isadore;431197 wrote:^^^^^
gosh a ruddies, when did we have the biggest bloodletting in our history. when bunch of greedy traitorous states rights bastards brought on a bloodbath to protect the institution of chattel slavery. states rights has been and continues to be a pernicious doctrine.

Right...Had the more populated industrialized northern states simply let the inevitable occur (IE: the natural end to slavery) instead of interfering in the business of the southern states, there would have been little if any bloodshed.

While I certainly do not condone the practice of slavery, I'm confident it would have died away relatively rapidly with the growth of technologies caused by the Industrial Revolution. Americans killing tens of thousands of Americans was unnecessary.

With regard to "traitorous states" the trampling of Constitutional principles like states rights by centralized Big Federal Government is about as traitorous as you can get.

isadore;431197 wrote:^^^^^
gosh a ruddies, when did we have the biggest bloodletting in our history. when bunch of greedy traitorous states rights bastards brought on a bloodbath to protect the institution of chattel slavery. states rights has been and continues to be a pernicious doctrine.

The biggest bloodletting in this country came at the hands of the federal government. The Roe vs Wade decision by the SCOTUS. It forced the states to stop preventing the killing of babies in the womb. Tens of millions of babies have been killed since the feds interfered in the states right to decide this issue and prevent this type of killing.

believer;431221 wrote:Right...Had the more populated industrialized northern states simply let the inevitable occur (IE: the natural end to slavery) instead of interfering in the business of the southern states, there would have been little if any bloodshed.

While I certainly do not condone the practice of slavery, I'm confident it would have died away relatively rapidly with the growth of technologies caused by the Industrial Revolution. Americans killing tens of thousands of Americans was unnecessary.

With regard to "traitorous states" the trampling of Constitutional principles like states rights by centralized Big Federal Government is about as traitorous as you can get.

Slavery was not near ending. It was making the Southern states the richest in the Union. And that wealth was based on the enslavement of 4 million human being, whose fate states righters obviously care little about. And what piece of business were they so worried about. Southern slave owning leadership and the northern doughface stooges were pushing for expansion, more territory within and outside our boundaries. Of course it would be alright with states righters if they spread slavery across the United States and through Latin America, their goal. And what horrible thing did northerners do to them. Why the majority of northerners voted for a president who opposed the expansion of slavery. And what is as traitorous as you can get, why Americans levying war against the United States. Every confederate was guilty of treason and everyone of them was a states righter. One amusing irony of situation was that states rights advocates in the South helped undercut the Confederate war effort with their demands.

majorspark;431236 wrote:The biggest bloodletting in this country came at the hands of the federal government. The Roe vs Wade decision by the SCOTUS. It forced the states to stop preventing the killing of babies in the womb. Tens of millions of babies have been killed since the feds interfered in the states right to decide this issue and prevent this type of killing.

why doesnt it surprise me you would be against freedom of choice. Of course abortion laws were loosening at the time of the decision, gosh good old ronny had signed a bill loosening the rules on abortion in California in 1967, 6 years before Roe.

isadore;431253 wrote:why doesnt it surprise me you would be against freedom of choice. Of course abortion laws were loosening at the time of the decision, gosh good old ronny had signed a bill loosening the rules on abortion in California in 1967, 6 years before Roe.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you are against the freedom of choice to enslave your fellow man. Just as ridiculous of a statement.

I am against the freedom of humans to chose to enslave another humans.
I am against the freedom of humans to choose to kill other humans in most cases, especially in this case the most innocent, those in the womb.

^^^^^
1. I am glad you oppose slavery, that is a real step forward for a states’ righter.
2. IYO.

major sparks wrote:I am against the freedom of humans to choose to kill other humans in most cases, especially in this case the most innocent, those in the womb.

So in your view the worst possible killing is of a fetus. Worse than killing a man, killing a woman, killing a child, worse than killing an already born baby. That being the most innocent on your scale of innocence makes the act worse. And if you believe this what are you willing to do about it.
If you had known that the Jews were being exterminated. Would you have killed Nazis to stop it. If you feel so strongly about the termination of fetuses, that TO YOU it is the most horrible of killings, what are you willing to do about it.

isadore;431284 wrote:1. I am glad you oppose slavery, that is a real step forward for a states' righter.

Not for me. I have never been for the practice of slavery or racial discrimination. So I can't step forward. I stand where I always have. You discriminate against those of us who believe in a certain type of government. Decentralized and balanced between the sovereign states and the federal government under the constitution.

You label those of us who espouse this form of governance as racist, bigoted, and segregationists. We acknowledge the sins of some of our states. You refuse to acknowledge the same sins the federal government has committed. In the same light should I label you a homophobe or bigot because current federal law defines marriage as a union between a man and a women?

No government structure is perfect. Immoral people always will find their way into power and rule over their fellow man unjustly. It is our opinion that centralized power over the masses without a robust authority to counter balance that power is the most dangerous. The federal government is not immune to immoral rulers. If you can guarantee me the perpetual benevolent rulership of the federal government I will sign on.

isadore;431284 wrote:So in your view the worst possible killing is of a fetus. Worse than killing a man, killing a woman, killing a child, worse than killing an already born baby. That being the most innocent on your scale of innocence makes the act worse.

The killing of our fellow humans is not to be taken lightly. Through our government we as a society place levels of severity on the act of killing. Ranging from negligent manslaughter to the various levels of murder. I said nothing about the killing of a born human being worse that the killing of an unborn human.

I am making a special note to the most innocent among us. Those that have no chance to cry. No chance to show their will to live. No chance to express the pain of death. Yes I make a distinction. Not one of valuing one life over another, but drawing a distinction to those that have no ability to show their desire to have life.

isadore;431284 wrote:And if you believe this what are you willing to do about it.

I personally would out law this practice in all cases except to save the life of the mother. These cases are rare. In such cases the baby would be extracted from the womb and if in that process it would result in its natural death so be it. One has no other choice.

That is my moral judgment. One that millions of my fellow Americans espouse. One that millions of my fellow Americans will disagree to one degree or another. In my philosophy of governance and that which I believe the majority of the founders espoused, the laws governing issues like this are left to the states and the people to resolve.

isadore;431284 wrote:If you had known that the Jews were being exterminated. Would you have killed Nazis to stop it.

Did you read my post. I am against the granting of freedom to kill my fellow man IN MOST CASES. Personally in the case of self defense for one. In the case of an immoral government killing people because of their religion or race. I will kill my fellow man to stop it. If constitutionally and justly my government asks me to kill my fellow man because they have acted immorally against their people or another nation's, yes I will kill.

If I was born a 130yrs ago I would have had to make a decision. I would have been one to sympathize with the the states rights crowd. I would have been one that disagreed with going to war and killing many Americans to end slavery or preserve the union. I would have argued for a political solution. I would have had many arguments against the actions of the federal government at that time. I believe today it could have been avoided with time.

I do not believe all the states in the confederacy were motivated by maintaining the institution of slavery. Some joined because they could not accept the use of force without congressional declaration to take up arms against states that had seceded and thus becoming a foreign state power. They held a legitimate argument.

That being said. That once war had commenced. Being a citizen of Ohio. Personally feeling the practice of slavery was immoral. If I deemed the war would bring a final end to this injustice, I would have fought in the union army. After which I would have fought for the restoration of the form of governance the majority of our founders espoused.

isadore;431284 wrote:If you feel so strongly about the termination of fetuses, that TO YOU it is the most horrible of killings, what are you willing to do about it

As I stated above, I will do what I can through our republican government to elect people that will protect human lives in the womb. Just like the issue of slavery, I have no desire to use violence to stop it. But if it ever came to blows like it did over slavery in 1861, you know which side I will fight on.

majorspark;431236 wrote:The biggest bloodletting in this country came at the hands of the federal government. The Roe vs Wade decision by the SCOTUS. It forced the states to stop preventing the killing of babies in the womb. Tens of millions of babies have been killed since the feds interfered in the states right to decide this issue and prevent this type of killing.

49,551,703 to be exact.

majorspark;431326 wrote:As I stated above, I will do what I can through our republican government to elect people that will protect human lives in the womb. Just like the issue of slavery, I have no desire to use violence to stop it. But if it ever came to blows like it did over slavery in 1861, you know which side I will fight on.

And I would be standing beside you.

major sparks
What is so great about the states? They are just intermediate governmental institutions. Most of which were created by the federal government who set their often very artificial boundaries and approved their constitutions. If we argue that they deserve sovereignty because they are closer to the people then why not pass that sovereignty onto the county or township governments that are much closer to the people and their will. If your looking for the best in governing you can not beat state government: governors sent to prison like Dan Walker and George Ryan, clowns elected Governor like Jessie Ventura and Lester Maddox, would be dictator governors like Huey Long and Gene Talmadge. Only the best and the brightest for our state leadership. What is the true protection of America against abuse of authority, not states rights but popular sovereignty. And what has made this even more true that 223 years ago is the extension of suffrage to women, to blacks, to young adults. Of course many of our states rights advocates opposed these extensions.
Some of states have suppressed personal rights for so long and so often that we can only thank God and the will of the American people that the 14th Amendment is there to give us all due process and equal protection under the law. With guaranteeing blacks basic rights, some states were in advance of the federal government, good, but other using states rights as support continued on their repressive ways holding down blacks. It was the federal government that finally ended that. And it will be the same with gay rights, the federal government lags behind some states but as can be seen with its stance on don’t ask, don’t tell it is moving in the right direction and will be there long before the homophobes in Mississippi, West Virginia or Ohio are ready to change their laws sometime in the 22nd century.
The Confederacy was formed and existed to protect the institution of slavery. Document issued to begin secession. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm
Confederate Constitution protecting it, http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_Constitution.htm
Alexander Stephens. Confederate Vice President, Cornerstone Speech, March 21, 1861
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.’
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Minor point, but if you would have been born 130 years ago, you would have been born 15 years after the war ended. You could have marched off at 18 for the Spanish American War.
I am for freedom of choice for women but for you the termination of fetuses is an ultimate crime

major sparks wrote:I am against the freedom of humans to choose to kill other humans in most cases, especially in this case the most innocent, those in the womb.

And for those who share your views on a mass scale.

believer wrote:49,551,703 to be exact.

I imagine that number has gone up since believer quoted it.
And who in your view is responsible for this mass termination.

major sparks wrote:The biggest bloodletting in this country came at the hands of the federal government. The Roe vs Wade decision by the SCOTUS. It forced the states to stop preventing the killing of babies in the womb. Tens of millions of babies have been killed since the feds interfered in the states right to decide this issue and prevent this type of killing.

And what action should people take when government is responsible for such mass bloodletting. Well according to you if the government is responsible for killing because of race or religion:

major sparks wrote:In the case of an immoral government killing people because of their religion or race. I will kill my fellow man to stop it.

But what if it is the death of according to you the most innocent.

major sparks wrote: As I stated above, I will do what I can through our republican government to elect people that will protect human lives in the womb. Just like the issue of slavery, I have no desire to use violence to stop it;

With according to your view thousands dying every day?

isadore;431488 wrote:I am for freedom of choice for women but for you the termination of fetuses is an ultimate crime.

The fact that a human being has yet to slide out the woman's vagina does not make the termination of that human life any less despicable or criminal than the taking of human life outside the womb.

Despite what SCOTUS (circa 1973) says, it's murder contrary to the feel good euphemisms of "freedom of choice", "fetus", and "termination."

I will never understand the political mindset that cheers on the taking of innocent unborn human life and label it "freedom of choice" while actively protesting the execution of convicted murderers and label that "cruel and inhuman."

^^^^^
in your opinion
termination is what may happen when a woman exercise her freedom of choice as to carrying a fetus.

oh I have no problem at all with the execution of guilty murderers or traitors.

Writerbuckeye;431158 wrote:I have to laugh at people who put so much faith in the benevolence of a huge federal government -- when history has shown us time and again that people tend to die (in very large numbers) when governments get too powerful. Everything you believe the federal government can give you, it can also take away, and oh so very much more.

Don't think it can't happen here.

Yes big government. Have not heard that term used before have we. We all know your views of eliminating virtually everything, which you know are extremely on the fringe of the majority of peoples views and will never happen the way you want .

You have your philosophy concerning the federal government. You love to list the sins of some of the states yet turn a blind eye to the feds. The feds have a long list themselves. I have pointed out to you many times. Now we are bringing before you another one. Their failure to protect babies lives in the womb.

isadore;431488 wrote:Minor point, but if you would have been born 130 years ago, you would have been born 15 years after the war ended. You could have marched off at 18 for the Spanish American War.

I was born in 1972. I meant to say "if I was born 130 yrs earlier" making it 1842, putting me at about 19 yrs old when the civil war broke out. It was early in the morning but thanks for clearing that up. Hope you feel better.

isadore;431488 wrote:I am for freedom of choice for women but for you the termination of fetuses is an ultimate crime

Your stance on this issue is no different than the slave masters of the past. They too believed in the freedom of choice to control the destiny of another human being against their will. The slave master believed another human being was his property and less than human. Funny how people in order to assuage their guilt resort to telling themselves their victims are less than human. Yes you believe a baby in the womb is the property of the women. You claim it is less than human so you can allow other humans to do with that property as they wish. Yes the slave owners needed to exert this force on their fellow man in order to materially profit. Much like the a women pursuing her career, gets pregnant , an realizes the baby is going to cost her materially. She demands her right to posses another human and ends its life for her profit. Had you been born in a different time in the south looks like you would have fit right in.

isadore;431488 wrote:And for those who share your views on a mass scale.

I imagine that number has gone up since believer quoted it.
And who in your view is responsible for this mass termination.

And what action should people take when government is responsible for such mass bloodletting. Well according to you if the government is responsible for killing because of race or religion:

But what if it is the death of according to you the most innocent.

With according to your view thousands dying every day?

You can parse up my words and take them out of context to try to make a point all you want. Their is injustice and killing going on all over this world. Could lethal action through war be justified to put an end to it? Yes. You asked my what I would do in the case the nazi's. I said I was in favor of lethal force to stop them. There is a time and place for war. Using violence to solve our disagreements should be a last resort.

^^^^^
What an example of antediluvian attitude toward women. Throughout history the informed have realized that those of different races were as human as the rest of us. Historically, under both English common law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person. The writers of the Constitution and the authors of the 14th amendment did not consider the fetus human.
A group known to be human but consistently denied rights in almost every society has been women. How dare they control their own bodies. How dare they leave the home and get jobs. Their function is to be baby incubator. To compare women to slave owners is both outlandish and chauvinistic. Through much of human history women have been held down, repressed by our culture, not given the opportunity to have anything resembling their full set of rights. The attitudes reflect in your statements. The most important step in women having rights is their control of their own body. Their right to control their bodes overrules that of anyone or anything else.
But as to you and your particular set of beliefs. \

major sparks wrote:You asked my what I would do in the case the nazi's. I said I was in favor of lethal force to stop them. There is a time and place for war. Using violence to solve our disagreements should be a last resort.

You believe because the Nazis were killing thousands everyday lethal force should be used to stop them. You believe every day thousands of people are being killed in America by abortion supported by our government. And who do you hold responsible for this supposed slaughter:

major sparks wrote:The biggest bloodletting in this country came at the hands of the federal government. The Roe vs Wade decision by the SCOTUS. It forced the states to stop preventing the killing of babies in the womb. Tens of millions of babies have been killed since the feds interfered in the states right to decide this issue and prevent this type of killing.

major sparks wrote:As I stated above, I will do what I can through our republican government to elect people that will protect human lives in the womb. Just like the issue of slavery, I have no desire to use violence to stop it

So I guess you don’t place that high a value on fetuses as on real human life. Your ready to give the Nazis their just reward, death. But even though the abortion death far surpasses the Nazis toll and that those “murders” are taking place right here, you will act right now to stop it as you would to stop the Nazis.
“Since Roe, there have been between 43 and 46 million American babies killed through abortion. Up to 4,000 children are killed by abortion in America every single day. “
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/archives/contentview.asp?c=30688

As an observer of this conversation, you have now called either Believer or major racist (in your state's right argument) or sexist (in the discussion on abortion) with NO evidence to prove either.

It's good that you have learned to follow the liberal playbook so well.

Bigdogg;431519 wrote:Yes big government. Have not heard that term used before have we. We all know your views of eliminating virtually everything, which you know are extremely on the fringe of the majority of peoples views and will never happen the way you want .

Please provide the quote where I suggest that "virtually everything" be eliminated.

You won't be able to, because I haven't specified to that degree what I would like to see done.

However, that didn't stop you from using the current liberal tactic of labeling me as "fringe" in my views as you way of trying to discredit my argument, instead of simply responding to what I said.

Well done, comrade. I'm sure Mr. Alinsky and Mr. Emanuel would be very proud.

Writerbuckeye;431587 wrote:As an observer of this conversation, you have now called either Believer or major racist (in your state's right argument) or sexist (in the discussion on abortion) with NO evidence to prove either.

It's good that you have learned to follow the liberal playbook so well.

Really, LOL. By an “observer” If you are an active participant on a thread and have consistently supported one side in the discussion, you hardly qualify as a detached observer. On #5, #34, #38, 48# and #53 on this thread you were in critical discussion of my comments. On #51 believer wrote directly supporting one of your comments. So you are standing up for your buds.

Alright. I was an active participant -- have it your way.

But I notice you didn't deny what I wrote, so I'm obviously correct.

Drop that racism card or go for the one labeled sexist -- you guys are too predictable.

in your opinion

No. Fact.

From post 37 on you focus mainly on race and play that racism card over and over and over again. The proof is in all your posts.

hell from #1 this thread focused on race, its about what happened to shirley sherrod.

Sadly, the racism card is so overly used and abused, that it is now akin to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

After people are so inundated with the usage of it, they do become desensitized to it. When the card is overplayed, people become cynical of it and its user.

^^^^^
right, how she save their farm and to this day they thank her and are her friends.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/07/21/DI2010072105162.html

ccrunner609;431748 wrote:Yeah it was focused on race 24 years ago when she discriminated agaisnt a poor white farmer. She knows exactly how to handle race, its a huge issue because the POTUS doesnt know how to handle it.

Did you stop paying attention to the story monday night or something?

isadore;431709 wrote:hell from #1 this thread focused on race, its about what happened to shirley sherrod.

The racial part about her was fine -- your use of it to try and break down the arguments of posters who disagreed with you was not. It's tiresome, trite and quite honestly...boring. You did spice it up a bit when you switched to sexism as abortion became a topic, so kudos on that, I guess. But mostly liberals like you are a one-trick pony when they "debate" a topic.