"Questions such as whether the Union was older than the states or the other way around fueled the debate over states' rights. Whether the federal government was supposed to have substantial powers or whether it was merely a voluntary federation of sovereign states added to the controversy."
Right, and I'm saying that the "substantial powers" that the south was pissed about the federal government wielding were dealing with issues of slavery. You haven't shown me anything that would deny that. The south was basically telling the federal government "you can't tell me what to do!" but only when the main issue being fought over was slavery.
I was hoping you'd be smart enough to see that slavery was one small part of self-determination and the right to self governance.
Slavery was a small part? Please tell me what the larger parts were then. One link is all I ask for. Surely since this information is all over the net, you should be able to provide one link?
Questions such as whether the Union was older than the states or the other way around fueled the debate over states' rights. Whether the federal government was supposed to have substantial powers or whether it was merely a voluntary federation of sovereign states added to the controversy. According to historian Kenneth M. Stampp, each section used states' rights arguments when convenient, and shifted positions when convenient.[20]
Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat. Stampp said that Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[21]
The historian William C. Davis also mentioned inconsistencies in Southern states' rights arguments. He explained the Confederate Constitution's protection of slavery at the national level as follows:
To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.[22]
i.e. Slavery.
Was this the Wikipedia article you were talking about? Or maybe it was the one on States' Rights?
Civil War
Over the following decades, another dispute over states' rights moved to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson often being cited by both anti-slavery Northerners and secessionists on the debates that ultimately led to the American Civil War. Supporters of slavery often argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In contrast, opponents of slavery argued that the non-slave-states' rights were violated both by that decision and by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
i.e. Slavery
I was hoping you could point me to some reasons that weren't directly related to slavery.
How about you look it up for yourself in the same place anyone would send you?
You couldn't find any either, eh?
Every source I checked out seemed to indicate that slavery was the #1 reason. I figured maybe you had some secret source you could pull out of your ass.
The only funny part about this is that you believe it enough to post it even though it would take a 5 year old two minutes to find information that proves otherwise.
You again.
Okay, let me know some of this information that indicates that there were other "States' Rights" that the Confederacy championed above the right to own slaves.
Just remember that a man who was the senior vice president for external affairs of the MPAA has probably heard all of your questions before and has a prepared response for each of them.
Usually that response can be as simple as saying "I'm glad you asked that, it's a very important question" and then he can ramble on for 10 minutes about something entirely unrelated, until everyone forgets what was asked in the first place.
Yet Warner Bros have done some amazing Hollywood accounting with it and have managed to make it all look in debt, so no-one gets a dime.
Probably the best known example of Hollywood Accounting is Forrest Gump.
Forrest Gump was hugely successful (in reality) and a huge money loser (on paper, due to "Hollywood accounting.")
The worst part of it all was the studio approached the guy who wrote the book about licensing the sequel for a movie, after they completely ripped him off... so he told them he couldn't in good conscience allow them to make a movie that was sure to lose huge amounts of money.
If George was a REALLY smart guy, he'd get a bead on who Hillary would put in and preemptively nominate them! HA HA - logic bomb! Work that one out, Democrats!
These are Japanese. It's better to lose arm than face.
I heard some versions of the game come with a tanto to commit seppuku if you lose. The arm on the machine will help by cutting off your head as you plunge the knife into your abdomen.
Most people would agree that the KKK have a right to organize and preach their beliefs, but that it's rather distasteful for them to do so. It's perhaps an extreme example, but I hope it illustrates my point. Someone can be well within their rights to do a bad thing.
It's not "bad" when Wal-Mart does it, it's their choice.
Well, yes, it is still bad, but like you said it is their choice to do it. Just because they have the right to censor doesn't mean it's a good thing that they exercise that right.
It almost makes me regret the lack of motivation I have toward seeing anything filmed in the last forty years.
Sure, there's been plenty of crap produced recently, but there's a lot of great movies too. If you automatically disregard anything made within the last 40 years, you're missing out on some brilliant films.
Sad really....why can't we do something as simple as make English our national language?
Hooray! *poof* English is now our national language. Now everyone magically speaks English.
In reality, there will still be many, many people who don't speak English, but at least you'd have your feel-good but do-nothing "English as a national language" law.
That depends on how you define government. I would suggest that a small tribe informally run by the Alpha male (or female!) still constitutes a form of government
Well, yes and no.
Without a class of people (law enforcement, etc) to enforce the power of the leader, their authority is rather limited, and therefore the nature of their authority is somewhat different. Even if they are the leader because they're the strongest, they still couldn't be barking out crazy orders that go against the will of the majority of the tribal members, because no one would follow them, and they couldn't be enforced. I suppose if you want to call that government, then sure, call it government. But by that logic, the alpha male or female in a pack of wolves, or a chimpanzee troop is "government" and the term is somewhat meaningless.
Every one I ever met was not well informed on history, esp. on the history of forming governments and the history (usually rather brief) of areas where anarchism prevailed.
Most of human history was spent without any governments being formed. How's that for prevalence of anarchism?
The thing that doesn't make sense to ME is that these criminals are found to be way over the existing limit, but somehow the solution is supposed to be lowering the limit. How would that help when they were already above the legal DUI limit?
The mistake in your logic is assuming that the goal is to actually reduce crime, rather than to create more criminals.
Right, except I thought the Bible wasn't true. It's not. Think of it as historical fiction.
Oh, you mean there IS something in it worth reading for scientific, educational value? Kind of like we've been saying for the past hundred years?
Well, its true in that at least part of it is a record of various folk-tales and some history of stuff that actually happened (although they manage to get a lot of that wrong too, some of it intentionally so, in order to exaggerate the historical importance of the people writing it, or to promote political unity, etc.) There's plenty of biblical "history" that is demonstrably false, even without calling into question the existence of God.
Not to mention, using it for scientific knowledge is absolutely ridiculous.
his kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.
Adam & Eve = hunter/gatherers. A few years later (after the domestication of animals and development of crops- agricultural revolution in the middle east) a bunch of herders (Abel) were squatting on some land that the farmers (Cain) wanted to use. Then the farmers killed them, took their land, and started growing stuff on it.
Well one of us made a veiled attempt to equate taking cellphones with war crimes (that would be you) and one of us called that comparison into question (that would be me).
Maybe the "just following orders" defense was too strongly worded, or too evocative of war crimes.
How about the "he told me to do it" defense? That didn't work on the playground in elementary school *or* the Nuremberg trials.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and I'm saying that the "substantial powers" that the south was pissed about the federal government wielding were dealing with issues of slavery. You haven't shown me anything that would deny that. The south was basically telling the federal government "you can't tell me what to do!" but only when the main issue being fought over was slavery.
Slavery was a small part? Please tell me what the larger parts were then. One link is all I ask for. Surely since this information is all over the net, you should be able to provide one link?
i.e. Slavery.
Was this the Wikipedia article you were talking about?
Or maybe it was the one on States' Rights?
i.e. Slavery
I was hoping you could point me to some reasons that weren't directly related to slavery.
How about you look it up for yourself in the same place anyone would send you?
You couldn't find any either, eh?
Every source I checked out seemed to indicate that slavery was the #1 reason.
I figured maybe you had some secret source you could pull out of your ass.
The only funny part about this is that you believe it enough to post it even though it would take a 5 year old two minutes to find information that proves otherwise.
You again.
Okay, let me know some of this information that indicates that there were other "States' Rights" that the Confederacy championed above the right to own slaves.
Just remember that a man who was the senior vice president for external affairs of the MPAA has probably heard all of your questions before and has a prepared response for each of them.
Usually that response can be as simple as saying "I'm glad you asked that, it's a very important question" and then he can ramble on for 10 minutes about something entirely unrelated, until everyone forgets what was asked in the first place.
Yet Warner Bros have done some amazing Hollywood accounting with it and have managed to make it all look in debt, so no-one gets a dime.
Probably the best known example of Hollywood Accounting is Forrest Gump.
Forrest Gump was hugely successful (in reality) and a huge money loser (on paper, due to "Hollywood accounting.")
The worst part of it all was the studio approached the guy who wrote the book about licensing the sequel for a movie, after they completely ripped him off... so he told them he couldn't in good conscience allow them to make a movie that was sure to lose huge amounts of money.
The Civil War was about State Rights, not slavery.
Funny that the only "right" they seemed to care about was the right to own slaves.
If George was a REALLY smart guy, he'd get a bead on who Hillary would put in and preemptively nominate them! HA HA - logic bomb! Work that one out, Democrats!
Good thing he's not a really smart guy then.
1.0525
The minimum wage in British Columbia does not affect the fact that $8.50 is significantly more in the US.
$8.50 Canadian is about $8.10 US... whether that is "significantly more" is a matter of opinion, I suppose.
These are Japanese. It's better to lose arm than face.
I heard some versions of the game come with a tanto to commit seppuku if you lose.
The arm on the machine will help by cutting off your head as you plunge the knife into your abdomen.
What good is a right if you can't exercise it?
Most people would agree that the KKK have a right to organize and preach their beliefs,
but that it's rather distasteful for them to do so.
It's perhaps an extreme example, but I hope it illustrates my point.
Someone can be well within their rights to do a bad thing.
It's not "bad" when Wal-Mart does it, it's their choice.
Well, yes, it is still bad, but like you said it is their choice to do it.
Just because they have the right to censor doesn't mean it's a good thing that they exercise that right.
It almost makes me regret the lack of motivation I have toward seeing anything filmed in the last forty years.
Sure, there's been plenty of crap produced recently, but there's a lot of great movies too.
If you automatically disregard anything made within the last 40 years, you're missing out on
some brilliant films.
Sad really....why can't we do something as simple as make English our national language?
Hooray! *poof* English is now our national language. Now everyone magically speaks English.
In reality, there will still be many, many people who don't speak English, but at least you'd have
your feel-good but do-nothing "English as a national language" law.
Your comment made me think of two things.
First: Chessboxing
Also, the quote:
"A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing."
WTF is wrong with my spellcheck? It flags "Bach", but has not problem with "crapulence"?!
Because it's a real word...
although it does not mean what you think it means
That depends on how you define government. I would suggest that a small tribe informally run by the Alpha male (or female!) still constitutes a form of government
Well, yes and no.
Without a class of people (law enforcement, etc) to enforce the power of the leader, their authority is rather limited, and therefore the nature of their authority is somewhat different.
Even if they are the leader because they're the strongest, they still couldn't be barking out crazy orders that go against the will of the majority of the tribal members, because no one would follow them, and they couldn't be enforced.
I suppose if you want to call that government, then sure, call it government.
But by that logic, the alpha male or female in a pack of wolves, or a chimpanzee troop is "government" and the term is somewhat meaningless.
Most of human history was spent without any governments being formed.
How's that for prevalence of anarchism?
I always thought it was a trick to get people to say "I can't even do that when sober!"
The mistake in your logic is assuming that the goal is to actually reduce crime, rather than to create more criminals.
Right, except I thought the Bible wasn't true.
It's not. Think of it as historical fiction.
Oh, you mean there IS something in it worth reading for scientific, educational value? Kind of like we've been saying for the past hundred years?
Well, its true in that at least part of it is a record of various folk-tales and some history of stuff that actually happened (although they manage to get a lot of that wrong too, some of it intentionally so, in order to exaggerate the historical importance of the people writing it, or to promote political unity, etc.) There's plenty of biblical "history" that is demonstrably false, even without calling into question the existence of God.
Not to mention, using it for scientific knowledge is absolutely ridiculous.
his kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.
Adam & Eve = hunter/gatherers.
A few years later (after the domestication of animals and development of crops- agricultural revolution in the middle east) a bunch of herders (Abel) were squatting on some land that the farmers (Cain) wanted to use.
Then the farmers killed them, took their land, and started growing stuff on it.
Repeat x 1000 and that's where we are today.
Yeah, cause 6 year olds typically have highly nuanced understandings of right and wrong and the intricacies of authority.
Apparently, plenty of adults run into difficulty with such things as well.
Well one of us made a veiled attempt to equate taking cellphones with war crimes (that would be you) and one of us called that comparison into question (that would be me).
Maybe the "just following orders" defense was too strongly worded, or too evocative of war crimes.
How about the "he told me to do it" defense? That didn't work on the playground in elementary school *or* the Nuremberg trials.
When it comes to working at a movie theater and taking away a cell phone, it works great.
No, it's still acting like a total douchenozzle who has gone mad with his moderate amount of power.
Kill yourself now.
Right after you go fuck yourself.