Reply With Quote
you should be in prison
EXACTLY,
See, there was this guy banging my wife, but he was white, right? So, I go to his house, tie him up, cut off his , cook it and make him eat it. Then I covered him with honey, and put him out in the heat RIGHT on top of a fire ant mound. His old lady came home the next day, and the son of a was still alive!
He finally died in the hospital a few days later.
Since he was white, I didn't hate him or nothin'.
Later, this black guy cut me off in traffic, so I flipped him off.
THAT was hate!
you should be in prison
I see you forget the cons ution. They are not treated as equals. Slavery is acknowledged in the cons ution along with indentured servitude!
and it was wrong on that issue
It's a very stupid practice to state other peoples unknown thoughts as fact. It shows fully you level of ignorance.
I never approved of slavery. I wouldn't then with my current upbringing if I lived in the past. I am against many laws, that doesn't mean I break them.
It looks like you missed allot of the thread. The assault was reduced. The key fact to remember is that the assault was a sneak attack from behind, a cowards attack. The kid went down, knocked unconscious, and the kids continued to beat a defenseless victim!
If you approve of that, then I pity your soul.
As for the hate crime. Why did the Attorney General from the State say there was none? That is a key reason why I call it child's play with lassos rather than a noose, because there would be no wiggle room if it was a noose!
You think a liberal democrat controlled governor wouldn't charge for a hate crime if she could?
No Sherlock!
State the obvious.
I never said slavery was right or moral. Only that it was legal!
Bull .
The guy I killed once jacked a liquor store, and they let him go with time served.
next time, control yourself. we need to find out if a pole in the ass is more or less painful than a paper cut.
this guy could have been the perfect specimen. remember, science is progress.
Having a separate class of "hate crimes" is superfluous. It is just a political salve. Our existing jurisprudence already takes into account state of mind in the punishment phase of a criminal trial.
So if religious conservatives ever get abortion outlawed nationwide, the blue states have the right to secede, and you will support that on account of their interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.
I'm sure there are some who want to use the power of the federal government to outlaw abortion. Most of the talk I hear is to just overturn Roe vs. Wade, and let the issue go back to the individual states. There would never be enough votes to outright outlaw abortion at a federal level.
So you would not support a nationwide ban on abortion because it would violate the Tenth Amendment.
Correct.
I am a firm believer in states rights.
So would I be far off on your reasoning to think if you had been around in the 1700's you would have opposed the American revolution because as much as you didn't like taxation without representation, it was the law and you wouldn't break it?
That's a good tough question.
I started a new thread for it:
The Revolutionary War
The funny thing about WC's assertion is that at the time of the southern secession, not even the Republicans were looking for an immediate universal abolition of slavery in the various states. Since the Tenth Amendment was in fact taken seriously back then, there was no possibility of doing so nationwide. Abolitionists prior to the Civil War often burned copies of the Cons ution because it allowed for the continuation of slavery in states which chose to have it.
But under the existing form of government, if there were to become any imbalance in the number of free states versus slave states, then severe restrictions could be placed on slave commerce between states, crippling the economy of the South. This is why whenever states were added, the South insisted that it be in pairs, one slave, one free. The North dominated the House of Representatives owing to its greater population, so the South needed an evenly divided Senate.
On the face of it, this series of compromises violates the spirit of the Tenth Amendment. Ideally, the settlers themselved should have decided whether their state would be slave or free, right? Well, that's exactly what was decreed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It was expected that Nebraska settlers would vote themselves a free state, while Kansas settlers would vote themselves a slave state.
It didn't work out that way. What happened instead was guerilla warfare in Kansas between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers for five years.
Furthermore, the collapse of the Whig Party and the emergence of the abolitionist Republicans, and the election of a Republican President in 1860 without electoral votes from a single slave state, and without Lincoln so much as appearing on the ballot in ten of them, meant the end of the line for the South. Given prevailing events, the Cons ution as written could not ensure the viability of slavery as an ongoing ins ution.
So the southern states decided that they had the "right" to secede from the union. If successful, with control of the Mississippi River via New Orleans, they could dominate the West, not only ensuring the continuation of slavery, but assuming the dominant position on the North American continent.
Of course, Lincoln certainly wasn't going to allow for illegal dissolution of the nation, much less allow a new, hostile power to usurp its own claims in the West and encircle the rump. And that's not even taking into account the likely encroachment of European interests upon the weakened nation.
So, in my view, the South, because political fortunes did not go its way, once the tide started to turn inexorably towards the restriction of slavery via completely legitimate and legal Congressional authority over matters of interstate commerce, on account of the emerging imbalance between slave and free states, took its chances with treason and tried to break away and protect its economic interests militarily. It lost catastrophically.
No state ever had Cons utional authority unilaterally to leave the United States of America. At no time prior to the war did the Northern states violate the Tenth Amendment and externally attempt to abolish slavery in states where it already existed. The Emancipation Proclamation was announced as binding only upon enemy territory which had forsaken the rights it once had in the nation it chose to leave. What the South did was treasonous and illegal, and they deserved every bit of the devastation they got.
And its supporters today carry on the spirit of treason.
the slavery issue allowed the north to claim the "moral cause"
In the southern concept of "states' rights," not only did the south assert its right for its states to maintain their own laws, it also asserted the "right" to impose those laws upon the territories.
Thank you for the lesson.
Well done (while I disappear to check a couple of facts).
Bells back in jail...
ABC NoiseA teenager at the center of a civil rights controversy is back in jail after a judge sentenced him on charges that were pending before the attack that put him in the national spotlight, his attorney said Thursday.
Mychal Bell, who along with five other black teenagers had been accused of beating a white classmate, went to juvenile court Thursday expecting another routine hearing, said Carol Powell Lexing, one of Bell's attorneys.
Instead, after a six-hour hearing, state District Judge J.P. Mauffrey Jr. sentenced him to 18 months on two counts of simple battery and two counts of criminal destruction of property, Lexing said.
He had been hit with those charges before the Dec. 4 attack on classmate Justin Barker.
"He's locked up again," Marcus Jones said of his 17-year-old son. "No bail has been set or nothing. He's a young man who's been thrown in jail again and again, and he just has to take it."
Gee...maybe if Bell stopped breaking laws, he wouldn't find his ass in jail....
Am I wrong? I thought they wanted the new territories to have the option of their own states rights in that regard rather than being told all new states had to be free states!
They got that in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Compromise of 1820. It did not have the desired effect.
Now, abolitionists opposed the K-N Act because they thought it meant slavery was inevitably going to spread westward. Understand that northern immigrant workers wanted free states in the West as a hope to escape the unpleasant working conditions of industry. They hoped to become farmers. Kansas became the flash point. Missouri sent armies of pro-slavery settlers, heavily armed, across the border to vote for a state cons ution which permitted slavery. Abolitionists and northern workers flooded into Kansas in kind to vote it into being a free state. Each side attempted to prevent the other from voting. This degenerated into the guerilla warfare of "Bleeding Kansas."
Now James Buchanan, who was one of the worst Presidents this nation ever had, attempted to strong-arm Kansas into becoming a slave state. The building tension was exacerbated when a senator from South Carolina beat an abolitionist senator from Massachusetts half to death with a stick on the floor of the Senate.
All these heavy-handed did was rile up the populace, convincing them that the Slave Power was trying to take over the government. This greatly aided the rapid rise of the Republican Party.
Funny, that didn't make the morning shows.
Coulter's remarks sure did, though (but not all of them).
After learning all of this, these southern sympathizers really should rethink who was trying to assert their way of life on whom.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions