And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Wednesday, October 9, 2024
Posted on Patreon, but important enough to post here as well. Read and comment according to your point of view.
There was NEVER a war of northern aggression. There was a war in which the south decided to attack and fight AGAINST the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. You can chose to stand with those that attack America but at least be honest about it. Stand with our enemies but know that you will not stand for long.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What part of the preamble implies that the south was justified in attacking the United States of America in Fort Sumter? What part of the preamble says that it is ok to own people?
The south didn't fight the north. The south fought the United States of America and lost. Get your facts straight. If you want to quote the US Constitution you should also read it. You may learn a thing or two.
Nope. You were to weak for that. You fought top break the Union and lost. You should be thankful that you lost. Otherwise you would not be part of the greatest country in the world. You would be another 3rd world shithole.
I read the article you posted. What a load of crap!
There are so many factual mistakes with that article that it is impossible to state them all.
First the article assumes that the number of votes a party gets could be correlated to the size of the army that "side" could have. Then it uses that false analogy (most people would not be willing to die or kill for a political party) to assume that the Republicans could amas a bigger army than Democrats. Never mind that in real life the last Republican to win the popular vote was Bush in 2004 riding on the shoulders of 9/11. If votes correlated to armies the Democratic "army" would have killed every Republican "army" by millions since 2008. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump, Biden received 7 million more votes than Trump and chances are Harris will also get more votes than Trump. Trump may very well win the electoral college and become the next president but there is no scenario under which he gets more votes than Harris and therefore if we accept the premise that votes=army size then the Democratic "army" would be larger than the Republican "army".
If we are going to assume that votes=army size=capacity to hurt the other side and assume that the Republican army would be larger than the Democratic army, then why not get rid of the electoral college?
At some point the article makes the case that hereditary power is better because it ensures that those who have been here the longest have a personal stake in keeping the country “nice”. If you believe this, you should take a 7th grade civics class. There you would learn about John Locke (limited government – kings are not sent by God), Hobbs (social contract), Montesquieu (3 separate powers) and so on. The idea that your political power depends on how long your family has been on this land is not only unamerican it also sets you back 600 years. You are 3 beers away from suggesting women should wear burkas and walk 5 steps behind her man. The Taliban would be proud of you.
Later the article argues that the Democrats base in made mostly of civil servants, high ranking officials and childless cat-ladies. While Republicans are blue-collar workers, married couples, and entrepreneurs. In other words, Democrats “live” out of what Republicans produce. Unfortunately, the real world also disagrees with this notion. In the last presidential election Biden won in 25 states and Trump won 25 states. If the premise of the argument, Republicans are hard workers and Democrats are living out of what republicans generate, were true then the states that Trump won should be wealthier. But NO. In the real world the 25 states that Biden won generate 70% of the American GDP while the 25 states that Trump won generate only 30% of the GDP. Furthermore, most of the states that Trump won receive MORE from the Federal government than what they contribute. That means that following the article’s logic it is Republicans that live out of what Democrats generate.
I could go on and on for days. A junior in high school would get an F if they submitted an article as poorly reasoned as this one.
I can only suggest you read the classics (Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, The US constitution, Adam Smith, Hobbes, etc). Stop reading crap like this that only poisons your mind.
I'm sure you could go on for days. You sound like a progressive that will have to tell everyone how they should live their life because you are smarter than those that do not agree with you.
@ anon 904 am You sound like a flaming Democrat / Communist The electoral college ensures all states have a voice rather than New York and LA electing our executive officers. I think our forefathers had the correct idea when only property owners could vote.....skin in the game. A big problem with gov't in general is drawn from a simple " what party do gov't worker donate to " , 95% donate to the Democrats....red flag ???? As for elections, especially 2020, I don't think I'll personally accept any again, until we 100% go to paper ballots that are hand counted and cast by citizens with picture ID.....hate away
@urb81 The electoral college ensures all states have a voice rather than New York and LA electing our executive officers.
Instead of NY and CA electing our officers we have settled in a situation in which PA, GA and MI elect our leaders. In the end a couple states hold all the power when it comes to electing leaders (it is just not the largest ones).
I live in FL my vote doesn't count at all. Regardless of how I vote Trump will win FL by many points. In the last 40 years I lived in FL, IL, NJ and TX. In other words my vote has never mattered I always lived in states that were clearly going one way or the other. Never in a swing state. We have a system in which the only votes that really matter are from people that live in swing states. Is that really ensuring that all states have a voice? Not really.
If we moved to a popular vote system a republican voting in San Francisco would have the same power than a democrat voting in Louisiana. We can argue if the Electoral College is better or not for what kind of government you may want to see elected. The argument for equal voice is already lost.
I see your point but I don't agree. If you noticed the current "leadership" has let 20M illegals in to the country and flew and bused them to swing states. Hmmm I wonder why.
Because the majority in highly populated blue cities think they are at another level then those red low populated areas which are conservatively 80-85% the majority of land mass in the United States. So they surmise that if we get rid of the electoral college they can control what the red population who own the majority of land in the US says and does. Almost time for the real majority to stand. Is there any other choice
Whew boy, didn't this create a $hitStorm. Anon needs to go read Lincoln's speeches and see the economics in play at the time of the southern succession. But first un-bunch your panties.
This article is a good history lesson and sums up the situation nicely.
At least half the people in this country have had their heads programmed inside out and the only cure will be millions of tiny, high speed metal missiles.
That was lovely, and a very good callback. Lots to un-learn from the masses about the origins of the War Between the States, but learning demands a ready and inquiring mind rather than one determined to fit artifacts into policy positions.
The two most detrimental events this nation’s history. The South losing the the war of northern aggression and women’s suffrage.
ReplyDeleteThere was NEVER a war of northern aggression. There was a war in which the south decided to attack and fight AGAINST the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
DeleteYou can chose to stand with those that attack America but at least be honest about it. Stand with our enemies but know that you will not stand for long.
Hearty amen Cold Soldier. Hearty.
DeleteA simple reading of the "Preamble the Constitution" could easily have served as the statement Southern Secession.
Delete"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
DeleteWhat part of the preamble implies that the south was justified in attacking the United States of America in Fort Sumter? What part of the preamble says that it is ok to own people?
The south didn't fight the north. The south fought the United States of America and lost. Get your facts straight.
If you want to quote the US Constitution you should also read it. You may learn a thing or two.
So we invaded the north and fought for control of the federal government? Wow I was unaware of that.
DeleteNice empire you developed since then. General Lee called that one.
Nope. You were to weak for that. You fought top break the Union and lost. You should be thankful that you lost. Otherwise you would not be part of the greatest country in the world. You would be another 3rd world shithole.
DeleteYou are welcome!
Anon at 1:36 thank you for show your head is up your ass. Both sides lost, needless war over government over reach and excessive taxation.
DeleteI read the article you posted. What a load of crap!
ReplyDeleteThere are so many factual mistakes with that article that it is impossible to state them all.
First the article assumes that the number of votes a party gets could be correlated to the size of the army that "side" could have. Then it uses that false analogy (most people would not be willing to die or kill for a political party) to assume that the Republicans could amas a bigger army than Democrats. Never mind that in real life the last Republican to win the popular vote was Bush in 2004 riding on the shoulders of 9/11. If votes correlated to armies the Democratic "army" would have killed every Republican "army" by millions since 2008. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump, Biden received 7 million more votes than Trump and chances are Harris will also get more votes than Trump. Trump may very well win the electoral college and become the next president but there is no scenario under which he gets more votes than Harris and therefore if we accept the premise that votes=army size then the Democratic "army" would be larger than the Republican "army".
If we are going to assume that votes=army size=capacity to hurt the other side and assume that the Republican army would be larger than the Democratic army, then why not get rid of the electoral college?
At some point the article makes the case that hereditary power is better because it ensures that those who have been here the longest have a personal stake in keeping the country “nice”. If you believe this, you should take a 7th grade civics class. There you would learn about John Locke (limited government – kings are not sent by God), Hobbs (social contract), Montesquieu (3 separate powers) and so on. The idea that your political power depends on how long your family has been on this land is not only unamerican it also sets you back 600 years. You are 3 beers away from suggesting women should wear burkas and walk 5 steps behind her man. The Taliban would be proud of you.
Later the article argues that the Democrats base in made mostly of civil servants, high ranking officials and childless cat-ladies. While Republicans are blue-collar workers, married couples, and entrepreneurs. In other words, Democrats “live” out of what Republicans produce. Unfortunately, the real world also disagrees with this notion. In the last presidential election Biden won in 25 states and Trump won 25 states. If the premise of the argument, Republicans are hard workers and Democrats are living out of what republicans generate, were true then the states that Trump won should be wealthier. But NO. In the real world the 25 states that Biden won generate 70% of the American GDP while the 25 states that Trump won generate only 30% of the GDP. Furthermore, most of the states that Trump won receive MORE from the Federal government than what they contribute. That means that following the article’s logic it is Republicans that live out of what Democrats generate.
I could go on and on for days. A junior in high school would get an F if they submitted an article as poorly reasoned as this one.
I can only suggest you read the classics (Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, The US constitution, Adam Smith, Hobbes, etc). Stop reading crap like this that only poisons your mind.
I'm sure you could go on for days. You sound like a progressive that will have to tell everyone how they should live their life because you are smarter than those that do not agree with you.
Delete@ anon 904 am
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a flaming Democrat / Communist
The electoral college ensures all states have a voice rather than New York and LA electing our executive officers.
I think our forefathers had the correct idea when only property owners could
vote.....skin in the game.
A big problem with gov't in general is drawn from a simple " what party do gov't worker donate to " , 95% donate to the Democrats....red flag ????
As for elections, especially 2020, I don't think I'll personally accept any again, until we 100% go to paper ballots that are hand counted and cast by citizens with picture ID.....hate away
American citizen = skin in the game.
Delete@urb81 The electoral college ensures all states have a voice rather than New York and LA electing our executive officers.
DeleteInstead of NY and CA electing our officers we have settled in a situation in which PA, GA and MI elect our leaders. In the end a couple states hold all the power when it comes to electing leaders (it is just not the largest ones).
I live in FL my vote doesn't count at all. Regardless of how I vote Trump will win FL by many points. In the last 40 years I lived in FL, IL, NJ and TX. In other words my vote has never mattered I always lived in states that were clearly going one way or the other. Never in a swing state.
We have a system in which the only votes that really matter are from people that live in swing states.
Is that really ensuring that all states have a voice? Not really.
If we moved to a popular vote system a republican voting in San Francisco would have the same power than a democrat voting in Louisiana. We can argue if the Electoral College is better or not for what kind of government you may want to see elected. The argument for equal voice is already lost.
I see your point but I don't agree. If you noticed the current "leadership" has let 20M illegals in to the country and flew and bused them to swing states. Hmmm I wonder why.
DeleteWhich usually would be fine except they demand we follow
ReplyDeleteBecause the majority in highly populated blue cities think they are at another level then those red low populated areas which are conservatively 80-85% the majority of land mass in the United States. So they surmise that if we get rid of the electoral college they can control what the red population who own the majority of land in the US says and does. Almost time for the real majority to stand. Is there any other choice
ReplyDeleteWhew boy, didn't this create a $hitStorm. Anon needs to go read Lincoln's speeches and see the economics in play at the time of the southern succession. But first un-bunch your panties.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a good history lesson and sums up the situation nicely.
At least half the people in this country have had their heads programmed inside out and the only cure will be millions of tiny, high speed metal missiles.
ReplyDeleteAmen
DeleteSorry to raise a ruckus. I assumed most folks here were ruled by logic, read books and weren’t liberal.
ReplyDeleteSorry to have a fight in the middle of your black panther party
That was lovely, and a very good callback.
DeleteLots to un-learn from the masses about the origins of the War Between the States, but learning demands a ready and inquiring mind rather than one determined to fit artifacts into policy positions.
Thank you. My online behavior is unrivaled by my in person.
DeleteI live in Massachusetts, so my vote has never counted. As to election by popular vote, it's been tried for the States, and the Senate is a disaster.
ReplyDeleteWell, that escalated quickly.
ReplyDelete