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

[Rave]

I don't know,I only hope we get a better choice this next time,the last one gave me no choice but to vote for Bush.

[BattleRifleG3]

I think in the real grand scheme of things, the candidates who might actually win an election who would have been better than Bush are quite few. More may have a better chance next election. Real constitutionalists like Ron Paul and Alan Keyes.

On Condoleeza, I think she's doing the best job she can which means working for the president well. I think as a candidate without having to answer to him, she may go in a direction we like much more.

Funny thing, if Alan Keyes and Condi Rice ran together, the campaign posters would say "Keyes and Rice!"

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by Stopper

Rufus, about the time I thought the demcrappers were going to make it big on '06, here comes Rummy with "reduce the troop levels" exactly what everybody wants to hear - think they are trying to turn tables on the demos??? I sure do. We'll get this lip service until next November then we'll get it up the ol keester again. Seems like the next big American value - being able to take it up the wazzo, and taking it with a smile.
Since when has big gummitup been so freak'n popular?

Sad part is, the American public is so dumb, they'll fall for this obvious ploy to curry favor.:nod:

[Rave]

It' all politics,give the people a taste when the noise gets to a level that makes them uncomfortable,you can always change it back.
Like the old bait and switch trick. it all boils down to be like putting a bandaid on a cancer,looks ok,but the problem is still there.:nod:

[rebel727]

Originally Posted by 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.

Jeez! The freakin Civil War wasn't even about slavery. Sheesh! Slavery wasn't an issue till 1863 when the north was losing and Lincoln needed to do something to insure his reelection in 1864. Read a frickin history book people and not that chit they teach in schools these days. All the school history books nowadays have to be approved by the NAACP so how accurate do you think that is?????

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by rebel727

Jeez! The freakin Civil War wasn't even about slavery. Sheesh! Slavery wasn't an issue till 1863 when the north was losing and Lincoln needed to do something to insure his reelection in 1864. Read a frickin history book people and not that chit they teach in schools these days. All the school history books nowadays have to be approved by the NAACP so how accurate do you think that is?????

The North and the South were at loggerheads about slavery from the Constitutional Convention right on up to the Civil War. Somewhere down the line it's turned into Southern PC to claim it was all about State's Rights instead of slavery, but guess WHICH State's Right they were worried about? Yup--the right to keep slaves.

And I didn't learn that from a modern, rewritten history book, Reb. I'm older than you are.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I'm gona remain as "positive" as possible. Like the old say:"It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings". And none of us have a crystal ball so we are all gona have to wait and see what the next two years brings. Though it is highly unlikely, it is possible bush will grab his ankles and pull his head out. I can see how it may apper to some that it is anti-American to be vocal about one's displeasure with the current events.....but, i think it is very American! If you love America, you want the best for Her. It is, of course, subjective as to what is really best. To trample the constitution cannot be good. I find it hard to imagine that folks support this action in the name of protection. But, like I said, it ain't over yet!

[BattleRifleG3]

What I really wish more repubs could be is critical and supportive of Bush at the same time. Being able to note where they agree and disagree with the president and seek the best relationship possible without compromising their principles.

That's what I think we'll need in '08.

[rebel727]

Originally Posted by troy2000

The North and the South were at loggerheads about slavery from the Constitutional Convention right on up to the Civil War. Somewhere down the line it's turned into Southern PC to claim it was all about State's Rights instead of slavery, but guess WHICH State's Right they were worried about? Yup--the right to keep slaves.

And I didn't learn that from a modern, rewritten history book, Reb. I'm older than you are.

Doesn't matter who's older, wisdom doesn't automatically come with age. Sure slavery always was a controversy, same as child labor in the north but slavery didn't anymore cause the war than child labor did. Less than 10% of the southern population owned even one slave. In the 1850's a trained field hand would bring $1000.00, a house servant twice that. Only the very wealthiest owned enough slaves to work a cotton plantation. Top wages for a cow hand out west was 30 bucks a month. 11 bucks was a months pay for a private in the Confederate army, but paychecks were few and far between but they still fought till the bitter end. They dang sure weren't in it for the money. Do you really think the average southerner gave a rip if a few rich people lost their slaves? Do you think they'd have been willing to fight and undergo the hardships they went through and die for the rich folks right to keep their slaves? If slavery was the cause then why wasn't slavery abolished before the war started or at least soon thereafter. The war started in 1861. Why wait till 1863 to free the slaves if slavery was the reason? If slavery was the reason why not free ALL the slaves? The so called emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the secessionist states, not the slaves in states that remained loyal to the Union. If slavery was the cause then why didn't slavery end when the war ended? The war ended in 1865, slavery carried on into the 1870's.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by rebel727

Doesn't matter who's older, wisdom doesn't automatically come with age. Sure slavery always was a controversy, same as child labor in the north but slavery didn't anymore cause the war than child labor did. Less than 10% of the southern population owned even one slave. In the 1850's a trained field hand would bring $1000.00, a house servant twice that. Only the very wealthiest owned enough slaves to work a cotton plantation. Top wages for a cow hand out west was 30 bucks a month. 11 bucks was a months pay for a private in the Confederate army, but paychecks were few and far between but they still fought till the bitter end. They dang sure weren't in it for the money. Do you really think the average southerner gave a rip if a few rich people lost their slaves? Do you think they'd have been willing to fight and undergo the hardships they went through and die for the rich folks right to keep their slaves? If slavery was the cause then why wasn't slavery abolished before the war started or at least soon thereafter. The war started in 1861. Why wait till 1863 to free the slaves if slavery was the reason? If slavery was the reason why not free ALL the slaves? The so called emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the secessionist states, not the slaves in states that remained loyal to the Union. If slavery was the cause then why didn't slavery end when the war ended? The war ended in 1865, slavery carried on into the 1870's.

I pointed out my age because you claim that anyone who disagrees with you was raised on modern, revisionist "NAACP Approved" history books.

In reality, claiming that, "The Civil War wasn't even about slavery...(it) wasn't an issue till 1863 when the north was losing and Lincoln needed to do something to insure his reelection in 1864," is revisionist history at its most breathtaking.

It's like saying the Troubles in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion, or that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with oil.

Why do you say poor Southerners wouldn't have fought a war that would mainly benefit the upper class? Poor people have been dying in wars for the benefit of royalty, nobility, priesthoods and rich people ever since war was invented...

[troy2000]

If you want to continue this Reb, let's take it private. We're kind of hijacking the thread.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

BRG3, good idea. but, they all have agendas....kind of gets in the way of doing the right thing most of the time since the agendas enclude rapeing the ctizens, most of the time.

[Rave]

We need to have the opportunity to vote for a good man that truely has the best interest of our country as his only goal,and the courage to stay that course in the face of opposition that has others countries advantages on their minds,like it is now.:spaceship

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I'm waiting to see who they drag before us next time. Wonder if he'll be another one worlder, like bush! i guess it don't matter. can't vote dem and there is no third party.....our choice will be what?