Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

[Avatar4321]

This argument is frivolous. It would never happen. And in terms of constitutionality, it wouldn't matter if the majority of people wanted it, because it would violate a certain population's civil and human rights (i.e. the slaves) so the Judiciary would rule it unconstitutional and it would be banned. Oh and not to mention that there is already an amendment, which bans slavery anyway.

If the majority wanted to and had enough support they could amend the Constitution.

You see in order to create new constitutional rights, the process includes following the Constitutional process of amending it. Not reading non-existant rights in where the Constitution does not mention them.

 

[archangel]

Don't pretend like you didn't hate me before this, pops. I was being a bit bull-headed, and I apologized to you for it. You made one post in my support, and then immediately followed it with a thread divulging out info from private PM's between us in public because you misunderstood what I said. Don't bring up stuff that'll only get you in trouble.

I know you hate to do research, because you're convinced you've got the "how the world works" thing down pat, but in case you're feeling outside yourself:

http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Origins_of_the_conflict

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

You can not legitimately claim that slavery or states rights played absolutely no role in the start of the Civil War.

and drank way too much coolaid....I never said slavery did not play a role in the 'Civil War' only that sucession was based on taxation..now back to school with ya....geez!

 

[Avatar4321]

Already been covered, read previous posts before claiming you know what I do and don't understand.

I have, and you have no understanding of Constitutional law.

 

[musicman]

What "powers" have liberals given to certain groups that "disenfranchise" you? You still haven't named anything.

Let's say I work my whole life to save enough money to start a business. Someone applies for a job at my place. I know him to be a homosexual. I don't have anything against him personally, but I consider homosexuality a perverse lifestyle. I know, for example, that, although homosexuals comprise only 2-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 20-40% of child molestations. I'm not a scientist or a sociology professor, but, you know what? By rights, it's not my JOB to be those things. It's my job to run my business wisely and take care of my family. Every decision I make needs to be based on those criteria.

Moreover, I am required by law to carry insurance. I know that a homosexual's chances of contracting an STD, and endangering the employees who have trusted me to provide a safe workplace, are astonomically higher than those of the population at large. It is a risk for me to hire this man.

Every dictate of common sense, along with my own personal sensibilities in regard to how I live my life and discharge my duties, tells me not to hire him. And it is, after all, MY business, MY money, and MY sweat and blood. But, guess what? Tough shit. The liberals, in their wisdom, have decided that it is illegal to discriminate based on "sexual orientation". Their lackeys in the judiciary - acting not as determiners of law but social engineers - have redefined homosexuality on a national level, and my feelings be damned.

Affirmative Action is another brainchild of liberalism. The most recent high-profile example of this idiocy took place in a small-town coutroom. A violent, desperate, 200 lb. prisoner was being led to the trial that would put him in jail for the next forty years by a 90 lb. grandmother. Of course, according to the dictates of political correctness, we all have to pretend that Granny can do any job a man can. But, somebody forgot to tell that to the prisoner. He - gasp - didn't play by the rules! Go figure! He easily overpowered her, murdered a couple of law enforcement officers, and took a hostage. Miraculously, and no thanks to liberals, this woman preached the gospel to the prisoner all night long, and he ultimately turned himself in.

It is, and should be, illegal to discriminate unfairly in hiring. But, between liberals' arrogance - which allows them to believe that they are morally and intellectually superior to everyday Americans - and their innate hostility to business, we have abandoned all common sense.

The judiciary can step in if something your "little community" passes is unconstitutional. It's that pesky fourteenth amendment again!

If I deny a fellow American his Constitutional rights, the law SHOULD step in. There's nothing "pesky" about the XIV Amendment. It is its perverted INTERPRETATION - by those who know they couldn't get their agenda past Americans in any other way - that enrages me.

You still won't answer me. You're playing a shell game here. I want to know how liberals have infringed upon your freedoms. Tell me.

I'm sorry, Hagbard - English is the only language I know.

 

[5stringJeff]

Sean "Great American" Hannity is abandoning his President. He talks continuously now about how "asking questions" is appropriate, even when it casts our President's decisions in doubt, i.e., on Miers. Hannity is also "questioning" our President's fiscal policies, among others. Yet the self-proclaimed "Great American" professes to support our President. What a hypocrite. With supporters like him, who needs enemies? Join the Democrat party, "Great American," or better: "Fair Weather Friend."

Loo. Ser.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, but the right of secession was the primary issue. And, the runaway erosion of states'(which is to say, people's) rights advocated by the Hagbard Celines in this country makes one wonder whether the issue shouldn't be revisited.

Exactly right. The South was concerned about taxation, Arch is right on that. However there largest concern was their 'way of life' and ability to be controlled by a government they disagreed with-secession was the answer. Lincoln was elected without a single Southern state giving him electoral vote. They knew their influence was nil-part was the problem with slavery and the 3/5ths codicil.

In any case, to them secession was the alternative, which they took with Lincoln's election. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to die a slow death, if he could hold the Union together. Even after Ft. Sumter and the nearly the next two years, he would have accepted slavery as it was in the South. Then there were the bad generals and defeats. The drumbeat of the copperheads was growing and he gets his victory, finally. He follows it up with the Emancipation Proclamation to add a more solid voice from the abolishionists, though it doesn't change a damn thing-purposely excluding all but the Confederacy, (ie border states that had slaves but stayed in the Union). But it did give him a boost in the war effort.

Question to ask yourself-If the Civil War hadn't been fought, would slavery exist today? (Not likely given the history of democracies.)

Would the South has remain seperate-yeah.

Which was the seminal reason? Not hard to fathom.

 

[musicman]

Thanks, K - didn't think I'd gone ALL THE WAY crazy yet!

Close, though.

 

[Annie]

Thanks, K - didn't think I'd gone ALL THE WAY crazy yet!

Close, though.

No problem, us dorks must hang together. (Though we'll die seperately nonetheless. That's my pleasant thought for this Wednesday evening. )

 

[archangel]

Exactly right. The South was concerned about taxation, Arch is right on that. However there largest concern was their 'way of life' and ability to be controlled by a government they disagreed with-secession was the answer. Lincoln was elected without a single Southern state giving him electoral vote. They knew their influence was nil-part was the problem with slavery and the 3/5ths codicil.

In any case, to them secession was the alternative, which they took with Lincoln's election. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to die a slow death, if he could hold the Union together. Even after Ft. Sumter and the nearly the next two years, he would have accepted slavery as it was in the South. Then there were the bad generals and defeats. The drumbeat of the copperheads was growing and he gets his victory, finally. He follows it up with the Emancipation Proclamation to add a more solid voice from the abolishionists, though it doesn't change a damn thing-purposely excluding all but the Confederacy, (ie border states that had slaves but stayed in the Union). But it did give him a boost in the war effort.

Question to ask yourself-If the Civil War hadn't been fought, would slavery exist today? (Not likely given the history of democracies.)

Would the South has remain seperate-yeah.

Which was the seminal reason? Not hard to fathom.

it was not about 'a way of life' as both the North and South embraced slavery...this is another myth...let's stay with history facts...I realize it is hard to swallow for some!( even some of the 'hard core slaves'-preferred to stay and fight for the South)...not that this was right or acceptable to most-but a fact non-the less!

 

[Annie]

it was not about 'a way of life' as both the North and South embraced slavery...this is another myth...let's stay with history facts...I realize it is hard to swallow for some!( even some of the 'hard core slaves'-preferred to stay and fight for the South)...not this was right or acceptable to most-but a fact non-the less!

What's your definition of the North? Any state that remained in the Union?

 

[archangel]

What's your definition of the North? Any state that remained in the Union?

some Southern as well as North of the Mason Dixon line states were in utter confusion and had real time problems with loyalty...at the time of the Civil war most if not all Career soldiers in the Officer Ranks were West Point Grads...what a dellima this must have been for them....to actually have to fight your own teamates!

 

[Annie]

some Southern as well as North of the Mason Dixon line states were in utter confusion and had real time problems with loyalty...at the time of the Civil war most if not all Career soldiers in the Officer Ranks were West Point Grads...what a dellima this must have been for them....to actually have to fight your own teamates!

Actually those WP grads, were mostly in the Confederacy, a simple result of the chivalry code of the South. Lee being the most obvious example. The Union got the 'great under 50% level' ala McClellan. There were relatively few slaves in the Union and the number and acceptance of slavery was devolving in the North. Totally unacceptable in Northeast and most of middle.

Again, it argues against the issue of slavery being 'a turning point' it wasn't, other than being the WMD of its time. It rallied the abolishionists. For Lincoln and the South, it was state's determination.

 

[archangel]

Actually those WP grads, were mostly in the Confederacy, a simple result of the chivalry code of the South. Lee being the most obvious example. The Union got the 'great under 50% level' ala McClellan. There were relatively few slaves in the Union and the number and acceptance of slavery was devolving in the North. Totally unacceptable in Northeast and most of middle.

Again, it argues against the issue of slavery being 'a turning point' it wasn't, other than being the WMD of its time. It rallied the abolishionists. For Lincoln and the South, it was state's determination.

Unless we read different History books...there were many Black regiments in the North as well as the South....and 50% of both the North and South Officers were West point Grads....what is your point other than just trying to be a moderate...History is History....Can't change the facts...the War was about "taxation" no matter how one tries to spin it.....sorry!

 

[Annie]

Unless we read different History books...there were many Black regiments in the North as well as the South....and 50% of both the North and South Officers were West point Grads....what is your point other than just trying to be a moderate...History is History....Can't change the facts...the War was about "taxation" no matter how one tries to spin it.....sorry!

Ok, give some links please. I for one am not looking to start an argument. I was giving my take after substantial readings, but am more than willing to look at another pov. In any case, never tried to say mine was the Right or only way to look at something. Trying to have a discussion, ya know?

 

[Gunny]

Unless we read different History books...there were many Black regiments in the North as well as the South....and 50% of both the North and South Officers were West point Grads....what is your point other than just trying to be a moderate...History is History....Can't change the facts...the War was about "taxation" no matter how one tries to spin it.....sorry!

Dude, you are just killing me with your version of the Civil War.

 

[Gunny]

Unless we read different History books...there were many Black regiments in the North as well as the South....and 50% of both the North and South Officers were West point Grads....what is your point other than just trying to be a moderate...History is History....Can't change the facts...the War was about "taxation" no matter how one tries to spin it.....sorry!

The high import export tariffs that favored the North were indeed an issue. SO was slavery. So was the right of secession. So was control of the Federal Government.

Mostly, it was about power and money, not necessarily taxes. Wealthy Southern planters wanted it all, as did wealthy Northern industrialists. When the scales tipped in favor of the Northern industrial states, the Southerners decided to take their toys and go home.

 

[archangel]

Dude, you are just killing me with your version of the Civil War.

don't really know why I would be killing you with facts of the Civil War...other than your laughing makes kathy feel better..I am not arguing anything...im just stating facts as they are related to the "Civil War" if this offends you or kathy...well I am so sorry...I did not write nor participate in the "Civil War"...however I am a history buff and have read alot about the War as I have on other Wars...I will not nor do I have the time or energy to find the links you and kathy want....if ya want to disprove me...go for it and I will then give links in support of my opinions! Until then....laugh away! :2guns:

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yes, I think it's important to consider as many sources as possible when ruling on law. Taking foreign law into consideration doesn't change what the constitution says. And the constitution is what the justices use as the final litmus test.

You simply can't be serious. I wish I could take this post back to law school and show it around. It might give everyone a good hearty laugh and break up the all-day studying. You know nothing- and I mean nothing- about citing case law, or judicial opinions. There are quite a few laymen on here who do, and you could learn form them if your arrogance didn't prevent you.

 

[archangel]

The high import export tariffs that favored the North were indeed an issue. SO was slavery. So was the right of secession. So was control of the Federal Government.

Mostly, it was about power and money, not necessarily taxes. Wealthy Southern planters wanted it all, as did wealthy Northern industrialists. When the scales tipped in favor of the Northern industrial states, the Southerners decided to take their toys and go home.

seems to me that is what I was arguing and said....but...whatever dude!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Taking foreign law into consideration doesn't change what the constitution says.

Abbey Normal, you bolded this portion of my text and then insulted me. But this is true isn't it? Unless I missed some obscure Constitutional amendment that gives justices the power to amend the constitution when considering foreign laws, there's nothing wrong with this sentence. You just don't like me because I make you see your own ideology for what it really is and it makes you feel bad about yourself.