Neoliberalnot post #114: "No Freeper would condone the killing of his fellow Americans with desires to simply be left alone."
Neoliberalnot post #122: "I condemn Lincoln for ordering the death of soldiers on both sides.
...you are bean counter stuck with the notion that written rules somehow are to be followed, even if it means killing people who wish to be left alone."
Neoliberalnot post #224: "Your support of the dc empire that became a killing machine for both their own and those that they disagreed with does not fit the red state world view of smaller government that is supposed to serve, not kill, their countrymen."
Neoliberalnot post #247: "No one will ever convince me that killing my fellow Americans is justified to satiate the lust for power and money..."
Neoliberalnot Posts #285/286: "You use your man made rules and org charts to make money and further your agenda and if some fellow human violates some “rule of law” kill him.
There is a higher law that bestows a right to life and liberty, and that is God’s law."
And responses:
BroJoeK responding to post #100: "...the US Constitution, to which we owe due fealty, expressly deals with issues of "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion", "war" and "treason".
Those are all unlawful acts, and the Federal Government is required to defeat them."
rockrr responding to post #114: "What’s that got to do with anything?"
rockrr responding to post #122: "The south did not want to "be left alone" - the south merely wanted to do any damned thing they pleased.
The south wasn't going anywhere, but was setting itself as a belligerent, hostile, and aggressive competitor to the nation in a fashion that didn't just invite war, but demanded it."
BroJoeK responding to post #122: "Once the Confederacy started war (i.e., Fort Sumter) and then formally declared war (May 6, 1861), then Lincoln had no other choice.
Constitutionally, he had to defeat the Power which invaded and attempted to destroy the United States."
BroJoeK responding to post #224: "The basic constitutional function of any government, such as the United States, is to defend its citizens against military powers who attack and declare war on it, such as the Confederate States of America.
No real Confederate admitted that they were "countrymen" of Union citizens.
That's why they felt perfectly free to to start and declare war on the United States."
rockrr responding to post #247: "You’ve just captured the essence of the confederacy. Bravo."
BroJoeK responding to post #247: "the 'lust for power and money' began with Deep-South slave-holding secessionists, who first declared their disunion, then immediately started and finally formally declared war on the United States."
_Ditto_ responding to post #285/6: "The Confederates would have disagreed with you.
They said that only certain people had the right to life and liberty, not all people."
FRiends, I've revisited these previous posts because of a certain "broken record" quality to Neoliberalnot's words which makes me suspect something unspoken.
My question is, Neoliberalnot: do you oppose all wars, or only those under Republican presidents?
If you oppose all wars, are you a pacifist?
Do you have a family history of conscientious objection to wars?
I do. Some of my ancestors served in every major American war, but other branches were conscientious objectors to those same wars.
My dad served in WWII, while a distant cousin (recently deceased) did C.O. alternate service in a mental hospital.
So conscientious objectors have been recognized and respected from the beginning of the Republic.
It's nothing to be ashamed of.
If you are a conscientious objector, Neoliberalnot, then I say, God bless you, and go in peace.
I might point out that even conscientious objectors recognize law enforcement as a necessity, which may on occasion require use of deadly force.
But they draw a personal line on participating in such operations.
Nor as jurors will they impose a death penalty on criminals who might normally qualify for it.
Therefore, if pacifism is the real debate with our FRiend, Neoliberal, then it seems somewhat pointless to bring out historical facts about the Civil War.
So, Neoliberalnot, is it?
Lincoln was a RINO of the worst kind. Any leader incapable of stopping a war with brother killing brother is either incompetent or pure evil. The Kenyan maggot is cut from the same mold and the current level of divisiveness proves it. I mentioned already, my two relatives killed at Vicksburg fought for the northern invaders. The value I place on killing an innocent citizen brother simply supersedes some rule written by a lawyer in DC. You are simply another statist.
Interesting observation. By his/her response it appears to be the former, not the latter. Neoliberalnot prefers to stay willfully ignorant.