REAGAN WINS GREATEST AMERICAN CONTEST

Self ^ | 06/26/2005 | Self

[EUPHORIC]

Reagan wins!!! Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, George Washington, then Ben Franklin in order.

King #3? Bleh. Man was the commie panther type unhappy King was not #1. :)

[Checkers]

"That is going to piss off some Liberals."

"What doesn't?"

Clinton taking a dump on America didn't bother 'em a bit.

[Checkers]

Love your screenname, but it may be a bit subtle...

[Marauder]

Clinton taking a dump on America didn't bother 'em a bit.

Good point; Clinton definitely furthered their agenda, as evidenced by the loss of property rights achieved by his having increased the "liberal index" of the SCOTUS.

This tells me that the next round of battle in the Judiciary Committee is going to be damned intense when Rehnquist retires.

I'd really like for the pantywaist Pubbies to get off their non-confrontational high horse and play for keeps.

[The_Englishman]

In England, initial contest (I think) Churchill beat Diana.

Churchill over Brunel. Diana 3rd. (Then Darwin, then Shakespeare).

[photodawg]

That is the answer to your question. To spell it out :-), there would be no constitution of the United States of America if there were no states. If a state left the union, it was up to the executive branch to decide on a course of action and the legislative branch to ratify or reject that course of action. AS SOON AS STATES LEFT THE UNION THEY WERE, BY DEFINITION, NO LONGER PART OF THE UNION. the remaining states had to decide how to respond to this threat to their sovereignty. This was done constitutionally by the states remaining in the union. Fortunately for the seceding states, the UNITED STATES decided to go to war with the newly established government of the confederacy to challenge its legitimacy. The rest is history.

[Sprite518]

There is nothing in the US Constitution that says you cannot leave the Republic. The actions of the remaining States speaks volumes. It kind of reminds me of the movie Godfather III. You cannot ever leave or there will be bloodshed. Nice....

[photodawg]

Once again. What happens to America if all the states leave the union? Why do they call it a union? What is sovereignty? What happened to the American citizens in the states that left the union if they didn't want their state to secede?
The states that left did so because they refused to abide by federal decisions constitutionally arrived at. What union, what government, could exist when any state was free to leave the union whenever they didn't like a properly, legally arrived at decision? Would that mean that individual citizens would be free to leave the government and become independent whenever they didn't like a decision. How about if a seceding state decided they were unhappy with the confederacy, could the come back in the union? Who determines if a state really wants to leave? Is it the state gov't? Should there be a popular vote? Who should vote the individual states or the entire country? Who gave the individual states sovereignty anyway? Weren't they converted colonies, and new territories annexed by the U.S. government? Wasn't Texas part of mexico? Remember the Alamo.
To analogize this complex set of legal, social, economic, and religious interrelationships to a Godfather movie is a little off base and simplistic, don't you think. I know the romanticized view of the prewar deep south and their many righteous grievances against the excessive federal interference makes it seem like its a simple freedom issue, but its more license than liberty involved here.

[Bellflower]

Forget Jefferson and put in John Adams. Samuel Adams, too.

[Bellflower]

What are you talking about?...

Good question. Did he/she ever answer?

[savedbygrace]

Nope.

[DMZFrank]

I am a black man who has been getting callouses on my dome from butting heads with those in my community who refuse to relinquish big government statist solutions for the problems plaquing the black community in favor of free market solutions that are far more appropriate today. These forces frequently cite Dr. King and use his exhortations to government to lead the way. They specifically cite his socialist outlook as justification for their continuance.

King himself expresses a communist outlook in his book "Stride Toward Freedom" when he stated, "in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Marx had raised some basic questions. I was deeply concerned from my early teen days about the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, and my reading of Marx made me even more conscious of this gulf. Although modern American capitalism has greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system"

King, unfortunately, didn't understand that it was Capitalism and freedom that was responsible for the successes the African-American community already had achieved in his day and the key to future success. By "better distribution of wealth" King meant state control over the economy. His contempt for "the profit motive" was unfortunate given that African-Americans should've been encouraged by their leaders to seek fair profit to the best of their ability. King's leftist ideas contributed to an opening of the floodgates to such radicals as Stokley Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, the Black Panthers, as well as the burning and looting of African-American neighborhoods, the institutionalizing of poverty perpetrating welfare, the destruction of the family, drugs, violence, racism, and crime.

In "Stride Toward Freedom" Dr. King states "In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yea and a partial no. My readings of Marx convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. The Kingdom of G-d is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both."

King, like Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, had "a dialectical point of view." The goal of the dialectic is authoritarianism. A nation, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, cannot be half free and half slave. By advocating socialism, King chose an imperious stand toward his own people in contrast to a stand for genuine freedom, self-rule, self-sufficiency, private ownership, and the accumulation of capital. King did not advocate the American system of free market capitalism. Instead, he stood for a system that has stunted the growth of African-Americans as well as the rest of us.

All Marxists believe in Hegelian Dialectics. This is a belief that "progress" is achieved through conflict between opposing viewpoints. Any ideological assertion (thesis) will create its own opposite (antithesis). Progress is achieved when a conclusion (synthesis) is reached which espouses aspects of both the thesis and antithesis.
For example, Hitler had a dialectical point of view. He rejected Marxist class warfare, but embraced the basic socialist idea of the insignificance of the individual compared to the collective state.

MLK was a man of enormous charisma and courage and certainly a pivotal figure in the civil rights movement. There is much about him that I admire. An assesment of his life could creditably yield the adjective of great. Despite that, he does not deserve to be the ONLY American with his own holiday named after him. That honor should be reserved for only one person in American history, the greatest of all Americans, George Washington. More so than any other SINGLE figure in our history, he was the "indispensable man." Without his courage, acumen,honor, and integrity, the US would simply not exist, and if it did, it probably would have been as a monarchy and certainly not as a constitutional republic.

MLK's birthday was a sop to PC and a reflection of the DemocRAT Congress that voted it. The depth of MLK's association with the most anti-freedom ideology (Communism)of our time will prove to very embarrassing when it is fully revealed. Additionally, MLK's legacy to the modern day civil rights movement is a socialist bequeathment, that of looking to big government solutions for many of the behavioral problems in today's black community. MLK continues to cast a long shadow over most of the modern day civil rights establishment and black politicians who largely reject free market, educationally based solutions to the unique problems plaguing the black community.

[Mr. Mojo]

Tremendous post, Frank.

I salute you.

[Sprite518]

And once again you answer my question with another question. The problem is that you know I am right, and that is why you do not answer the question. I am going to try to answer some of your questions.

"What happens to America if all the states leave the union?"

Answer: This is a hypothetical question. I would only be guessing just like you would be?

"Why do they call it a union?"

Answer: When you say "IT" do you mean the USA? A union can be between two states or fifty. If 13 states leave, there is still a Union. It is just by less states.

"What happened to the American citizens in the states that left the union if they didn't want their state to secede?"

Answer: They can always move. As individuals we can decide if we want to stay somewhere or not. You just have to weigh how important it is to you.

"What union, what government, could exist when any state was free to leave the union whenever they didn't like a properly, legally arrived at decision? "

Answer: If they are willing to leave, then it is a weak Union.

"Would that mean that individual citizens would be free to leave the government and become independent whenever they didn't like a decision. "


Answer: No, but they will be free to leave the State if they would like. That is what free societies do. They do not put up walls to keep you in like Communist.


The Godfather comparison is to give you an analogy of what you are supporting. Please specifically tell me how it's off base? In the movie no one could ever leave the family without bloodshed.

You ever hear of the K.I.S.S analogy? I think its very effective and that is why I use it. I am not here to impress you with words, but to debate you on a subject. K.I.S.S. stands for Keep It Simple Stupid. I keep it simple since you cannot see the obvious.

[Zathras]

Thats why I always call him, "The Great One"!
The Moses of the 20th Century, pointing the way.

[photodawg]

No, I was using the K.I.S.S. dictum when I originally asked "What happens if all the states left the Union. " You still don't seem to be able to come to terms with that question. Actually ,the only question my original post asked. KISS.......If one state is permitted to leave the union, then all states could leave. If all states left, or even a large portion of them, then the nation would cease to exist as a Sovereign nation. That is why, in principle, the constitution could never provide for secession as part of the document and obviously wouldn't have any relevancy to resolving the secession dilemma. As soon as a state seceded it would no longer be part of this sovereign nation, and therefore the constitution would not apply to it.

[photodawg]

" residents of seceeding states could always move..."


Could slaves move?

[photodawg]

" if they are willing to leave then it is a weak union"

Willing is the wrong verb choice. If they leave then there is NO UNION.

[photodawg]

"they will be free to leave the state..."

the government I was referring to was the federal government. If a state can secede from the union then so can an individual. If I don't agree with the laws of the U.S government then I just secede from the union......just like the southern states did. By the way, those states didn't move anywhere, they stayed right where they were. What you are advocating is not freedom, its anarchy. You belong with Thoreau on Walden pond somewhere. I believe in individual rights and following your heart, but when you do that and oppose the laws of your government, you must pay the penalty, just like Muhammad Ali did when he defied the Draft Laws. He didn't run to Canada, he went to jail. He was an American and prized his freedom, but respected his country's laws and paid a huge financial, and emotional price for his individual beliefs.

[Sprite518]

No you answered a question with another question. That is politics 101. You cannot answer a question, therefore you answer with another question. I do not play that game.

"If one state is permitted to leave the union, then all states could leave. If all states left, or even a large portion of them, then the nation would cease to exist as a Sovereign nation"

What determines a sovereign nation is not the size. I do not understand how you can come to the conclusion that if most of the states left the Union, then the remaining states are not a nation? It is still a nation just a smaller country.

[Sprite518]

Probably not since they were slaves.