another yahoo (bunch of yahoos) type forum in which liberals force their opinions on the rest of us through trickery. You would be surprised how many liberals come here and try to stir up folks, and often trying to pretend they are conservatives in order to gain credibility.
I say its Jim Robs site and he is free to do as he pleases. If one does not like it, they can leave.

[Maelstrom]

Wrong again.

[GOPcapitalist]

That's got nothing to with the government per se. It's the people who have let their rights be eroded.

A little over a century ago some of us tried to stop the erosion. The people in control of the federal government did not tolerate dissent though and halted us by force of arms. You normally cheer them for doing so.

[The Coopster]

Hey! This isn't another 6000 post thread beating the Civil War dead horse!

;-)

[furnitureman]

bump

[billbears]

How did the US get to the point that the limitations against it's government power became no longer enforceable? That's got nothing to with the government per se. It's the people who have let their rights be eroded.

What? The government is the people. Of course that's one worthless man said oh, about 140 years ago and thanks to widespread public education, another dandy way to rewrite history by infecting the young ones, half the people in this nation are so ignorant now they think the Gettysburg Address is akin to the Constitution. The 'people' allowed their rights to be eroded by being required to give all power to the centralized government and in effect destroy the Republic. No more balance of power between the states and the general government. Now we even turn to them to tell us how much water we can have in our toilet, right Walt?

The Republic died in April 1865 and we have been living in a quasi-Empire ever since. So don't go blaming the people all the time. Yes they elected people like Clinton (didn't you vote for him twice Walt?), but these changes we face were put into motion long before you, I, or our parents were born.

The centralization of power under the wing of the national government was the death knell for what the Founders, except for that worthless king worshipper Hamilton, wanted. It was the establishment of a sick form, one that was broken, and frankly unless the national government out of the kindness of its heart decides to relinquish power back to the the states can not be fixed. You can scream at the top of your lungs we are a Republic or we are a Democracy until the cows come home, it doesn't make it anymore true.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Republic died in April 1865 and we have been living in a quasi-Empire ever since.

Are you sure?

Chief Justice Marshall called the United States a "great empire" in 1821.

See Cohens v. Virginia.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

What? The government is the people.

Then the people are corrupt. Is that what you are saying?

Walt

[Gianni]

Then the people are corrupt. Is that what you are saying?

By and large, that is rapidly becoming the case. People no longer abide by principle when marking a ballot, they enter with a "what's in it for me?" attitude, and vote for the guy who's promising them the most free stuff.

[Gianni]

wing of the national government

Love that phrase. When I first read your post, I halted at that phrase for about three or four minutes trying to work it into a clever acronym for 'WHIG.'

Using imperial instead of national get's me close, but the H is rather klunky to deal with. I'll let y'all know what I come up with. Any ideas?

[WhiskeyPapa]

President Lincoln has a very good record on fidelity to the laws and the Constitution, as Dr. Farber's book shows.

ROTFLMAO!

When did Lincoln abide by Taney's decision?

As you know, during this part of the nation's history, it was generally held that each branch of the federal government could interpret the Constitution for itself. President Lincoln referred directly to this principle in his first inaurgual address, although he didn't deny that the rulings of the Supreme Court were binding on the parties to any suit brought there.

It was incumbant on Taney to bring the case to the Supreme Court, not President Lincoln.

But as Dr. Farber's book very clearly shows, Taney had no case. His Merryman ruling, like the Dred Scott decision had no basis in precedent or the Constitution and laws.

But you know that too.

Walt

[Gianni]

I don't think you meant 478 for me.

[stainlessbanner]

I don't think you meant 478 for me

It happens when you get so busy cut and pasting.