kochman

Yes, that is exactly what happened. The South wanted to secede, Lincoln said no. He said no in more colorful terms than that (Crap about "Preserving the Union") but ultimatelyit came down to this, Lincoln was willing to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans if that was what it took to prevent Confederate independence.

The North also owned slaves so I've always found the "But he freed the slaves" part to be irrelevant. Lincoln only freed the slaves because otherwise Britain and France may have recognized the Confederacy. They had freed their slaves already. The Union had not. Lincoln somehow managed to get Britain and Franceo off his back by freeing all the slaves he had no real power to free (A few were actually freed IIRC, but not many, immediately. Lincoln, of course, had to conquer more southern territory and murder more Southern Confederates in order to free anyone else.)

I'm curious what your perspective is that allows brutally crushing a secession movement. I don't think there's anything more authoritarian than telling a group of people that wish to separate from the government that you will kill them to stop them.

That's fine. I thought the world of Lincoln until I actually did some research. It doesn't matter how bad the South was, none of that justifies Lincoln's actions. I'd have hated to live under Lincoln. I suspect most of CFC would too. But yet, because of the purely mythical "Great Emancipator" aura surrounding him, everybody worships him.

Regarding the thread and Ft. Sumter, I think its really debatable whether the Union still had righful property right to those forts after the South seceded. If they did, I'd tend to agree that the South shouldn't have been able to make the Union sell, but since practically everything the US Government owns comes from "Eminent Domain", I've got no qualms about using it against them.

You were right as well that Lee invaded Antietam and Gettysburg. In an effort to get the North to negotiate.

I'm actually surprised at you considering how consistent you usually are.

Is Lincoln some kind of special figure that's immune to criticism?

Because frankly, I'd hate to live under President Lincoln too. I don't know who wouldn't... considering you got locked up for disagreeing with him.

Or, if Judge Napolitano is correct, even for being silent while someone criticized Lincoln in your precense.

The conversation is just hillarious. For what its worth, you're winning

I appreciate the vote of confidence as well

at your conversation with Forma.

Do you consider me consistent, for the record?

Sorry, but I'm with the Tea Party on that issue as well... I know the rest of the country isn't.

I do offer solutions though, cut spending, especially our unnecessary military spending. So you can't say I'm just saying "Cut taxes and magically fix it" like the GOP is. I'm aware something has to go to end this nonsense. But the taxation and spending rates are obscene anyway.

I don't think you can legally buy explosives or anti-tank guns.

I think you should be able to buy explosives. And yeah, the drone point is valid. I think each state government should possess its own arsenal to counter the Federal government but aside from that, yeah, they win if they use drones. They might tick off the world if they droned their own civilians though.

Full-auto guns won't be legalised but they still should be IMO.

So far the debate has been centered around semi-automatics, what about automatic weapons? Or greande launchers? Or that anti-tank gun that contre posted? Where would you personally draw the line?

Justwondering, how far and how literally do you take the 2nd amendment?

If you think my contentions are strange, just look at Traitorfish He makes me look pretty standard in comparison

Did you actually vote for Stein? If so, good job not giving your approval to one of the main choices

BTW, on the other stuff we were discussing iin the other thread, I just wanted to let you know that I really respect you already so I'd appreciate an actual answer to my objections. I already know some people will just be like "Taxation is not paying your bills" or some other silly quip and repeating it over and over again (Its doubly bad when they are partisan democrats who think Republicans want to destroy the country and that Libertarians want to steal from the government rather than shrink it).

Honestly? In spite of my disagreement with you on the economy, I'd still rather have someone like you in the office of Presidency than a Romney or Obama. At least you don't feel the need to remaek the world in your own image just because you can, like some people here, actual suffering be damned because USA#1

As for the money from his district, I am open to the possibility that he shouldn't have done it, but it wasn't inconsistent. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but if I was going to force you, and a whole lot of other people, to give me money, and I offered to send each household who I extorted a pizza pie (Let's say you had to pay whether you got the pie or not.) Is you accepting the pizza pie for your household in any way inconsistent? I don't believe it is. You were being forced to pay anyway. This is my same defense against the fact that Ron Paul does take social security in spite of his disagreement with its existance, he was forced to pay so why wouldn't he collect?

I just noiticed you actually responded to this, sorry.

I'm not saying you couldn't be right. I'd be pretty surprised, but its not an absolute impossibility. If there was ever a guy who I've seen look completely honest, it would be him, but you're right that I don't know the guy personally and anyone could fake it. Its just... why? Why campaign so hard while holding positions that basically guarantee you'll never pass the house? A lot of people are fiscally conservative and socially more liberal, if Ron had stuck with that and took the more conservative stance on foreign policy rather than ticking off both sides, I think he might be President right now.

I just think that Paul is a lot of presentation, and not a lot of actual substance.
He voted to cut his pay... why? It looked good and he didn't need the money.

He was happy to take in pork barrel money for his district... that was a bit too much for me.

As for Ron Paul being a politician, he could have easily gotten elected to senate if he had moderated his views. Why do you think he didn't?

Why do you think he voted to cut his own pay?

That said, even if Ron was a "Typical" politician he would still be the most attractive option available.

I'm mostly disgusted with things like the endless wars, NDAA, TSA, and Patriot Act getting bipartisan support while the candidates fight on trivial things.

I'm really hoping Rand Paul runs in 2016. He has a lot of Ron's principles without the common perception (Which I don't agree with) of being nuts that Ron has.

I never claimed Ron Paul was perfect on every issue. But compared to the awful fools we have running now, it shouldn't even be a contest.

I think the Green "Equality" would destroy the economy. They are proposing to pay more for less work, and money doesn't grow on trees. Still, Stein is better than the main two. I'd prefer Virgil Goode, however, let alone Gary Johnson, over her. Liberals universally do not "Get" the economy, even though true liberals (As opposed to the "Liberals" that are mainstream Democrats) usually are good on civil liberties and foreign policy.

I personally find the Green Party platform far more "Loonish".

At least Ron Paul would balance the budget and get rid of the debt

What would you have done if Ron Paul had somehow won?

I'm actually surprised, but not particularly disappointed, the more people that vote for someone that's NOT Obama/Romney this year the happier I am, whoever the heck they are.

If I were three months older I'd be voting for Gary Johnson.

Stein