Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[thanatos144]

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

The Constitution isn't a contract, dumbass. The people of the Confederate states certainly never signed it.

Yes you ignorant ass the states did sign and ratified it.... go read a real history book you stupid ****

 

[bripat9643]

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

They rebelled and won..... the confederates rebelled and lost.

So whether your ideals are right or not depends on whether you win?

They lost mostly because their ideals were wrong. They started a war over slavery. ... they are not heroes just pathetic democrats

THey lost because the North had more guns, and that's the only reason they lost.

You're just regurgitating your moron liberal theory of justice: might makes right.

 

[bripat9643]

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

The Constitution isn't a contract, dumbass. The people of the Confederate states certainly never signed it.

Yes you ignorant ass the states did sign and ratified it.... go read a real history book you stupid ****

Some politicians signed it. Not everyone in a state voted for those politicians. Furthermore, they were all long dead by the time of the Civil War. Virtually none of the people living in the states signed the document, so it's not binding on them. The Constitution isn't binding on anyone aside from the federal government.

 

[thanatos144]

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

They rebelled and won..... the confederates rebelled and lost.

So whether your ideals are right or not depends on whether you win?

They lost mostly because their ideals were wrong. They started a war over slavery. ... they are not heroes just pathetic democrats

THey lost because the North had more guns, and that's the only reason they lost.

You're just regurgitating your moron liberal theory of justice: might makes right.

Get a education

 

[bripat9643]

I've seen at least three conservatives on this site talk about how Lincoln and the Union were wrong, and that the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede the way they did, and were on the right side of history..

Is this a popular stance among conservatives of today? Are they really pro-Confederacy when they look back on the Civil War? Or are there just a couple crazies here and there?

(This thread may also help the 'Gay Marriage' thread from being further derailed with Civil War arguments. Figured it was worth a shot haha)

SOME Conservatives are regressing today. After the bail outs they abandoned ship in order to say, "It wasn't me".

In their search to find out where they went wrong, they went in the wrong direction. Notice how much 3rd world ideology lines up with Conservatives in America.

Conservative should not be brain based too.

Racism is extreme on political forums because the racists can hide behind a keyboard. A lot of them won't act this way in life. I live around a lot of them and they try to act sneaky about their racism. It's funny because they don't even know they are being racist. It's how far behind we are as a civil Nation.

Conservatives are not regressive ... that we leave to your kind both progressives and the old democrat libertarians

You're a "conservative?" You must be one of those paleo-conservatives who worships totalitarianism.

 

[kaz]

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

Begging the question

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, just say so.

Actually begging the question would be adding nothing to the conversation, by definition, Holmes. Think about it. But don't hurt yourself. Be sure to do lots of stretching first since you're pretty out of shape for thinking

 

[kaz]

THey lost because the North had more guns, and that's the only reason they lost

Get a education

It would be get "an" education. The irony, LOL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

They rebelled and won..... the confederates rebelled and lost.

So whether your ideals are right or not depends on whether you win?

They lost mostly because their ideals were wrong. They started a war over slavery. ... they are not heroes just pathetic democrats

THey lost because the North had more guns, and that's the only reason they lost.

You're just regurgitating your moron liberal theory of justice: might makes right.

The truth is that had the 'Civil War' actually BEEN a 'Civil War'... the South would have invaded the North from the beginning and the South would have captured those manufacturing resources and subsequently prevailed... .

That they did not want to control the North and just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves, with no desire to control the aggressors, was a HUGE strategic failure.

Clue: One can't compromise with aggression and expect anything but defeat.

 

[kaz]

The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself

I've been in this discussion and never seen bripat remotely say that. Back it up

The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate

Right, my point was in response to this point, back it up

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

No, my claim was based on this one, you made the false claim. I see one leftists after another say things about bripat that I haven't seen in thread after thread from bripat. So back it up

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Where individually, they have comparatively little power.

I can guarantee that the National Guards of California, New York and Texas wield a lot of power for their respective States.

 

[kaz]

Now why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you? Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

You shouldn't. First, you're a pompous ass and a nagging wife who loves to bicker. Second, you worship the Supreme Court because they keep ruling the Constitution written by classic liberals actually is authoritarian leftist. Why would you want to question a court that is forcing your political philosophy on the country by decree bypassing all the work of convincing we the people? I want to defeat you, not convince you. You put your manhood in a blind trust for government, your intellect is not in play

 

[kaz]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

I might have to PM you on those haha.

I don't understand why he is defending Bripat so defiantly. You and I BOTH know he stated that there was nothing "more American" than what the Confederacy fought for. He puts puts false words in my mouth, and denies the words coming out of his BFF Bripat

Two reasons:

1) I'm not on the side of a person or an ideology, I am on the side of truth and I have participated extensively in this thread and many more with bripat and never seen him say what you leftists keep saying he said, and you never back up your claims with quotes

2) You keep tying supporting secession to supporting slavery and keep using him to do it killing any actual discussion. So I'm ***** slapping you for fun. Hope that clears it up.

Here's what would advance the argument. Stop saying he's a slavery supporting racist and start actually showing quotes he says that. I keep seeing quotes from him saying he doesn't support slavery or racism

 

[kaz]

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

Of course it does. You kept saying he supported slavery when he kept saying no, he supports secession

Nice deflection, Kaz.

Not.

You didn't address the part where you claimed that I equated supporting the right of secession with supporting slavery. The only person I claimed supports slavery in this thread was Bripat, and that's simply because he said as much himself. Just because you believe his most recent opinion doesn't he didn't state the other as well.

But I digress: The point is you shouldn't make claims you can't substantiate. NOWHERE did I say that supporting the right to secede is the same as supporting slavery.

That false claim is on you, Kaz.

Making shit up is Kaz's bread and butter. When you want a chuckle, ask me about Kaz and 'British Intelligence'. Or 'black bakers and the KKK'.

Its a hoot.

I might have to PM you on those haha.

I don't understand why he is defending Bripat so defiantly. You and I BOTH know he stated that there was nothing "more American" than what the Confederacy fought for. He puts puts false words in my mouth, and denies the words coming out of his BFF Bripat

Its likely the people involved. Kaz is the kind of guy whose ass is slow to heal. So if he gets butt hurt in one thread, don't be surprised to see him pop up in another thread, pouting and defending the silliest shit.

Which leads to more butt hurt. Which leads to more pouting. Which leads to more defense of silly shit.....

Its like the Lion King. But with more quivering lower lips.

God, the crying again. Look guy, girl, don't want to discriminate against transgenders, I keep telling you it's just an internet discussion. When you get that upset, just walk away, have a cookie and some milk and play in the backyard a while until you can post without crying

 

[kaz]

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

OK, now I understand. You misunderstood what I meant by "State." Granted it can be read either way. I agree with you they were always a State in the generic use of the term, I was referring to that they were no longer a State as in a State of the United States of America meaning the United States Constitution no longer applies

 

[kaz]

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind **** or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

Google what the word "Federal" actually means

 

[there4eyeM]

Is there a hierarchy of rights? Are some more important than others, more basic, superseding?

 

[kaz]

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land?

There is no "concurrent jurisdiction." The Stated ceded specific powers to the Federal government. There are certain powers the Feds have, period. The feds don't have "jurisdiction."

If you hire someone to clean your pool, it's still your pool, the pool boy doesn't have jurisdiction over your pool, they only get to clean it and only as long as you allow them to

 

[kaz]

Strawman

I don't think that word means what you think it does

Let's see, strawman, something you make up and put in someone else's mouth and attack it as if they had said it.

Nope, means exactly what I think it does

I don't think it means what you think it does

The South seceded to preserve the right to maintain slavery. That is in no way a Strawman.....it is what is known as a historical fact

I don't think you do think it means what I think it does. But you are an idiot who don't know what it means, so what does that matter?

That is a Strawman argument!

Better stop it or I'll report you to the Internet Police

That doesn't even make sense. Then again little you say does and the rare times you make sense you are wrong

 

[rightwinger]

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

The part where they signed the Constitution

Apparently you're an illiterate dumbass.

Apparently, you don't understand a binding contract. Once you sign a contract, you cannot unilaterally break it

The Constitution isn't a contract, dumbass. The people of the Confederate states certainly never signed it.

Their representatives did

We the People formed a country and each state signed up for it. Once you sign up and are accepted you gain all the benefits of the country and all the responsibilities

States do not get to just "Opt out"

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think that word means what you think it does

Let's see, strawman, something you make up and put in someone else's mouth and attack it as if they had said it.

Nope, means exactly what I think it does

I don't think it means what you think it does

The South seceded to preserve the right to maintain slavery. That is in no way a Strawman.....it is what is known as a historical fact

I don't think you do think it means what I think it does. But you are an idiot who don't know what it means, so what does that matter?

That is a Strawman argument!

Better stop it or I'll report you to the Internet Police

That doesn't even make sense. Then again little you say does and the rare times you make sense you are wrong

And you double down with another Strawman