Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[Soccermom]

Originally Posted by Hooded_Miracle

Didn't Abraham Lincoln not have much experience? ('_')/

You aren't helping your case. If you knew half the unconstitutional and dirty shit Lincoln pulled...

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Soccermom

You aren't helping your case. If you knew half the unconstitutional and dirty shit Lincoln pulled...

Oh-k, I begin to think you are trolling now. lulz

[Soccermom]

Originally Posted by OhZone

Oh-k, I begin to think you are trolling now. lulz

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo14.html

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

[OhZone]

Originally Posted by Soccermom

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo14.html

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Oh-k, thanks for the link to that opinion piece. It's actually rather interesting and I think I will look at it again later.

I will not begin to defend Lincoln at all though. I have little invested in what Lincoln did during the civil war. If it was wrong and unconstitutional then it was wrong and unconstitutional. Did he have to do it? I don't know. I am neither a Civil war buff nor up on the details of Civil war history. I am more concerned with what's going on now and maybe since 1900. But again, you have sparked a little bit of interest in that. I will get into it later.

For now, thought, I'm sure others would love to debate the Civil war,.

[Hooded_Miracle]

I didn't make a statement on whether he was a good president or not. I asked, politely, whether he was experienced or not. His behavior doesn't necessarily imply that. ('_')/

[Sephie]

[qzar9999]

Actually Lincoln was very experienced. At FAIL. Haven't you seen those inspirational messages with a picture of him that say "Failed at business, failed at etc etc...AND THEN..."

As far as the whole Palin/Obama/experience thing: It wouldn't have mattered if Palin had forty years' experience and was the most eloquent speaker our government had ever seen. The Republicans weren't going to win this past election, period, due to the very poor public opinion of W.

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

Actually Lincoln was very experienced. At FAIL. Haven't you seen those inspirational messages with a picture of him that say "Failed at business, failed at etc etc...AND THEN..."

As far as the whole Palin/Obama/experience thing: It wouldn't have mattered if Palin had forty years' experience and was the most eloquent speaker our government had ever seen. The Republicans weren't going to win this past election, period, due to the very poor public opinion of W.

True

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Get. Over. It.

I'm calling you a liar because you are. You say how nice and polite you are and then proceed to spew insults in the very same breath. You are NO position to lecture me about how bad name calling is so just put that stone down lest you shatter the house.

I am not taking it personally, I'm just saying it's a bad argument. That's your burden to bear, not mine.
Like always, you attribute an argument never made. I CAN politely debate with an opponent that shows some respect to his opponents, respect that you lack and has lead me to feel I do not have to be polite to you. Nowhere did I say I was nice. Criticism of your argumentative tactics is just as permissible as your arguments.

I don't want to hear what SOME people think, I want to hear your own justification. This reeks of shamelessly fence sitting so as to avoid the risk of being called out.

But I'm not arguing for or against these points, because that's not my point. I made the claim that most people do not believe their positions are unconstitutional, not that I endorse any of these. I do have opinions on all of these, but that is not the debate. This reeks of attempting to shift the debate to an indefensible ground that I did not promote so you can pretend I support any manner of reprehensible things.

Then you don't deny that it is a violation? As for what "some" think, do I even need to get out the Ben Franklin quote?

I know the whole "deserves neither" bit. Good thing the point is not to endorse a side, but to show both believe a constitutional basis for their argument.

How about this question then? Why did prohibition require a constitutional amendment (which was later retracted) yet the war on drugs did not?

I don't know of any case that struck down prohibition acts as unconstitutional, even after some research. I think they just jumped straight to an amendment because they could, not because it was required.

Those things are not expressing opinions and thus have nothing to do with freedom of speech. That's lame excuse making.

Constitutional rights are not subject to public whims. Even if everyone in America was in favor of slavery, it would still be unconstitutional. The whole idea behind a republic is that everyone's rights are inherrent and nobody gets a say otherwise. It's called the rule of law, look it up.

I don't think your contentions even really oppose what I said as much as you might think. Supreme Court cases have upheld that some speech, like obscenity, is not protected, which you seem to agree with. My second point was anything broadcast on the electronic spectrum is inherently interstate commerce and can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. I am saying those are the constitutional grounds for censorship that have been upheld, particularly the FCC. Oh, and the public nature of broadcasting doesn't really have anything to do with it, that was an unnecessary extension of the precedent on my part.

Measures that have all proven to be completely ineffective at stopping gun crime because criminals just simply don't obey them. (Not making this up. Criminals interviewed have said this themselves) The honor system does not impede the dishonorable.

That's not a matter of constitutionality, but of effectiveness.

You're not alone in that, but you're also dead wrong.

In states where it's illegal, you could go out tonight and rob and/or rape a prostitute and I guarantee you that you will get off scott free. Why? Because she can't report you. If she does, she'll be the one going to jail. Explain to me how this maintains public order? It's a BS, feel good law with no rational thought behind it.

The rational thought: If you take out the money part, isn't it nothing more than sex between two consenting adults? Why is it illegal to sell something that's 100% legal to give away for free? It makes no sense whatsoever.

That's not a matter of constitutionality, but of rationality. I am not wrong, because the assertion is that those are the reasons states have outlawed prostitution, and the reasons are constitutional even if they may not be rational.

Only because you fail to understand the concept of rule of law. Like I said, these are inherrent rights not subject to the whims of politicians or the public. To allow such is to invite tyranny.

I've noticed that that you hacked of the part of the paragraph that denies your claim. The rule of law says that we don't get dismiss opposition arguments as unconstitutional at a whim or behest of popular opinion, but that it must be decided by the Supreme Court what is and is not in line with constitutional law. If you want to claim that the Constitution is a good thing, I don't see how you can deny that such a role is, indeed, reserved solely to the Supreme Court.

Let me know when you're done yelling at strawmen, and want to debate my points.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

Actually Lincoln was very experienced. At FAIL. Haven't you seen those inspirational messages with a picture of him that say "Failed at business, failed at etc etc...AND THEN..."

Actually, a lot of those claims about him are wrong.

As for experience, Lincoln was a lawyer, a captain in the local militia, a state legislator and a US Rep. He also got about 100 electoral votes (of 363) as a VP candidate... that he didn't know he was nominated for and didn't campaign for.

One thing he didn't have, that would exclude any candidate in this day, was a lot of formal schooling. His formal education was 18 months, a person wouldn't even get a local council position with that much school nowadays.

[DalekSec]

Lincoln, FDR, Bush and now Obama are pretty much proof of one thing IF you ask me. It IS easier to get things done if your ignore the rules (Read as U.S. Constitution.). This is the issue I have with Bill Maher (Too lazy to look up the proper speeeeling of his name and honestly, I do not care). Yes you can use force. You can, as Mao said, see to it as all political power comes from the muzzle of a gun. Great. Gulags and numbers for all. We can build great things until Boxer drops dead (Animal Farm reference for the kids here). Again, great. You can “Drag them to it” as he suggested in all candor and yes, you win the argument as soon as you level the rifles on the crowd. Whoopee!

However, once you do this, as we did with the Whiskey Rebellion as soon as the nation was founded, their are few if any chances to turn back. As opposition grows, more gun muzzles are required. Govt. becomes more paranoid and people turn up missing in the night. Sooner or later, folks decide that living in chains is not better than taking the chance to die as free men and they will rise up. Quietly or with great thunder, they always do.

Depressing really when you consider the religious fervor some have when it comes to imposing rule upon others.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Since you asked as nicely as I'd expect...

All that said, I think I've pointed out that there are constitutional contentions on both sides of most of these issues. Each side thinks they're right and neither really has the place to say the other is wrong and dismiss it.

This may sound reasonable to the untrained eye but I'm not so easily fooled. You see, this claim contains a glaring flaw.

The constitution was created to establish a set of standards that the government is assigned to enforce. Thus the concept of the rule of law. This is intended to keep the peace while preventing the government from exceeding their role. You claim that all interpretations are equal when discerning what the constitution means? Utter nonsense and this is why: If we go by that logic, we can make the constitution mean anything we want to. There's the flaw.

A document that can mean anything, means nothing and is thus worthless.

There's no two ways about the bit about the right to bear arms, it is as clear as crystal: Government can't disarm the public. Period!

The bit about free speech? Very clear too. People have the right to speak their mind and nobody gets a say otherwise.

You have a right to engage in fair trade with anyone you choose, whenever you choose and in what manner you choose. Nobody gets to veto it.

It's as simple as ABC and clear as a bell. Sneaking in alternate takes on it is dishonest and really quite vile when you get right down to it. So spare me the moral high ground nonsense because you're doing nothing more than making excuses for the freedom hating weasels.

I know you won't but if anyone reading this is interested in learning more about the constitution, I highly recommend this lecture series


The second part talks about interprating the constitution. Very informative