TheScout

"Guess the every man for himself approach should also apply to corporations that receive tax credits from our government (free market after all), bailouts of financial institutions" Yes don't give money to corporations. Don't bail out financial institutions, it will discourage them from making bad investments. "do away with bankruptcy laws and reinstate debtors prisons" Makes no sense you can still have bankruptcy laws without debtors prisons. "Drought stricken farmers? Guess we could all do with eating a little less once in a while." You seem to be implying we shouldn't help corporations but we should bail out farmers? Hypocrisy? "Government funding for medical research?" We seemed to get along well for many years without government research. We all know private research is more efficient anyway. "FEMA" I don't like bailing people out over and over again all along the coast for hurricanes. Do you? There was a dream once that the American government would be one of limited powers. That it wouldn't do much and the people and the states would be free to run their own affairs. Oh how that poor dream of freedom died. Get rid of all that stuff mentioned above, think about how much lower taxes could be. Return money back to the people. Let them be free to do with it as they wish. King George didn't even bother his subjects this much.

Originally President's were not supposed to have policies. The Congress was supposed to be the primary branch of governmment and in charge of doing the peoples work as it best represents the population. The President was supposed to merely execute the will of Congress. Now everyone looks to a President for solutions and he can't fix every problem - go figure.

Of course it is not OK. But out of her error she is taking responsibility. She is marrying the father and not having an abortion. We are all sinners.

What is a community organizer anyway?

The 18th Century Scottish legalist, Sir Alex Tyler wrote something which I think is again relevant, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.... The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from great courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again to bondage." -- Sir Alex Fraser Tyler

For once I 100% agree with Merlyn. It must be true.

One has to hate when people learn from mistakes (assuming the federal government made mistakes last time, as all recall Louisiana was run my Democrats at the state and local level)

That should be or the Parliamentarians.

I don't know if I like the King of the Parliamentarians

Branded as a traitor and shot? For what? A discussion of constitional issues, or the domestic institutions of some states, political dissent? And I'm called un-American? The base of American liberty was once formed on opposition to bad government.

The Articles of Confederation didn't have a secession mechanism either did they it? Maybe we should still consider them in existence? There is a list of powers denied to the states in the Constitution. Secession is not mentioned as being prohibited. The 10th Amendment leaves all powers not delegated to the United States or prohbited to the states to the people or the states. After secession they should they not be allowed to make alliances. Seems to be quite a casual rejection of the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence. Many, including the Confederates thought the dream was worth keeping around. It is well reasoned document. You say its a beacon of hope, and then seem to ignore its main promise? They seceed when Lincoln was President-elect. A sectional canidate who had no appeal at all to the South and whos platform threatened their most fundamental interests. They would also say that the United States committed the first hostile act by maintaining a fort in the harbor of one of their chief ports and insisting on resupplying it. They would consider it no longer US land after the secession. Lincoln did preserve the union. But i don't think it was worth saving at the price. The rapid expansion of federal government. Destruction across the US. Huge debt. Loss of civil liberties. And 700,000 dead AMERICAN people that did not hae to die. The original union was founded on mutual affection and interests. The union is not worth it if it has to be cemented in blood.

I prefer War Between the States

Until the right side wins.

Hi as a hard core conservative Republican who hates the idea of government health care I think there is a mistaken notion of such a "Darwinian" posiiton as you call it. We do not favor people dying in the streets due to the lack of government health care. The theory is if you get government out of the medical business there are large amounts of money that could be saved which could be passed back to the people in the form of tax cuts. All people would then have more money to buy their own health care and/or dontate to churches and charities to help those in need. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Give them their money back and they can be more generous. This system would provide more freedom to everyone. More choices, less government dictates of what to do with their health care and their money.

Actually I lived in New York all my life. But I think everyone everywhere can appreciate an underdog people fighting for its liberty. Of course Britain and France would have liked to see America split, but they could not do anything about it. Britain had a tiny colonial Army and the North could have quickly seized Canada after a British intervention. Emperor Napoleon was prepared to act but would not without Britain. Slavery existed throughout all of human history. It played an important part in the greatest civilizations of the West from Greece to Rome to America. Even the Bible condones slavery. Every other country in the Western world abolished slavery peacefully in the 19th Century. Only Lincoln did it with blood. "How many slaves were killed or maimed in order to make their southern masters rich Scout?" An absurd argument. While not denying some abuses of slaves, why would an owner kill or maime valuable property? Have you been reading too much Uncle Tom's Cabin and other abolitionist propoganda. So I ask again. What part of the constitution did the South violate? Didn't the colonies withdraw from the British empire, didn't they throw off their own Articles of Confderation. There was a dream of the American Revolution that when a government did not best suit the needs of the people it was their right and duty to withdraw from it. Does this legacy of the Revolution mean nothing to you? Are we hypocritical enough to say that these, as the Declaration of Independence calls them, "self-evident" truths do not apply to us.

Sounds like an excellant boy leader you have. I don't think I could think of better ideas myself.

I doubt you know how many books any of us have read so I don't know why you would even mention that. What part of the constitution did the South violate? Didn't the colonies withdraw from the British empire, didn't they throw off their own Articles of Confderation. There was a dream of the American Revolution that when a government did not best suit the needs of the people it was their right and duty to withdraw from it. Does this legacy of the Revolution mean nothing to you? Are we hypocritical enough to say that these, as the Declaration of Independence calls them, "self-evident" truths do not apply to us. The Northern 22 states of the union faced no threat whatsoever if Lincoln would have left the South in peace. There would have been no war and no threat of European involvement anyway. And 700,000 more Americans would still be alive. The British threat was very minimal. The United Kingdom made very little action on the side of the Confederacy. It did not need American cotton as the Southernors thought, it had other sources by this time. Along with France, which was prepared to intervene, if Britain did, the blockade could have easily been crushed. However Britian possessed virtually no army besides a tiny colonial force of a more police nature. "Your critique of Lincoln is unwarranted, innaccurate, and outright UnAmerican." I don't know what America you are talking of. They called Patrick Henry a traitor for denouncing King George III as well. 700,000 Americans died under Lincoln, at that time the country had about 40 million people. That would be like over 5 million Americans dying today. An absurd death toll.

The evacuation of New Orleans seems to be going well. Does the President get praised? He got blamed when everything went wrong last time.

Winners write the history. The Lincoln cult has been going on for quite a long time. Being assassinated tends to do much for ones historical reputation, look at Lincoln, Kennedy, or MLK. I don't think the warts and all system is bad, but it is selectively applied with an agenda. One never hears of Lincoln's abuses, but is told over and over that Jefferson owned and had relations with slaves. A good read is The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. Not without its bias, DiLorenzo is an avowed hard core libertarian but presents a scathing critique of Lincoln that is well worth the read.

How things changed. There was a time when men viewed liberty more than anything as the Founders abrogated their allegience to the United Kingdom which they loved to better secure their freedom. Then Mr. Lincoln came decades later to play the part of King George as subjugate Southernors with much bloodshed who once more sought to form a new political community to better serve them.

DYB, you are mistaken. President Lincoln suspended habeous corpus without the consent of Congress. Federal circut courts in Ex parte Merryman stated that this was unconstitutional and Lincoln ignored it. You say how even the Tsar of Russia freed the serfs. Well that is great. But Lincoln was not a dictator and did not have the power to dispose of people's property in any way that he wished. I don't understand why the colonies could secede from Britian but states counldn't secede from the United States. It smells of hypocrisy. Forcing a political community to stay together was not the dream of the American Revolution. You also say, "What has Obama done? Well, he voteded against Georges Iraq adventure, even when other Democrats fell for the WMD snowjob and our allies were calling for restraint. Thats reason enough for me." I don't know how Obama voted against the 2003, he didn't take office until 2005. You should check you facts before you write sir.

"As for another state legislator possible becoming President within a few years of holding state office, I submit perhaps the best President this country has ever had - the President who truly united a country of states into the United States - Abraham Lincoln." Oh you mean the one who had the end of his term left 700,000 Americans dead, large swathes of this country in ruins, unilaterally suspended habeous corpus, and locked up thousands of political prisoners. That does sound great!

I agree. Lowest thing I have seen on this forum perhaps.

Same amount of terms as Obama has in the Senate. And more years in elective office as well.

How many years in elective office does Obama have?