Those of you who hate the patriot act will be interested in this...

[Outriderdark]

You can't recall a President. Only Congress has the power to remove the President. You need to speak to a Senator about it, or get a very large group to talk to a Senator. I'll go with you, but we have different Senators.
The Republicans' only hope would be a revolt against Bush.
Of course as a registered Independent, I hope they fall on both sides of the aisle.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I know you are correct.....it was just an idea.

[Outriderdark]

I think, though that if an enormous number of conservatives began to petition the GOP in Congress to do this, it might at least start a debate.
If they can impeach a President for getting his nob polished and trying to cover it up, surely it could be done on the prewar intelligence scandal.
The Rebublicans need to not be afraid of the religious base and start playing to the middle or they will be gone in a couple years.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

I think, though that if an enormous number of conservatives began to petition the GOP in Congress to do this, it might at least start a debate.
If they can impeach a President for getting his nob polished and trying to cover it up, surely it could be done on the prewar intelligence scandal.
The Rebublicans need to not be afraid of the religious base and start playing to the middle or they will be gone in a couple years.

The repubs have a tradition, they always take those who got them in office for granted. Tell me if i am lieing when i say, were it not for the gun folks and religious folks, bush would be on his ranch on permenant vacation...on both elections!!!!! We are the ones who made it possible for bush to win both times. It was'nt the middle of the road folks, they voted for algore and ketchup boy! I love to use the example of the contract with America. When newt and the gang got the contract with America idea, the repubs burst into office and 30 years of dem rule was washed aside. A tremendous victory for the repubs! In only a few weeks the media 's beating the drum had the repubs back peddleing from the contract with America! The very thing, a mandate, if you will, the very thing that got them elected and vanqueshed the vile democrappers! How stupid, or self serving, can one group of folks be? Since then, the repubs have continued to screw us, thier core voters! I cannot speak for you, but, for me, to vote for a dem is like putting Christ on the cross, as far as i'm concerned! I'll never do it...no matter how much i threaten, i'll never vote dem because I know what dems are. however, now we got bush and company. The guy is just plain bad for America and he needs to go. but, dim witted folks who vote, see bush as the whole of the repubs....granted, they suck too! The dems suck, Heck, they all suck but, the repubs are still the lesser of the evils until........you consider the patriot act. It used to be easy, the dems want my guns, i'll vote repub. But now, the repubs want my freedoms! What good is guns without the freedom to shoot them? Likewise, just how free are we if we can't have guns? To sum up my thought, it doesn't make any differance, if we can't get rid of the patriot act, who runs the show. We are intercoursed anyway. It's only a matter of time, no matter who's evil plans are used. The end result is we are freedomless and are now servants, in the truest meaning of the word.

[Rave]

I still have a couple of extra handbaskets if you want to ride in style.

[Rockabilly88]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

Indeed.
My view on the Civil War is that it was not the people, but the governments that forced the Civil War. I think there was a very clear answer that the Southern Aristocrats refused to accept for nothing but selfish reasons. Many compromises regarding slavery were made in order to maintain the Union, from the very beginning when SC refused to stand for independence if slavery were outlawed from the start. Banning the importation of slaves in 1808 was a compromise reached in the 1788 Constitution.
I believe that the Southern Aristocrats, at the expense of their own citizens, made the WRONG compromises. Instead, they should have conceded slavery as a compromise, and in return demanded concessions on the other issues that led to the Civil War. The abolitionist movement would have gladly made concessions to the south in order to fully end slavery. But that was the trump card that the minority of southerners after the 1817 depression who owned slaves refused to use.
In short, I hold that it was minority aristocratic rule in the south that could have stopped the Civil War but refused to.

While the Southern Aristocracy certainly was interested in self profit and did nothing to help the common man, I doubt they held enough power to prevent the civil war. The firing at fort Sumpter which started the war was conspired and committed by working class men not aristocrats. Its doubtful that such men acted in order to keep up the system of slavery which basically pissed all over the white working class. I'm sure most of you, especially those in blue color positions, know how hard it is to compete with illegal immigrants who work for less. Imagine competing against slaves who work for nothing.
As far as the Federalist/anti-Federalist debate, I think our current problem has more to do with public ignorance and apathy than any system, but if forced to choose I would still opt for looser government. Like I said our main problem is apathy and ignorance, if we could ever get the bulk of our population politically motivated and aware we could do far better with a system that left more control in our hands than one that was controlling us in its hands. An aware public against a small government can keep its freedom intact if the government ever tries to pull anything. An aware public against a strong government will have more trouble doing anything when big brother makes his move. An apathetic, lazy, and cowardly public will be subjected in either case.

[BattleRifleG3]

By the time the southern states officially seceded, it was too late. I'm saying that slavery was a trump card that the south could have played to the advantage of all their other grievances. They could have basically traded the institution of slavery for a very high return in legislative compromises.

[Stopper]

Senate voted 52-47 to NOT reinstate the 16 provisions set to expire at the end of the month!!!!! Republicans fell 8 votes short!!!!!!

This is VERY GOOD NEWS!!!!!! We need more freedoms, not more "so called security" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rockabilly88]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

By the time the southern states officially seceded, it was too late. I'm saying that slavery was a trump card that the south could have played to the advantage of all their other grievances. They could have basically traded the institution of slavery for a very high return in legislative compromises.

I agree with you that slavery could have been traded for compromises, but I don't think compromises would have achieved much. Compromise by definition means that your position is being weakened in order to gain a little ground that wasn't previously held. I hypothesize that all compromise would have achieved was temporary appeasement which lends itself to one or both sides to be lulled by a false sense of security. With vultures in the federal government ready to prey on the southern people I doubt very much that the South could afford to be taken in by such a sense of security. If the fat cats of the South would have been willing to get rid of the system of slavery in order to benefit their homeland and countrymen (which is a doubtful situation) then they would be much better off in discarding slavery for the sake of humoring the Europeans into lending their support. But while we're playing 'what if's' it would probably be just as beneficial to succession if slavery were never started in the colonies.

Another point I would like to argue your statement that by the time the southern states had officially succeeded it was too late for the dream of succession. While I do agree that the states did take their time (North Carolina waited until the 86th aniversery of the Mecklenburg declaration of independence, which was a bit unessiary) you must admit it takes a bit of work to get things through any government beurocracy, including that of the states, and any of us would be hard pressed to pull such a thing off today, with the support of the state governments no less. Anyways back to whatever I was trying to get across - Are you forgetting how close the South came to wining the Civil War despite their early disorganization and inferiority in troop supply, equipment, and numbers. Statistically for every dead southerner there were ten dead Yankees, imagine what could have been achieved if the South had half the material and manpower of the North. Drifting back from the plane of what if's - remember how close Lee came to turning the tide of war during the Ghettysburg caimpaign? All I'm saying is that to state that the war was lost before it was started is to ignore many historical facts.

[Father Time]

Originally Posted by Stopper

Senate voted 52-47 to NOT reinstate the 16 provisions set to expire at the end of the month!!!!! Republicans fell 8 votes short!!!!!!
This is VERY GOOD NEWS!!!!!! We need more freedoms, not more "so called security" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually they voted not to vote on it RIGHT NOW. The renewal hasn't actually been voted on.

Like you, I hope that it gets thrown out.

[Kurtis]

Troy2000, Outriderdark, Rufus Rhastus, Rockabilly, and BRG3:

I would like to buy you guys a beer.:cheer:

And then listen in on your debates, all the while taking notes! Never have I seen such true respect. I'm not blowing smoke here, folks. The knowledge, opinions and experiences you share are priceless.

As far as the patriot act...I will use this quote from General McAuliffe:

"Nuts!"

Thanks guys. I learned a whole lot tonight.

[BattleRifleG3]

Thanks Kurtis.

Rockabilly, what I meant by it being "too late", I meant that it was too late to avoid the Civil War. I mean the secession sealed its fate. I most certainly agree that seccession or avoiding the need for seccession would have been better off had slavery been abolished at the birth of our country. Just that, like France, South Carolina effectively wielded veto power over the Declaration of Independence if slavery were abolished. And Georgia would not have gone for Revolution if they were cut off by SC. That might have discouraged NC too. So we would have had 10 colonies in rebellion, not 13.

I used the term compromise because that's how history books recorded many agreements that tried to keep the Union, whether the 3/5ths compromise (which was blatantly lousy), the Missouri Compromise, or others. Perhaps a better term would be barganing. Something that would call the other side out. Terms they can't refuse. I'm essentially arguing that the south could have gotten practically any freedoms they wanted if they in return gave up slavery. Because the rest would be unable to refuse.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Kurtis

Troy2000, Outriderdark, Rufus Rhastus, Rockabilly, and BRG3:
I would like to buy you guys a beer.:cheer:
And then listen in on your debates, all the while taking notes! Never have I seen such true respect. I'm not blowing smoke here, folks. The knowledge, opinions and experiences you share are priceless.
As far as the patriot act...I will use this quote from General McAuliffe:
"Nuts!"
Thanks guys. I learned a whole lot tonight.

I'm a crazy right-wing whack-O......don't pay no never mind to me. However, on the few, and rare occasions someone agrees with me, you risk guilt by association. Take care! But, thanks for your thoughts!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Rufus Rhastus J

I'm a crazy right-wing whack-O......don't pay no never mind to me. However, on the few, and rare occasions someone agrees with me, you risk guilt by association. Take care! But, thanks for your thoughts!

..except that I'm the resident LEFT-wing wacko. Between the two of us, you're bound to get into trouble sooner or later.

[Outriderdark]

Every time I settle on one wing, I find myself on the other wing....then in the middle, then on the left then on the right. I don't fit in anywhere.

[Father Time]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

Every time I settle on one wing, I find myself on the other wing....then in the middle, then on the left then on the right. I don't fit in anywhere.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.:right:

[BattleRifleG3]

Don't let other people tell you what wing you're on. You tell them where you stand, and stand there.

For example, libertarianism (as opposed to the party) in many ways is favored by folks on each side but is anything but a compromise. A majority of the time it's the republicans who are more libertarian friendly, but they are a far cry from true libertarianism in any sense.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

Don't let other people tell you what wing you're on. You tell them where you stand, and stand there.
For example, libertarianism (as opposed to the party) in many ways is favored by folks on each side but is anything but a compromise. A majority of the time it's the republicans who are more libertarian friendly, but they are a far cry from true libertarianism in any sense.

:insane: there is no chance they can win...so, either way, you got two choices...anything else could actually be a vote for either one....but, for sure, not for whom you intended since they never had a chance to win anyway.:nod: However, BattlerifleG3's advice is sound...just ignore the other stuff.

[Outriderdark]

I am a libertarian by definition, but Libertarians (as a party) seem to suffer from a chronic case of mediocrity.
They need start a PR bombardment, start going town to town and state to state in large rallies, get some really charismatic candidates, then recruit sitting politicians over to them.
None of that will happen, though. Its all a pipe dream. We're doomed....doomed I tell ya. Rufus Rhastus's aliens are our only hope...
Just kidding, Rufus.

[BattleRifleG3]

I'm a conservative libertarian or a libertarian conservative. Believing basically that freedom without structure becomes anarchy and ultimately facism, and law without freedom is tyranny.

Liberal used to have something to do with freedom. In our political system, the only freedom liberal politicians want is the freedom for themselves to take more control. It's an abuse of every idea of liberalism. Unfortunately that's what the word means in our political climate, so we're stuck with recognizing it's new false meaning without giving it undue respect. Liberalism is anything but. It's time we made that known.