REAGAN WINS GREATEST AMERICAN CONTEST

I know you were referring to the Federal government. You did not get my answer.

The reason why you think this is because the way you view this country. You do not see it as 50 individual states united. How do I know this is by the question you asked? You act as if State boarders do not even exist. Here is the question I am referring to below;

"If a state can secede from the union then so can an individual. "

You look at this as if people are their own individual States, and you do not recognize that individuals have to respect local law(New York, Virginia, Georgia, etc..).

What you are advocating is a strong central government that will not allow STATES to leave if they wanted to.

When you wrote,

"By the way, those states didn't move anywhere, they stayed right where they were."

I don't follow you there? Did you forget the war between the states?

I am just saying that technically the war between the States was not constitutional. No where in the Constitution does it state you have to be a member. And you have yet to prove that.

Muhammad Ali is not only a coward (because someone else had to go in his place), but an idiot. He was originally named after a person who was an Abolishionist. The original Muhammad Ali was a slave owner. I have zero respect for him. Why he is glorified is beyond me?

I truly respect your right to your opinion, but you have no grasp of basic Americas history, and absolutely no sense of logic. Maybe it was watching too many godfather movies. Just kidding!
For the last time, My original post to you #186 asked you a direct question. What happens if all the states leave? Your response was..." O, I can tell you the answer (LOL)." You then responded "why did you answer a question with a question." I really thought you would understand that the simple answer to your question was, that if we let states leave whenever they want then all states could leave and you would no longer have a union, you would have an association. Each state would then become its own individual sovereign nation. Please look up sovereign in the dictionary. It refers to absolute power as a nation state. Individual states within the U.S. exist under the sovereignty of the Federal Constitution. The federal government crosses all state boarders. The individual states were not granted sovereignty over the constitution to just follow whatever laws they felt like. That would be anarchy.
As for Muhammad Ali. No, he wasn't a coward because he refused to fight for his country.He was wrong, but he wasn't a coward. He had the courage of his convictions. He did not run away to foreign soil and continue to box for millions of dollars. He went to jail and gave up millions of dollars of boxing revenue in the prime of his career. In addition, the army was not going to send Mr. Ali to Vietnam to fight the Viet Cong. He was going to stay stateside and give boxing exhibitions and tour army bases. He refused to be used by the government to popularize a war he didn't support. He refused to "sell out" and paid a very stiff price for his refusal. He was very misguided in his political thinking as many people were at that time, but he never ran from his responsibilities.For this reason, many Americans disagreed with his refusal to be drafted, but admired his courage to stand up for what he believed.
In addition, Cassius Marcellus Clay was his slave name. He was not named after an abolitionist. In this country your last name is your biological father's last name. Clay was the name given to one of Muhammad Ali's male ancestors by the slave master who owned him, and it was handed down from generation to generation. Mr. Ali's African name was taken from his ancestor when he was sold into slavery. Cassius changed the name when he embraced Islam as many Muslims do. I also disagree with his choice of religion, but respect his right to his own beliefs.
I assume, after this long conversation with you that you are young and foreign born. You have a very curious mind and inquiring spirit and are very skilled in the English language. I have mastered only English, and have lived here for almost 60 years. I have lived through much of American history (although not the civil war) :-}. Please listen more and ask questions, not to win arguments, but to learn another viewpoint. I will keep an open mind, and have enjoyed talking with you .

LOL! I love your subtle insults. When you cannot answer a question you just turn to insults. I guess when one lacks intellect to argue facts and logic then they turn to insults?

Your answer to my question was a hypothetical question? First, how in the world can anyone answer a hypothetical question? It would be a guess, and only that since it did not happen. Second, what the heck does your question have to do with my point of "where in the US Constitution does it say you cannot leave the Union"? Nothing here is the answer you have danced around since I have asked you.

Answer: It does not(Now you can come up with all the excuses in the world on why its not there, but that is not the point). The bottom line is it is not there.

When you wrote, "Cassius Marcellus Clay was his slave name. He was not named after an abolitionist."

Muhammad Ali is an idiot. First, he was never a slave. Slavery ended way before he was born. Therefore,
Cassius Marcellus Clay was not a "Slave" name. It was the name his Mother gave him. Second, here is the quote and link below,

"As a youngster, he resented being named after a white man, albeit an abolitionist. "

http://www.answers.com/topic/muhammad-ali-boxer

It is located under "American History" in the first paragraph.

Here is some more for you genius.

"Ali's father, in fact, was named after a white man. In the middle of the nineteenth century, just before the Civil War, a man named Cassius Marcellus Clay was an important politician. Although this Cassius Clay inherited a large plantation and slaves from his father, he did not believe in slavery. He emancipated, or freed, his slaves and began to speak out against slavery. He became known as an abolitionist, a person who campaigned against slavery in the United States.

In the mid-1800s, the entire nation was divided over the issue of slavery. In general, those who lived in the South supported slavery while those who lived in the North were against it. Since the state of Kentucky is a border state, midway between the North and the South, there were many Kentuckians who supported each position. Cassius Marcellus Clay, the politician, was outspoken in his opposition to slavery—so much so that on several occasions slavery supporters tried to kill him. But Clay refused to be intimidated. When the War between the States broke out, Clay supported the Union and President Abraham Lincoln. Later, Lincoln rewarded him by naming him the American ambassador to Russia. To many Kentuckians, particularly African Americans, Clay was a hero. That is why Ali's father was named after the abolitionist."

http://www.twbookmark.com/books/44/031610843X/chapter_excerpt20367.html

Oh and about the real Muhammad Ali,

"Until 1843 Muhammad Ali maintained a state monopoly on slave trading in Egypt and the pashalik."

http://sudanhome.com/info/turkiah.htm

"Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves then he sold. He once sold one black slave for two. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold."

http://debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/slaves1.html

The Muslims are history biggest slave owners. So obviously Muhammad Ali never did a little research before he change his name and religion.

On top of this the guy bashes the very country that has made him so rich and famous? What a jacka$$ is all I can say. How anyone can admire this hypocritical, racist, dumba$$ is beyond me?

It is quite obvious you are not originally from here. Well guess what I am. I was born in Dayton, Ohio.

After having fun with you for the past few days you have turned ugly, shrill and hysterical. What's up with that?
Here is the direct answer to your silly little question, since you are won't to grasp the nuance of my hypothetical and can only seem to comprehend direct reality.Yes I'm playing with you, no I'm not serious......please don't take yourself, or this discussion too seriously. It is an intellectual exercise, nothing more.

Finally.....the direct answer to your precious question. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you cannot leave the union. Are you happy now? Have you solved the dilemma the produced the war between the states. You sprite518 picked up what Lincoln, Douglass, Grant, Lee, Sherman, Scarlet O'Hara, Clark Gable, the founding fathers, and every other American before of since had missed. The constitution does not prohibit "you" from leaving the union. Oh if only those stupid moron Americans had you to advise them the entire civil war could have been avoided.

Now, o great one, will you answer my hypothetical. What would happen if all the states left the union?

Reagan was handed the keys to a Ferrari and he drove it well. He was the beneficiary of the policy of containment developed by Kennan and his famous long telegram, the Marshall plan, Korea, Vietnam, Lech Walesa, Solidarnosc, Pope John, and Gorbachev. The US was the world's lone superpower. His greatest achievement was the fall of the Soviet Union, but really, it was the culmination of almost 50 years of an effective foreign policy.

Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, faced greater challenges and changed the course of the nation. They are the top tier. Truman, Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Jefferson belong on the second tier. Reagan, Wilson, Polk, and Eisenhower on the third tier. I consider Nixon to be a greater President than Reagan except for his unfortuante demise with Watergate.

Reagan was handed the keys to a Ferrari and he drove it well.

Oh puh_leeeeeez. Reagan was handed a pinto and turned it into a Ferrari. The US was becoming a joke. Our military was a wreck and still hadn't recovered from Vietnam, our top tax rates will killing us, terrorists were pushing us around, our economy was stumbling, Russia was somewhat of a paper tiger but no one really knew that. To say that Reagan was just lucky is really ignorant. Reagan saw where this country could go when no one else on the planet believed him. Reagan's confidence and optimism and policies lead the US out of the hole. Reagan might not have faced WWII or the great Depression, but no one ever did a better job of leading this country. Of course we owe everything to Washington on leading the revolution and I would put no American above him.

There is no doubt that the military was in bad shape after Vietnam, but it was still, by far, the most powerful in the world. As for terorists, Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon when the Marine Barracks were hit. He aided the Islamic forces in Afghanistan against the Soviet invaders, but their victory eventually spawned the Taliban and bin Laden. The economy rebounded under Reagan's tax cut, but the budget deficit increased rapidly.

The Reagan administration ran budget deficits in each of its eight years. The lowest deficit was $188.6 billion in FY1989 and the highest was $311 billion in FY1983. The Reagan years added $1.94 trillion to the national debt and averaged annual deficits of $242.23 billion.

In the Reagan years, the federal workforce increased by 3,000 employees.

During the Reagan years the unemployment rate was 9.7%, 9.6%, 7.5%, 7.2%, 7.0%, 6.2%, 5.5%, and 5.3% respectively. Those eight years average an unemployment rate of 7.3%.

During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Reagan signed off on the infamous 1983 sellout agreement on Social Security.

To say that Reagan was just lucky is really ignorant. Reagan saw where this country could go when no one else on the planet believed him. Reagan's confidence and optimism and policies lead the US out of the hole.

You used the word lucky, not me. I said compared to other "great" Presidents, Reagan had it reasonably better than Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. Our national survival was not at stake to the degree those Presidents had to deal with nor did Reagan have the same kinds of challenges. Reagan was leading the most powerful country in the world, militarily and economically.

Reagan might not have faced WWII or the great Depression, but no one ever did a better job of leading this country. Of course we owe everything to Washington on leading the revolution and I would put no American above him.

I am not disparaging Reagan, but rather, putting his performance in perspective. Washington led this country in war against an enemy with superior fire power and experience. He set the bar for the Presidency and how that office would function. Lincoln had to deal with a Civil War and preserving the Union. FDR led this nation through the Depression and to victory in the greatest war the world has ever seen. Truman rebuilt a shattered Europe with the Marshall Plan, turned Japan into an ally, stemmed the tide of communism in Europe and Korea, and established intstitutions like NATO and the UN. Reagan did not have the same kinds of challenges nor the same level of accomplishments.

A President's greatness is often thrust upon him due to circumstances. IMO Reagan was a good President, not a great one. It will take 50 to 100 years before we can look back at his administration to place it in the proper historical context.

Sorry Gentlemen,

I have to disagree with your hero worship of Lincoln. Lincoln can be admired for doing what he believed was best for the country as a whole, but if you believe he was doing what is Constitutional and what is right, Lincoln could be considered nothing more than a power crazed tyrant.

Clearly the Southern States had and have the right to secede from the Union and form their own sovereign countries. Only someone who rejects the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence in favor of the doctrine of "might makes right" could disagree.

It is very easy to project trends in place as continuing forward into the future forever. It is just as easy to extend present trends back into the past. In truth, had the South been allowed to secede peacefully, it is not unreasonable to assume that competition between the two countries might have increased the amount liberty present in both. And if both countries had enjoyed even more liberty, the people living in both countries today might have been substantially better off. Freedom is what made America great, not the Union's victory under Lincoln.

Lincoln certainly changed the course of American history, but there is plenty of room for debate as to whether he changed it for the better or whether the people of the United States would have been better off if Lincoln had not been President.

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.