The Right Scoop
whichever side you might happen to identify with in the War of Northern Aggression, there is one big lie that came out of it - Lincoln did not "preserve" the union. If states are forced to be members, it is not a union.
The Civil War wasn't necessary; the institution of slavery would've failed economically as all socialist-dictatorships do. This notion that the Fed's know what's best is bull. We have a government that is hands down 100% corrupt; if our government is untrustworthy domestically, then how can it be trustworthy in foreign policy? It can't.
Another big government, ruling class Bush-era RINO who agrees with Obama.
Dump him just like Karl Rove.
The Bush years were not conservative. That should be obvious. That's why his top advisor is openly trying to destroy conservatives. It's why his officials are fine with what Obama's doing now. The ruling class in both parties don't care about the Constitution, they care about their power, and the New World Order Bush's dad talked about.
More outrages!
TWO MILLION of America's TAX DOLLARS for paperboard targets of children, pregnant women, old people in their own homes, so D. H- S- and other Federal agencies can practice shooting at them!!!!????
Droning of Americans... Target practice by shooting at children, seniors and pregnant women? WHO is dreaming this evil stuff up?
WHEN will America wake up and demand a STOP to the INSANITY?
If a citizen are in a war zone with the enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort, or levying war against the United States, then that citizen is a traitor and by all means , kill him. I don't weep for dead confederates and certainly not for dead terrorists. If that same citizen is not in a war zone, then arrest him, try him, and kill him. You don't get due process on a literal battlefield.
I still don't understand why we can't come up with some sort of FISA court system that would allow the president to target dangerous individuals with drone strikes. Are you trying to tell me that the president needs a warrant to get a wire tap, but he doesn't need a warrant to kill somebody? You could make a legal case against a terrorist in absentia and convict them in absentia as well. If time is an issue, you can always do what they do in the FISA courts and that is get a warrant after the fact. Either way, there should be a legal justification for killing American citizens without due process, even if they are terrorists. If we can do this for wire taps, we certainly can do it for murder.
Agreed. Bolton is totally misguided if he doesn't see the ways this can be abused. And I hate to tell Bolton but there are a lot of us conservatives who disagree with him on this. Our so call conservative leaders are not leading and it is evidenced by the state of the Republican Party currently. I am not surprised because they didn't see the formation and Department of Homeland Security and it's abuses coming down the pike and being used against them, nor the Patriot Act as well.
Confederates used were a false analogy since we did give the Nazi's trials as well as a few Japanese. They weren't citizens. Many a confederate was tried and hung for being a traitor but it was Lincoln himself that put a stop to that.
Also the law is crystal clear on what to do with traitors but I think none of these guys have the nerve to do it. George Washington they are not.
And let's face facts...then left has no problem with drone strikes but baptize a Muslim or nasally irrigate him for allergies and the screaming begins. ;)
As a Libertarian, If a person is supporting and a know Terrorist sympathizer, then arrest him. If he flees and we know where he/she is, then get him...dead or alive. As far as drones are concerned...let me put it this way. I don't trust anyone in the current administration controlling the things. Beck actually went into this very subject earlier today and explains if far better than I can. Libertarianism is maximum freedom, minimal government. It sure as hell isn't "Worship Ron Paul or be gone knave!" like some Libertarians think.
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608397&topic_id=23419450
Libertarians tend to be young that is enough evidence to discredit this 'ism. I don't think young people should be allowed to vote, the minimum voting age should be 30.
Nonsense. My 22 year old is more conservative than anyone here. She would school you in conservatism and the issues. She works at Heritage Foundation. Don't expect the young to fight wars, be productive, pay taxes, get married, have kids, and not have any say in it at all. That is a lack of representation and we fought a revolution over that.
Stossel: "Don't you think that makes us new enemies" when civilians are killed?
This is libertarianism meets liberalism, and he doesn't even see it. That is EXACTLY what liberals say (unless they're in power). It's the Ron Paul..."if we didn't do X in 1952, they wouldn't have attacked us on 9/11" stuff. The same argument made by none other than Rev. Wright..."chickensssssss coming homeeeeee...to roost".
Maybe the terrorists make new enemies when they choose to use children as their shield? Maybe we are fighting people who will HATE America no matter how many rules we give ourselves to not kill innocents?
Maybe we are fighting against generations of oppression and most of their population is extremely uneducated? (So much so that when we teach them to vote....they vote back in the dictators who are going to kill women for adultery and homosexuals?)
Maybe we are letting liberals and those who think diversity is great take over the argument when the enemy is basing their hatred on what they see as a RELIGIOUS war? That means they will NEVER, EVER stop hating the "West".
Ever.
"If you were identified as a threat, would you want due process?" ... I don't think John Bolton would be identified as a terrorist... because he's not a terrorist. The United States wants to kill terrorists precisely because terrorists kill us--self-defense. They don't pick random people to kill. That would be pointless and a waste of resources. If someone is approaching you with a gun aimed at you ready, would you be in the right to shoot them, or would you wait until he had due process?
The problem here is what Bolton doesn't say. If he understands that Barry is a Marxist, he has a funny way of showing it.
Are libertarians anti-liberty? Would they really trade all of their freedoms away for the right to be slaves in the Confederacy or the right to be killed in Nazi concentration camps? They attacked Bolton for saying that the United States should do what is necessary to protect freedom when freedom is under attack. They think we shouldn't have suspended habeous corpus in the Civil War or during World War II or any other war. But if we didn't fight against evil, evil would win and there would be less freedom, which really leads me to question whether libertarians actually support freedom. According to the libertarian point of view, people shouldn't have the right to bear arms, because they might use their arms to shoot a criminal in self-defense, and people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. They are against the United States defending ourselves against terrorists, Confederate slave owners, and Nazis, so I don't see why they would support us defending ourselves against lesser threats like burglars or individual murders (as opposed to mass murdering terrorists).
1. No Libertarians are not Anti-Liberty. 2. No. 3. Outside of an active battlefield, No President should have the right to unilaterally decide to take the life of a US citizen.
4. You can't honestly be a Libertarian and not be pro 2nd Amendment. INO: We should have the right to keep and bare any weapons we choose. NOTE: Like several above you may misunderstand and/or have been mislead as to what Libertarians actually believe. http://www.libertarianism.com/content/libertarianism-101/lib_101
1.) Yes, libertarians are anti-liberty. They will never defend it, as they stated, and they will actually oppose those who want to defend it.
2.) Anwar al-Awlaki was in the battlefield of terrorism! We were perfectly right for killing him!
3.) If libertarians are against the United States defending ourselves, why do they think that it is right for United States citizens to defend ourselves? I am basing my opinion of libertarians only on what they said in this clip and in other clips wherein they have attacked Americans' rights to defend ourselves.
Most libertarians I've ever met are scum. People that worship Ron Paul, believe narcotics should be legalized, and, for the most part, are degenerate social liberals, should be booing THEMSELVES. Let the bastards have their dream of an island nation, of their own. They'll be overrun by liberals, in 6 months, and dead, in 6 more.
They claim to respect the military, as well as the Intelligence Community (IC), and yet, talking out of the other side of their mouths, they don't trust them to do their jobs. They don't trust them to make sound decisions. Unless it comes down through their pointless committees, and unless you subscribe to their twisted morality, I guess you're wrong. Foreign (or American) terrorists do not deserve due process rights when overseas. If there is reliable intelligence on them, and then intelligent shows that they are, or have been, involved in terrorist actions against the United States, they SHOULD be captured, or killed. Only an idiot would leave them alone, just because they're afraid to make more enemies. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Commander in Chief from preemptively striking against this country's enemies. The United States would have a lot of you were dead people, had we operated that way, as opposed to playing wait and see. Most libertarians I've ever met don't believe in military service. That makes me have even less respect for them. If you're too gutless to wear the uniform, yourself, don't tell me how to run the show, when I'm wearing it. They want to talk crap about Obama not receiving Congressional oversight; listening to them, they sound like they're full of the same crap, as all the other liberals.
Check out Hot Air where Ann Coulter is featured. There were a room full of libertarians and all they cared about was legalizing drugs and gay marriage. Those were the only questions they asked Coulter.
And, yet, they would all scream that they're nothing like liberals, and have such undying respect for the Constitution.
Seriously, you would find the interactions very interesting on the Coulter vs. Stossel video. One of her key lines (paraphrasing), "For people who call themselves individualists, you sure act like a mob."
I agree that there is not two cents worth of difference between liberals and libertarians.The mere fact that most of them are atheists doesn't impress me much either.
What is sad about Bolton's comment is that the Civil war was a much more complex issue than he is admitting. Only a very small fraction of Southerns actually owned slaves. It was more about being taxed to death and lack of representative when compared to the very industrious and populous Northern States.
How many people know that the underground railroad went into Florida as well as Northern into Canada?
Bolton was out of line in my opinion on his last comments.
Here's what the Civil War was about: South Carolina didn't like how an election went, so it decided to be a "p_$$_" and quit. We didn't try to work in the system, we just said screw it and quit. The man wasn't even sworn in yet. It's the most shameful display of sour grapes in the history of American politics.
Bolton wasn't there to give a history lesson in 5 minutes. Further, there are many generations of black families that would say you're full of crap, or worse. Your so called small fraction of southerner were responsible for the purchase of GENERATIONS of black slaves from African Muslims. And to say that it was a "small fraction" with all the years of slavery lasting, is just plain foolish. This what's a debate about libertarianism vs Conservatism, not about southern bigots, slavers and murderers.
I agree, I didn't appreciate his last comment either. It shocked me because I have the greatest respect for Bolton.
I'm sick of hearing about America's dark past, as if the Dutch had nothing to do with slavery or any other country. Africans sold their own into slavery. That was life back then and White people changed it.
I agree. It was, actually, a very ignorant statement.
Of course, everyone who wants to keep the Union together at all costs, right or wrong, should at this point go right ahead and support the present government.
Gentlemen, the time is just about here to fish or cut bait. Be free men, or not.
The government is abusing one more power, and I find Bolton's support of it revolting.
The end is living proof that no individual is without his faults. My ancestors fought in the Civil War and lost everything. They did not own a single slave; they were fighting for the founding principle of individual freedom. Sorry Ambassador. I have to say you got this one quite wrong.
Your ancestors were certainly not fighting for individual freedom. It doesn't matter whether they owned a slave or not... the side they were fighting for held that it was good and proper to own other human beings, to sell them like cattle, to separate children from mothers, to keep them illiterate by law, to deny them THEIR individual freedoms. Slavery was and is an abomination.
Claiming that Southerners were fighting for "individual freedom" is Orwellian. Your ancestors were not fighting *for* slavery... but they certainly weren't fighting against it.
BS! Many did fight for states rights not slavery. States Rights was the issue in which the continuance of slavery was argued under. Slavery itself was a secondary point. And for the record the General known as Robert E. Lee the head of the confederate army thought slavery was an abomination.
Get your facts straight before you re-fight the Civil War since you suffer from a severe case of present-ism.
And before you run down that road that so many do I come directly from abolitionist stock. If you are Midwesterner the name "Reno" might ring a bell or two.
Will all you dolts STOP getting sucked into the RACE BAITING and PAST HISTORY, and WAKE UP to what's going on around you NOW?
The Powers-That-Be are moving toward droning AMERICANS and are using paper-targets of pregnant women, children, and senior citizens to hone their shooting skills!
TWO MILLION of America's TAX DOLLARS for paperboard targets of children, pregnant women, old people in their own homes, so D. H- S- and other Federal agencies can practice shooting at them!!!!????
WHO is dreaming up this demonic cr*p and WHERE is the OUTRAGE?
WHEN will America wake up and demand a STOP to the INSANITY?
Correct.
Women had no rights and very few property rights and that depended on the state you lived in. That is what started the original women's movement known as the Suffragette Movement.
Wow. You're so desperate to distract with your stupid non point, that you'll actually embarrass yourself by using stories that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Nnot a single one of those stupid stories took place during the Civil War.
You may not have defined slavery totally, but currently a large segment of our population is in slavery, it's just a little more modernized.
Here's a pretty horrific one for you. Hummmm http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28161210/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/sex-slavery-living-american-nightmare/#.USgrJWdtGp0
And then there is this: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27098993/site/todayshow/ns/today-today_news/t/teen-recounts-horror-abduction-sex-slavery/#.USgr-GdtGp0
And this one: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/06/971401/girls-human-trafficking-and-modern-slavery-in-america/?mobile=nc
And here's some history on arranged marriages in the US. Read the article, women were forced to continue to bear children until a male was born because female children were unworthy. http://voices.yahoo.com/the-history-arranged-marriages-america-1503719.html
The hell it is garbage. March is Women's History Month, I recommend you tune in. Women could be beaten, raped and were frankly sold to men long before the Africans began their slavery.
Please, tell us the stories of women that were kidnapped from different countries. Tell us about all the thousands of them dying in cramped ships, moving across the sea. Tell us about women put up on auction blocks, like livestock. Tell us about how they were taken away from their families, and how many, today, can't trace their lines back, beyond a few generations.
Garbage.
15th Amendment in 1870 Race No Bar to Vote
19th Amendment in 1920 Women's Suffrage
See my other post on other too.
Women didn't get the right to vote until the start of the 20th century. Black men had the right to vote in 1868 if I remember correctly.
It doesn't matter if that property were a chair, a horse, a house, or a field. It was still viewed as property even under the eyes of the law whether correctly or incorrectly. The trouble is the South took a righteous stand with states rights, individuality, and property rights with the very non righteous issue of slavery. That is what in turn lead Lincoln to make the North take a righteous stand against slavery and turn the tide of the war.
And the North hands were hardly clean. they had wage slaves. where in the heck do you think Ernie Ford got the line "I owe my soul to the company store"?
Sure you can. Here again you suffer from present-ism. Southerners often viewed Blacks as property and fought for their individual right to their property.
" they made sure that blacks were kept under their thumbs for a hundred years after the war ended and slavery was over. "
That is a separate issue.
They were fighting for states rights and the freedom to make their own choices up to and including whether to have slaves or not. That is an argument for individualism. that argument often comes up today in modern politics. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how the states viewed themselves because your POV is the direct result of the North winning. States viewed themselves as a country within a loose conglomeration of countries. The Federal Government became centralized when the North won the Civil War and the South was not allowed to secede. To the victors went the spoils and history is written by the victors but no historian I know of liberal, conservative, or otherwise would agree with your interpretation.
That's nice.
You say you have proof... except you refuse to post it, because I'm not worth your time, which doesn't stop you from replying.
The South was a slave state, its economy relied on slavery in order to continue to exist, and your ancestors fought to keep that system in place. Your ancestors cared NOTHING for individual freedom, and neither do you.
No one on this side of the note is whining. I have proof and no need to whine in order to try to change the subject. That is a liberal tactic, and I am no liberal.
It’s past your nap time. Get some rest.
You could add the KKK was run by Democrats in the South and the majority of Democrat governors wanted segregation in schools and elsewhere. Democrats in Congress also opposed voting rights for blacks.
Sorry, but the only guilt I see around here is not coming from Otto nor myself. Why else would you guys be twisting yourself and history into such terrible knots trying to deny the reasons for the Civil War?
No matter how hard you try to deny it, the southern states seceded because they feared that the United States would eventually outlaw slavery. You can try to argue that it was all about state's rights or property rights, but at the end of the day, the property that they were really fighting to keep was another human being.
Wrong.
Are you accusing me and my people of defending slavery, then?
F you. And Otto the ignorant.
You have no bloody idea what you are talking about. My people were farmers, doctors, teachers.
Heres a bulletin for you, ignoramus...THEY WERE DEFENDING THEIR HOMES. Period.
They had no use for slavery or slaver. Or fools like you. Neither do I.
As for the white guilt you two wear with great superiority....it marks you for cowards and fools.
If I had you handy, I'd knock your damn head off for that.
I disagree. Evil Otto makes a valid argument:
You cannot rationally claim that the South was fighting for individual freedom when they were keeping people chained as slaves.
You cannot say you are fighting for freedom when you are denying freedom.
You have yet to produce an ounce of evidence, only foul-mouthed ignorance.
I argue for a living and won't waste my valuable time on your uneducated, close-minded drivel. When you come up with some first source facts (which I have a library full of) respond. Until then, quit wasting everyone's time.
Evil, work on this for a while. President James Madison(home state VA.) kept the New England fishing fleet in port because of the British raids on U S ships and forcing U S sailors in British service. Slavery? The New England States(the ship owners)threatened with secession from the Union. Madison relented and the war of 1812 commenced, shortly after. Does any of this sound like history repeating itself?
"Just ... don't?" Why not? It makes you uncomfortable to bring up slavery, doesn't it?
Not only did the Sountherners not give a damn about "individual freedom," they made sure that blacks were kept under their thumbs for a hundred years after the war ended and slavery was over.
That's the best you can come up with as a reply? Really? I've been insulted by the best, and you're going to have to do better than that.
I'm sorry I don't buy into this revisionist bullsh*t you've constructed that your ancestors were somehow fighting for individual freedom. They weren't.
Bolton discredited his own movement with that comment for a couple of reasons. First, the Unites States was the criminal aggressor in the Second American Revolution often mistakenly and laughably referred to as the "Civil War". Second, the defenders of their own union who were killed by the United States were not U.S. citizens, so the reference is entirely irrelevant anyway.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.