CELTICEMPIRE

Fair enough. The South did sort of attack you guys so it would make sense for a Kentuckian to support the north lol I still can't wrap my mind around that Confederate decision, it doesn't really make any sense. Maryland and Pennsylvania had actually sided with the North, but Kentucky didn't pick a side. The attack on Kentucky was just stupid.

I feel like I want to make an "Ask a Confederate New Yorker" thread in the tavern

I can imagine slavery lasting until the early 1900's for the deep south, although that would depend on what the Upper South did, they might have tried to ban slavery in the CSA (In spite of their constitution) before this, or at least perhaps made the Upper South a safe haven for fugitive slaves, like the North could and should have done immediately. The Upper South, however, would not ever have seceded if it were not for Lincoln. The Upper South was ready to stay in the Union, and slavery was on its way out, the only reason they seceded was because they didn't want to fight their Southern countrymen. The border states actually did give up their slaves with no problem so it would not have taken long for them to do so even without the thirteenth amendment.

Come to think of it, I just realized, the thirteenth amendment really should outlaw the draft as well. Its "Involuntary servitude" by any definiton.

Maybe in the western hemisphere, but they couldn't do what the united USA is doing right now, unless they worked together on foreign policy. That might really be the worst of both worlds. Civil Rights I think would have happened quicker. Slavery might have taken longer, but if it was naturally phased out, the South wouldn't have had as much reason to persecute the blacks when they were done. The South wasn't really more racist than the north overall back then, the North just didn't need slavery for its economy.

Yes, there were some generals who felt that way. Just think about the opportunity cost. We now have an absolute state, nullification and secession are forgotten, the government thinks it can do almost anything, the President has been deified, exc.

The North should have just repealed its fugitive slave law and we would have got the better end of both, an independent Confederacy AND freed slaves on both sides.

"I'm going to say I want to end slavery so the aggressive slaughter of Southerners I already started can be justified" isn't really "Moral superiority."

On top of that, would we be justified in invading Canada in order to stop their abortions? I don't think so. Same applies here, IMO.

You've got to commit to that non-interventionist foreign policy because to do otherwise is to feed a monster...

Its not so much that I "Support" the Confederacy, I just think they were better than the North.

If the North had instead let the South go and repealed the Fugitive Slave Laws, slavery would have been driven out naturally without a war.

If you're still having a rough time with bashing Lincoln, I think this blog post on LRC might help

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/131081.html

Regarding the gay rights movement, I just wish they understood actual debate. They have some valid complaints but frankly, the fact that they think their issues compare to the civil rights movement, people who need marijuana as medicine who get thrown in cages, or the people in nations that our country has slaughtered in its nation-building makes me inclined to not care all that much. I care much more about those who do not use such low-handed tactics.

I don't know what happened about Stonewall but there's no way the SSM movement has any leg to stand on here in comparison to the Civil Rights Movement. At absolute most, interracial marriage could be compaed to SSM (I still think this is bogus due to biology) but blacks prior to the 1960's had a host of other rights they didn't have access too. Of course, I think discrimination on private property should be combated with means other than the government, but there was discrimination enforced on public property as well, which was unacceptable. And even if I think discrimination on private property should be legal doesn't mean they shouldn't have fought against it and tried to change the minds of racists through civil protest, which is what they did.

The gay marriage issue is tricky, I'm not sure if the current laws just deal with contracts or if they also have certain special recongition involved. I certainly think people should be allowed to make any contract they want, but as far as recognition goes, I wish people would differentiate between the equal rights part of the LGBT movement, and the marriage recognition part of it. The way the debate gets framed now, you either support legal and moral equality,or you hate them and don't believe they have any rights. The people who are in the middle are, I think, very common but not often acknowledged. Civil Unions should be legalized like now.

Regarding "Right" and "Racist" there are plenty of people on here who think I'm a racist for opposing the Civil Rights Act. Of course, they also think Ron Paul is a racist for this reason

If only economic views fit into left-right (I agree with you but am too used to talking to people who don't understand this) than I'm quite far to the right when it comes to opposition to individual handouts/social security/exc. but I'm also opposed to corporate subsides and bailouts (I don't necessarily consider tax breaks to be subsidies, everyone's taxes should go down) so in those areas I disagree with the "Right."

Chinese buffet was awesome, thanks

Gay marriage and immigration are pretty much the only two issues that I have fairly centrist positions on. On everything else I'm either very far right, very far left, or have a radical opinion hated by both.

on Chick-Fila. I'm going to a Chinese Buffet for lunch today for my birthday. Have fun

What city do you live in? I don't think that there's any city in Kentucky that would be anywhere near equivalent to NYC or Chicago.

I don't think there's any issue that differs more depending on whether or not you live in a big city than gun control. If it wasn't for the constitution I'd allow New York, Chicago, exc. to create their high crime gun banning paradises as long as they left the rest of us alone. Rural areas would likely allow automatic weapons again.

Useless would probably nuke every country that doesn't pass gay marriage

I might someday run for public office, although I'd never get past the House of Representatives. I can't play Rand's game, even though I know someone has to. I couldn't ethically go to Congress and make even meaningless votes for things that are wrong.

Ron Paul is my rolemodel in this regard. Except for Afghanistan. Ron learned from that mistake, and so did I. Do not EVER allow Washington DC to control a war, you will regret it.

IIRC like 2/3rds of Americans support gun control, but they're also all clustered in the cities for the most part. That leaves an annoying situation, and one that most clearly demonstrates the need for decentralization.

I don't know if the CRA was actually constitutional or not, but barring that, I do support the parts of it that ban discrimination on PUBLIC property. My objection is to discrimination being banned on PRIVATE property, which is the same issue that Ron and Rand have. I also have every confidence that a business who openly discriminates based on race would not last long. Not that that really informs my position, individual rights does.

Useless probably doesn't even know what "Liberty" means. He thinks about any problem and the first word that pops into his head is "Government"

http://iroots.org/2013/01/17/rand-paul-nullify-threat-goes-viral/


The Tom Woods video at the end is awesome, and Rand Paul is starting to impress me as well.

Have you changed your positions on foreign interventionism, meth, and discrimination to become fully libertarian yet?

Using the term "Right wing" is a little complicated because the typical "Right winger", (Even just for economic issues) also supports corporate subsidies, right to work legislation, and corporate bailouts. Libertarians don't (At least not while being consistent.)

If you look at the Chamber, Useless, oh the great "Liberal" that he is, mocked me for supporting Clinton's decision not to intervene in Rwanda. Apparently Clinton regretted his choice. Too bad for Clinton

My score became more moderate last time, probably because of my changed answer on the "Shame that people can just manipulate money..." I used to say no because I thought it was an "Anti-capitalist" question, but capitalists actually contribute to their society by organizing and paying labor. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, really does do nothing more than manipulate money, and could not exist on the free market.

You should, OT needs some voices of sanity (I don't count, far too radical these days)

Have you been posting in the Tavern? I can't see the Tavern ATM, still banned...

You should come to the Chamber and help me fight statism