Posted on 12/24/2003 10:30:18 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
Abraham Lincoln, with his son Tad in tow, walked around Richmond, Virginia, one day 138 years ago, and if you try to retrace their steps today you won't see much that they saw, which shouldn't be a surprise, of course. The street grid is the same, though, and if you're in the right mood and know what to look for, the lineaments of the earlier city begin to surface, like the outline of a scuttled old scow rising through the shallows of a pond. Among the tangle of freeway interchanges and office buildings you'll come across an overgrown park or a line of red-brick townhouses, an unlikely old belltower or a few churches scattered from block to block, dating to the decades before the Civil War and still giving off vibrations from long ago.
They have to whitewash slavery completely.
Find where someone other than Lincoln does this.
They attack Lincoln on supposed constitutional grounds, or in other ways, not because they are outraged, but because they don't have the nerve to get to what galls them -- that President Lincoln did much to advance human rights.
No, we attack him on Constitutional grounds because that is the defense that you and others so feebly make for him.
If you were to post, "The end of slavery was brought about by AL inadvertantly as a result of an aggresive war of political conquest. His actions thus advanced the cause of human rights within the United States at the cost of the former Union of states." We would all probably agree with you (certainly I would). Unfortunately, that is never the argument that you make when talking about 'the Lincoln' and thus the alarms go off, the BS meter pegs out, and the rest of us jump in.
Fine. The record says (1) that O'Connor is indeed a leftist wacko and (2) that her wholly uncredentialed opinion on habeas corpus is in conflict with the unanimous agreement of the founding fathers and at least 5 of her predecessor justices, each of whom was immeasurably more qualified to comment on the matter.
She's a Justice on the Supreme Court. Your credentials are better?
Walt
Yeah. So were two klansmen and several communists. There's also an abortion attorney (Ginsburg), two left wing kooks from the tin foil zone (Ginsburg and Stevens) on the current court. So being a supreme court justice does not necessarily make one qualified to make sound constitutional arguments and in fact the overwhelming majority of the justices of lesser quality don't! O'Connor's recent actions have placed her in that realm of bad justices and demonstrated that whatever competency she once had on constitutional matters, if any ever existed, has long since been supplanted by poor and unqualified judgment.
Your credentials are better?
In light of O'Connor's recent actions on sodomy, affirmative action, and campaign finance, yes. Those actions also make practically any thinking, competant, and reasonably well learned conservative a better credentialed constitutional scholar than O'Connor.
Yes.
Sandra Day O'connor is ugly and has bad breath.
That she was a frontrunner in the legalization of sodomy, claimed that the constitution would magically transform itself in the next 20 years to prevent afirmative action, and has worked tirelessly to continue the American holocost of abortion is not only her 'record' but her record in the capacity in which she serves the public.
Each example of her radicalism is fair game in discrediting her as a reliable source on the constitutionality of executive suspension of Habeus Corpus.
Can you address the points as presented, and not as modified? I said international trade not imports.
2. The tariffs protected northern industry, and had almost no effect on the South. Remember, tariffs are federal taxes charged on imports, not exports.
It's called trade for a reason. The US was not unilaterally importing European goods, and the balance of exports were composed of Southern agricultural products. Here's an analogy: If I'm at a casino here in Iowa and win more than 1000 dollars, there is a tax agent on-site who comes over and takes 40% of it. Without that agent present, my winnings are worth 167% of what they are when he's through with me.
My guess is that you cannot provide a counterexample which shows that imports can be affected unilaterally; it would be sufficient to refute point #2. Perhaps if there were a rare commodity where a single country controlled a monopoly on production of goods it would be possible, but not applicable to the discussion we're having.
1. The Southern economy was heavily dependent on international trade.
2. Protectionist tarrifs are specifically designed to stifle international trade.
True.
2. Protectionist tarrifs are specifically designed to stifle international trade.
False.
The lack of factual information and well-formed opinion make it evident.
BUMP for honesty. There are only FOUR conservative justices on the current US Supreme Court.
Just as it was perfectly legal for Yankees to sail across the Atlantic to buy them by the boatload.
Editorializing about the tariff, and how it stifles international trade,
We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
Daily Chicago Times, 10 Dec 1860
Tariffs raise revenue. "Protectionist" tariffs discourage international trade by making foreign products more expensive. Make foreign products more expensive, international trade is stifled. Simply law of supply and demand.
Kennedy surprises me at times. I did have a freeper friend (ff--150) ask me when I was going to change my name.
But also enabled Europe and overseas markets to consume even larger quantities of southern cotton, to the tune of 3.13 million bales of cotton in 1860-61 alone. How much more are you suggesting could have been exported without the tariffs on manufactured imports?
False (Non-Seq)
Clarify and expand this belief of yours, non-seq. As it stands right now it is a belief that conflicts with the established and agreed upon economic reality of trade policy. Not even the AFL-CIO will dispute the fact that protectionist tariffs are designed to (a) cut off trade and (b) supplant its goods with domestic substitutes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.