Share This Page:

  

Northern Aggression or Southeron Freedom?

General information on Military History.
Guest
Guest
Guest

Post by Guest »

Whitey wrote:The Bill of Rights unwordsmithed by trial lawyers and the ACLU is what most want and to be left alone. :lol:
Bush is about as much from Texas as I'm from NYC.
:D Boy, you're the most unusual New Yawkuh I have ever met... He has 'a ranch', so he must be Texan, right? The old-style real Texans were (and are) some different than Bush-baby's Yale/New England-Money, Oil-Patch Royalty Heritage... real texans're , well , real. :-? 8)
snyder
Member
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed 04 Aug, 2004 1:40 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Post by snyder »

Whitey wrote:The Bill of Rights unwordsmithed by trial lawyers and the ACLU is what most want and to be left alone.
Let's face it, Whitey, it's going to be wordsmithed by all kinds of people, because the very first rights recognized are the rights people use to smith words and fling them at each other. Given this reality, it then becomes a choice among smiths. In a contest between the ACLU and John Ashcroft I go with the ACLU.
User avatar
Whitey
Member
Member
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

Post by Whitey »

I say we pick a kid in 5th grade to read it and tell us what it means.
Look at the idiot who faked his head getting chopped off. It was a stunt, not a crime. Freedom of speech, press? Even Hurst got to pull stunts.
Asshat? Yes, criminal? No.
But the man want's him charged. They even say they will look up and down the law books to see what they can charge him with.

As long as a man doesn't hurt anyone physically or steal anything in his stunt, then so what. WTF are tender hearted people watching it for and so he led the FBI on a goose chase investigation. We spent millions on the 9/11 investigation to have some pricks take the official story and using selected evidence back it.

Eitherway "We can't go on forever with suspicious minds".
:drinking: This country is a large corporation in bankruptcy, it needs another company/3rd party to come in and bust it up (ie the Dept.'s and Beureau's) and restructure it. The Dem and Rep CEO's are all crooks doing what Enron did on a Supra Nationalist scale. :lol:
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
snyder
Member
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed 04 Aug, 2004 1:40 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Post by snyder »

Whitey wrote:I say we pick a kid in 5th grade to read it and tell us what it means.
Interesting you should say that because I can date my passionate interest in U.S. history from sixth grade when I would skip to the back of the history book and read the constitution. It is one of those documents that is both sophisticated and straightforward, as opposed to all that really murky European stuff. No wonder so many of them immigrated. They didn't want to have to learn who killed whom in 1543 and why they were supposed to still be angry about it. All my grandfather ever wanted to do was to come work, drink beer and raise a family. Nothing wrong with that.
buford
Member
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue 03 Aug, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Australia

Post by buford »

Whitey wrote: This country is a large corporation in bankruptcy, it needs another company/3rd party to come in and bust it up (ie the Dept.'s and Beureau's) and restructure it. The Dem and Rep CEO's are all crooks doing what Enron did on a Supra Nationalist scale. :lol:
Agreed, but would we not have ended up this way anyway? Just because these events followed the reshaping of 1-10 does not mean they were directly causal.

And how would 1-10 deal with complexities of life today? With treaties and trade agreements, with the whole complex of web of delicate checks and balances that are needed to hold a society together. The Bill might have been sufficient for its era, but in and of itself, its not enough surely?

Also, the Souths's pre-1860 antipathy to Lincoln is puzzling to me. He was by no means an abolitionist. In fact he was despised by the Radiacal wing of his party, who spent much time trying to impose their adgenda on him and to control him. Chase tried to do him out of the 1864 nomination from his position as Treasury Secretary. In his opposition to the Mexican War, Lincoln gave the so called 'rights of revolution speech' in which he said:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government...
From what they knew of him at the time (not with the benefit of hindsight) on what was their antipathy based, such that his election itself precipitated the secession of several states?
buford
Member
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue 03 Aug, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Australia

Post by buford »

Ardennes44 wrote:Hey, Buford! I think Herky is still in the pigsty!! :D
Well he said it was slippery..... and he needed to get a grip on both ends :D
Guest
Guest
Guest

Post by Guest »

buford wrote:
Ardennes44 wrote:Hey, Buford! I think Herky is still in the pigsty!! :D
Well he said it was slippery..... and he needed to get a grip on both ends :D
... durn them durn pigs!!! ya git hol' o' one end...an' th' other end gits loose... why, he*lls bells, it's worse'n tryin ta think... er vote...
......er do anythin ceppen drink... :drinking: :drinking: :drinking: ... there naow, that feels better! :o :D
buford
Member
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue 03 Aug, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Australia

Post by buford »

snyder wrote:
Whitey wrote:I say we pick a kid in 5th grade to read it and tell us what it means.
Interesting you should say that because I can date my passionate interest in U.S. history from sixth grade when I would skip to the back of the history book and read the constitution. It is one of those documents that is both sophisticated and straightforward, as opposed to all that really murky European stuff.
Speaking of murky, here's a bit from the beginning of ours. It does not get any better. In fact, it gets a lot worse. Can't see it inspiring too many 6th graders :cry:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later that one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

4. The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.
[/quote]
Guest
Guest
Guest

Post by Guest »

Speaking of murky, here's a bit from the beginning of ours. It does not get any better. In fact, it gets a lot worse. Can't see it inspiring too many 6th graders

Quote:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later that one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

4. The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.
that pig keeps getting away... ya get a grip on one end and the other end is kicking and squealing... :D
snyder
Member
Member
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed 04 Aug, 2004 1:40 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Post by snyder »

buford wrote:Speaking of murky, here's a bit from the beginning of ours. It does not get any better. In fact, it gets a lot worse. Can't see it inspiring too many 6th graders
Holy cow, that has all the panache of a commercial office lease. No wonder you guys drink so much beer. :)
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
Post Reply