Are you heading down the same dead end road as this 'former' raving madman.
Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Lincoln holiday on its way out
By Phil Kabler Staff writer
A bill to combine state holidays for Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays into a single Presidents’ Day holiday cleared its first legislative committee Wednesday, over objections from Senate Republicans who said it besmirches Abraham Lincoln’s role in helping establish West Virginia as a state.
Senate Government Organization Committee members rejected several attempts to retain Lincoln’s birthday as a state holiday.
State Sen. Russ Weeks, R-Raleigh, introduced an amendment to instead eliminate Columbus Day as a paid state holiday. “Columbus didn’t have anything to do with making West Virginia a state,” he said. “If we have to cut one, let’s cut Christopher Columbus.”
Jim Pitrolo, legislative director for Gov. Joe Manchin, said the proposed merger of the two holidays would bring West Virginia in line with federal holidays, and would effectively save $4.6 million a year — the cost of one day’s pay to state workers.
Government Organization Chairman Ed Bowman, D-Hancock, said the overall savings would be even greater, since by law, county and municipal governments must give their employees the same paid holidays as state government.
“To the taxpayers, the savings will be even larger,” he said.
The bill technically trades the February holiday for a new holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving. For years, though, governors have given state employees that day off with pay by proclamation.
Sen. Sarah Minear, R-Tucker, who also objected to eliminating Lincoln’s birthday as a holiday, argued that it was misleading to suggest that eliminating the holiday will save the state money.
“It’s not going to save the state a dime,” said Minear, who said she isn’t giving up on retaining the Lincoln holiday.
Committee members also rejected an amendment by Sen. Steve Harrison, R-Kanawha, to recognize the Friday after Thanksgiving as “Lincoln Day.”
“I do believe President Lincoln has a special place in the history of West Virginia,” he said.
Sen. Randy White, D-Webster, said he believed that would create confusion.
“It’s confusing to me,” he said.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, suggested that the state could recognize Lincoln’s proclamation creating West Virginia as part of the June 20 state holiday observance for the state’s birthday.
Proponents of the measure to eliminate a state holiday contend that the numerous paid holidays - as many as 14 in election years — contribute to inefficiencies in state government.
To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.
I don't suppose you'd have any evidence of this, would you? Because, oddly enough, the Point Lookout website (hardly a place of anti-southern sentiment), lists the regiments that provided guards at the camp, and about a third of them have "Colored" or "Negro" in their names. And the litany of atrocities cited by former prisoners seem particularly slanted toward specifying black guards as their perpetrators.
http://www.plpow.com/Guards.htm
Well then let me try it again, Pea. I'll type real slow. Try and follow along.
You claimed that in 1860 the south accounted for 91.4 percent of all imports - $331 million out of $362 million total. If total revenue from tariffs was about $60 million then only about $6 million of that could possibly come from goods destined for the North. Follow me so far?
Now, if we look forward to the fiscal year 1861 and 1862. Total tariff revenue in FY 1861 was almost $50 million, 160% of the total 1860 imports you claim the North imported in 1860. Total tariff revenue in FY 1862 was almost $70 million, over 220% of the total 1860 imports you claim was destined for the North. How could tariff revenue grow at such an astronomical rate when so little was imported in the North? Are you claiming that in one year Northern imports increased 15 fold? Or are you claiming that the North had a 160% to 220% tariff on everything they imported? Or do you have some other explanation?
The data is that the North consumed $31 million in imported goods. What does that have to do with point of collection of tariffs?
Because, Pea, I think that we can safely say that in FY 1861 and FY 1862 the amount of imports coming through New York and Boston and destined for southern consumers approached zero. There was, after all, a rebellion going on and a blockade in place. So every dollar of tariff income collected in the North had to by on goods destined to Northern consumers, wouldn't it? And since you would have us believe that Northern imports were insignificant compared to southern imports pre-rebellion, then how do you account for the massive increase in imports in one year? Something was generating all that tariff revenue. What was it?
All that fanatical baloney over 'dixie' cups? Or is 'dixie' some tootsie who happens a ardent, raving neo-confederate partner in useless blather? LOL! Blithering twit!
fwiw, a lot of the "good 'ole rebs" on FR are PLEASED that you're on the DY's team. the DYs are NOT pleased, but alas for them & the unionist cause, they are stuck with you.
free dixie,sw
pay particular attention to the arrogant, ignorant, anti-southern, prejudice of several of the DY's "team".
some of them are too ignorant to know that what they are parroting is out of the Radical School of northeastern academia. the Radical School is at least socialist, if not Marxist-Lenist/Stalinist in outlook.
free dixie,sw
There's a substantial difference between planning for a battle and executing that plan. Isn't that obvious? Your inability to distinguish that difference helps explain why you also seem to equate competence with brilliance .
How much more remedial attention will you require before actually providing us with a specific example of Granny's brilliance as a tactical commander during the Seven Days Battles in early 1862?
Lee totally screwed up the artillery prep before Pickett's Charge, leaving it entirely to a 25(?)-year old. Instead of shooting directly at the Union line, resulting in under and over shots completely missing their targets, the shooting should have been at angles, giving under and over shots a much better chance of hitting something. And why the hell did the attack start in the afternoon? First thing in the morning is best for that sort of thing.
as an old "redleg",i.e. former ARNGUS artillery officer for 2 years, your post makes no sense, given the primative sort of artillery available in 1860s.
free dixie,sw
Your post was actually reasonable this time, so I will respond. A diagram would make it easier to explain, but here goes:
The artillery should not have been directed perpendicular to the Union line but at less of an angle, say 70 degrees, with half the cannons pointing to the left of perpendicular and half to the right. This way, a much greater length of the Union line would have been in the path of each shot, giving over and under shots more chance to hit the Union line. It is precisely because of the primitive sort of artillery available in the 1860s that this tactic should have been adopted. Competent artillery officers did it all the time during the Napoleonic Wars and the Civil War.
"Since at least 90% of imports in 1860 entered through the North, it stands to reason that at least 90% of imports went to the North."
What makes you think they stayed there?
Your reasoning, that you can ignore all other aspects of the ratification itself, would make any judge, lawyer, court clerk, legislator, governor, legal aide, janitor at a courthouse, screaming lunatic at an insane asylum, et al laugh their ass off, as it has done for me so many times in the past.
Enjoy your stupidity, I certainly have.
Translation: "It is flatly untrue"
Are you heading down the same dead end road as this 'former' raving madman.
You've finally got me. I have not the first clue in how to respond to this. I can't even understand what it is your saying anymore. You've gone beyond hallucination into the realm of bizzarroworld.
There is nobody from the founding era to the present day, outside of mac_truck, who would (or could) make a statement like that.
The problem is that you are the one that is confused because you are too busy rebutting and not thinking.
During 1860 the imports of the South were valued at $331 million.
The North consumed $31 million in imports.
The total value of imports into the US that year was $354 million.
The problem is that you are the one that is confused because you are too busy rebutting and not thinking.
During 1860 the imports of the South were valued at $331 million.
The North consumed $31 million in imports.
The total value of imports into the US that year was $354 million.
Bump for showing of true colors.
Just hasn't been the same since abandonment by the Funky Bunch.
Are you talking about the difference between a tactician and a field commander?
You're making fun of me? What a joke. It's allright to cry, little mac. We understand.
I don't get it once again. Lee devised a plan of battle that, even though horribly executed, achieved all objectives and was essentially a total success in the face of overwhelming odds.
Now I have to explain why that is a success? Thank goodness you're not involved in today's WOT.
Why in the world would imports destined for, say Georgia, go overland from Boston rather than be delivered to the perfectly good ports in Georgia? Come one now, you are grasping at straws.
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.