Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

AG Jeff Sessions unloads on Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

2»

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    My apologies, but I don't use google or the internet as source material nor for fact checking. My alleged mind is made up- - - - -don't try to confuse me with facts!

    What he really meant to say!
    Jerry
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I've been taking breaks to watch these proceedings and the most glaring thing that comes across, for the most part Republicans ask logical and precise questions. Democrats feel that they need to load their time with unfounded assertions and insinuations while leading their questions with questionable assumptions. In a court of law they would be "objected" to on just about every statement.


    The leftist message is simple. It's easy to get across to the ignorant uninformed. It's a message looking for the right person to take hook line and sinker. Those that don't want opportunity. Those that want a sure thing. A sure handout.

    Our message is that of hope, opportunity, and Freedom. But surprisingly so many don't want to hear it. Some don't trust government at all. Some think the rich are out to enslave them. Some of the rich are. Some of the rich "Elite" want to be kings, queens, and Royalty. Some want to return to the days of Feudalism. But most rich didn't get rich by inheritance or by falling off the turnip truck, and they are smart enough that they realize that socialism isn't a good environment to keep their hard worked for riches. They realize that Free Enterprise is the only way they will keep what they have and make more. But those same Freedoms that made them rich can make us all better off. Under our system of government we have the opportunity to be as rich as our minds, energy, and imaginations will allow. And even those of us with less ambition need to know that under socialism it works great until you run out of other people's money and in the end it always ends up a dictatorship and most people aren't willing to sell their freedom for a little security. They want to make their own security. And you do that with free enterprise.

    So you see why the Dummycrap message is so easy to spew forth. The Conservative message takes some intelligence to fathom. But we need to take that message to more people. It's a challenge but we need to do it. Then these kangaroo courts such is going on now will maybe cease and we can go ahead with our business and make real progress.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    The leftist message is simple. It's easy to get across to the ignorant uninformed. It's a message looking for the right person to take hook line and sinker. Those that don't want opportunity. Those that want a sure thing. A sure handout.

    Our message is that of hope, opportunity, and Freedom. But surprisingly so many don't want to hear it. Some don't trust government at all. Some think the rich are out to enslave them. Some of the rich are. Some of the rich "Elite" want to be kings, queens, and Royalty. Some want to return to the days of Feudalism. But most rich didn't get rich by inheritance or by falling off the turnip truck, and they are smart enough that they realize that socialism isn't a good environment to keep their hard worked for riches. They realize that Free Enterprise is the only way they will keep what they have and make more. But those same Freedoms that made them rich can make us all better off. Under our system of government we have the opportunity to be as rich as our minds, energy, and imaginations will allow. And even those of us with less ambition need to know that under socialism it works great until you run out of other people's money and in the end it always ends up a dictatorship and most people aren't willing to sell their freedom for a little security. They want to make their own security. And you do that with free enterprise.

    So you see why the Dummycrap message is so easy to spew forth. The Conservative message takes some intelligence to fathom. But we need to take that message to more people. It's a challenge but we need to do it. Then these kangaroo courts such is going on now will maybe cease and we can go ahead with our business and make real progress.

    Very well articulated Snake.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    Very well articulated Snake.

    Thank you 6EQUJ5 - WOW!

    I learned to write in College but it helps to believe in what you're saying. I get inspired by certain news outlets and by certain people on here, added to my personal beliefs, which are strong. The rest is easy, the diarrhea of the mouth just spews forth,

    :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I learned to write in College but it helps to believe in what you're saying. I get inspired by certain news outlets and by certain people on here. The rest is easy, the diarrhea of the mouth just spews forth,

    :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

    Ha!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,792 Senior Member
    "I'm not sure what my opinions are on the marijuana issue, but if alcohol prohibition was big enough to merit Constitutional amendments to both establish it and remove it, marijuana may also need to be settled that way."

    That reminds me of the beginning chapters of John Ross's fine book "Unintended Consequences" and what happens when government has too much power to wield as a result of the 18th/21st Amendments. The atrocities committed by our own Federal government towards the WWI vets of the Bonus Army at the hands of Hoover, MacArthur, and Patton for example. . . . The Marijuana issue and the so-called "war on drugs" is the darker shadow of that era.

    My point was that there is a major division, from one state to the next, on whether legalization of marijuana (or not) should be mandated by the federal government, for the whole republic. The conundrum is that it is presently against federal law, but some states are defying them, and the feds apparently will not move against those states to enforce the law. I personally believe it is a state issue, but I also recognize that is a problem when the federal government selectively decides which laws it will or will not enforce.

    I don't know what your point is.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    That last bit is so full of erroneous thought that it makes my head hurt. The South was trying to preserve the Constitution as it was written. And if that meant leaving the Union to preserve it, then so be it.

    And here's some things for you to Google and explore:

    The North conscripting Irish immigrants as soon as they stepped off the ship in NYC and their feet hit the pier.

    Draft riots in NYC during the war.

    The North actively recruiting soldiers from overseas to fight. Russians, Prussians, Poles, etc. came in great numbers to fight for the North in the war.

    Actually read, in its entirety, South Carolina's declaration of secession.

    Laws in the NE states prohibiting blacks and slaves/former slaves from entering, much less working, in those states.

    When you've fully explored those subjects, I'll provide you with more reading material.
    My Great Great Grandfather James Drumright was an English immigrant in 1863 who volunteered to join the Union Army in exchange for a guaranteed US citizenship. He survived the Civil War. My other Great Great Grand Grandfather Tyree Coursey joined the Volunteer Army of Tennessee in 1861. He did not survive the Civil War.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    My Great Great Grandfather James Drumright was an English immigrant in 1863 who volunteered to join the Union Army in exchange for a guaranteed US citizenship. He survived the Civil War. My other Great Great Grand Grandfather Tyree Coursey joined the Volunteer Army of Tennessee in 1861. He did not survive the Civil War.

    When it comes to genealogy, something of which I am very involved with, I think many of us can attest to many of our past ancestors involvement in the Civil War in one form or the other. My 2nd great-grandfather, Thomas ****** served in the confederacy. He, like his father was also a slave owner as early census records and old surviving letters indicate. Thomas was shot in the hand and after having it amputated (probably due to infection) served out the rest of the war in a Union Army POW hospital. We even have a letter in our family archives of a Union officer attesting to Thomas's character and condition and that he remain in the hospital instead of being sent to a POW camp proper. Another Irish relative (no relation to Thomas) was conscripted into the Union Army in trade for American citizenship as well. He also survived the war.

    After the war, Thomas eventually moved to Fresno, CA, and took up farming in the San Joaquin Valley and raised a large family. Letters by him to his grandson shortly before his death in 1910 show that although he cherished his southern heritage, he deeply regretted volunteering for the confederacy as it was a "foolish endeavor from the start" he goes on to say it was attributed to "youthful exuberance." In a letter to my living aunt, dated 1976, Thomas's daughter Clara mentioned that our surname was altered to differentiate the northern ******'s from the southern ******'s, something which still exists today. That is interesting as one of Thomas's brothers fought for the Union. "Brother against Brother" as they say. My surname is of the southern origin which was the original spelling when Thomas's ancestors originally immigrated here in the mid 1700s.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,500 Senior Member
    "Brother against Brother" as they say.
    Yep. We had a "black sheep" who fought for the Union - the Civil War file I now have was his.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Teach wrote: »
    What he really meant to say!
    Jerry

    Thanks for changing and distorting what I actually said. I guess when folks run out of intelligent things to say they resort to the hide behind the keyboard mentality of childish insults and immature antics. I've noticed that a lot with you when you get your panties in a bunch. The town sheriff you are not but I do again thank you for the reply.

    The internet when used as "fact checking" is nothing more than the lazy man's tool used to present "gotcha tactics" and is to be taken with a grain of salt. Books, more particularly - historical accounts, generally offer more factual information as they are complied through years, sometimes decades, of painstaking research from actual historical archives. Most authors have spent thousands of grueling hours researching letters, photographs, period news paper articles, interviews, museums, historical societies etc. when compiling their research whereas the armchair historian simply moves a mouse and pushes a few buttons and takes a biased opinion as fact. I do, however, agree that many books, especially those published today can be just as biased or ridden with false information as the internet is so well known for. When it comes to finding quick information, anyone can search and find a link that suits their own agenda and mindset. Wikipedia for example is well known to be full of errors and false information just as the media is known for whether it's CNN, MSNBC or FOX. Yes, the internet can be a useful tool for a broad search to get a general idea for an interest in a specific field or subject, however, in today's "palm zombie" world I put more faith in people who actually take the time to spend a few days reading an actual book rather than the "click-paste-and post- so it must be true" mentality.

    You have a pleasant day now.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    My apologies, but I don't use google or the internet as source material nor for fact checking. Much rather read a book. As far as the South trying to preserve the Constitution? - that is the biggest line of b.s. I've read in a while. The South had not one single intention of "preserving" our Tenets in the slightest. I do however, agree with you that our own federal government has had a dark past at times, but as with any nation, there will always be those who will try to destroy it from within. The beauty of our system, unlike any other nation with the exception of say Switzerland perhaps, is that we have a means of fighting against it via the voting process, or in a more extreme fashion, the sword itself.

    Google and the internet can give you good information on those books to which you refer that would be good reading material. The Library of Congress online site is good free reading, too. The internet booksellers even give feedback from readers that can direct you to the ones most pertinent to your tastes.

    And you HAVE SPECIFICALLY NOT ADDRESSED THE QUESTION I ASKED. Secession is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution and your revered 10th Amendment strongly applies here that the States had rights not subject to Federal scrutiny. READ THE CONSTITUTION AND PROVIDE SPECIFIC SOURCE DIRECTLY FROM THE CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT SECESSION OF ONE OR MANY STATES FROM THE UNION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Good luck, sunshine; it isn't in there in any shape, form, or fashion.

    I don't know what you've been reading, but the seceding states were, in fact, trying to preserve the Constitution that was being ripped to shreds by the government in Washington, D.C. usurping from the states powers that they were not granted by the Constitution. You appear to be one of those death pact suicide supporters that believe in the states being bound slaves subject to the whims of the all powerful Federal Government. I'll even go so far as to say that you believe the lie that the Civil War was about slavery. There's good books about the causes of the war, but they don't fit your comfort zone of the South was wrong, so you will avoid them like avoiding stepping into the truth.

    What I wrote:
    And here's some things for you to Google and explore:

    The North conscripting Irish immigrants as soon as they stepped off the ship in NYC and their feet hit the pier.

    Draft riots in NYC during the war.

    The North actively recruiting soldiers from overseas to fight. Russians, Prussians, Poles, etc. came in great numbers to fight for the North in the war.

    Actually read, in its entirety, South Carolina's declaration of secession.

    Laws in the NE states prohibiting blacks and slaves/former slaves from entering, much less working, in those states.


    I also see you have avoided these topics like drinking liquid poison. Afraid you'll find out the truth you're avoiding?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Google and the internet can give you good information on those books to which you refer that would be good reading material. The Library of Congress online site is good free reading, too. The internet booksellers even give feedback from readers that can direct you to the ones most pertinent to your tastes.

    And you HAVE SPECIFICALLY NOT ADDRESSED THE QUESTION I ASKED. Secession is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution and your revered 10th Amendment strongly applies here that the States had rights not subject to Federal scrutiny. READ THE CONSTITUTION AND PROVIDE SPECIFIC SOURCE DIRECTLY FROM THE CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT SECESSION OF ONE OR MANY STATES FROM THE UNION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Good luck, sunshine; it isn't in there in any shape, form, or fashion.

    I don't know what you've been reading, but the seceding states were, in fact, trying to preserve the Constitution that was being ripped to shreds by the government in Washington, D.C. usurping from the states powers that they were not granted by the Constitution. You appear to be one of those death pact suicide supporters that believe in the states being bound slaves subject to the whims of the all powerful Federal Government. I'll even go so far as to say that you believe the lie that the Civil War was about slavery. There's good books about the causes of the war, but they don't fit your comfort zone of the South was wrong, so you will avoid them like avoiding stepping into the truth.

    What I wrote:
    And here's some things for you to Google and explore:

    The North conscripting Irish immigrants as soon as they stepped off the ship in NYC and their feet hit the pier.

    Draft riots in NYC during the war.

    The North actively recruiting soldiers from overseas to fight. Russians, Prussians, Poles, etc. came in great numbers to fight for the North in the war.

    Actually read, in its entirety, South Carolina's declaration of secession.

    Laws in the NE states prohibiting blacks and slaves/former slaves from entering, much less working, in those states.


    I also see you have avoided these topics like drinking liquid poison. Afraid you'll find out the truth you're avoiding?

    Oh shut up. You're boring.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Thanks for changing and distorting what I actually said.- - - - - - -You have a pleasant day now.

    You flatter yourself if you think anyone here gives a tinker's damn about your condescending blather. This forum got along quite well before you showed up in your present incarnation, and most of us believe you have simply come up with a different screen name and ISP. We will get along just as well, if not better, once your real identity is revealed and you're banned- - - - - - -again!
    Jerry
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Teach wrote: »
    You flatter yourself if you think anyone here gives a tinker's damn about your condescending blather. This forum got along quite well before you showed up in your present incarnation, and most of us believe you have simply come up with a different screen name and ISP. We will get along just as well, if not better, once your real identity is revealed and you're banned- - - - - - -again!
    Jerry

    Different screen name? Real identity? What in sam hell are you blabbering about? You and Tenn Mike have GOT to be the most thinned skinned people I've ever seen on a forum. Sometimes I really believe you both wake up each morning look at yourselves in the mirror and start arguments with your reflections. (chuckle) You both act like a bunch of old ladies at a Tupperware party. Ha!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Keep it up, Mike- - - -he's dropping back into the same syntax he's used a bunch of times before.
    :rotflmao:
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    Oh shut up. You're boring.

    Me, boring? ME???? Do I see a white surrender flag heaving over the horizon? You can't stand my heat, and have left the kitchen! Facts triumph over the 'feels'. :roll2: As to shutting up, well, shugardoodles, YOU don't have the hosspower to do that. The moderators tell me to back off, then I'll back off. But don't be thinking that I'll do it because you ask, beg, demand it of me. That's just silly talk! :rotflmao: Not..............gonna............happen.

    Now get to work and answer those questions that question your 'facts'. I'll settle for you pointing out specifically the Section, paragraph, and subparagraph in the Constitution that specifically does not allow states to secede from the Union. The Constitution is not that long a document; shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to dig that nugget out of the
    text..................................EXCEPT THAT THAT PARTICULAR TEXT NOWHERE EXISTS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

    Thomas Jefferson was clear on the matter of state succession from the Union.

    The record seems clear that Thomas Jefferson believed in the right of secession. In 1803, Jefferson said he did not care if America split into two confederacies:
    https://civilwartalk.com/threads/thomas-jefferson-secession-and-states-rights.130704/
    Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power. (Letter from Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, January 29, 1804, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl161.php)​

    "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
    to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
    'let us separate.' "
    by:

    Thomas Jefferson
    (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
    Source:

    letter to W. Crawford, June 20, 1816

    You mentioned the 10th Amendment. Well here's some interesting stuff.

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/08/jeffersons-views-on-the-union-as-a-compact-among-the-states/

    But WAIT! JEFFERSON HAS MORE TO SAY! THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS!

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Me, boring? ME???? Do I see a white surrender flag heaving over the horizon? You can't stand my heat, and have left the kitchen! Facts triumph over the 'feels'. :roll2: As to shutting up, well, shugardoodles, YOU don't have the hosspower to do that. The moderators tell me to back off, then I'll back off. But don't be thinking that I'll do it because you ask, beg, demand it of me. That's just silly talk! :rotflmao: Not..............gonna............happen.

    Now get to work and answer those questions that question your 'facts'. I'll settle for you pointing out specifically the Section, paragraph, and subparagraph in the Constitution that specifically does not allow states to secede from the Union. The Constitution is not that long a document; shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to dig that nugget out of the
    text..................................EXCEPT THAT THAT PARTICULAR TEXT NOWHERE EXISTS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

    Thomas Jefferson was clear on the matter of state succession from the Union.

    The record seems clear that Thomas Jefferson believed in the right of secession. In 1803, Jefferson said he did not care if America split into two confederacies:
    https://civilwartalk.com/threads/thomas-jefferson-secession-and-states-rights.130704/
    Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power. (Letter from Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, January 29, 1804, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl161.php)​

    "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
    to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
    'let us separate.' "
    by:

    Thomas Jefferson
    (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
    Source:

    letter to W. Crawford, June 20, 1816

    You mentioned the 10th Amendment. Well here's some interesting stuff.

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/08/jeffersons-views-on-the-union-as-a-compact-among-the-states/

    But WAIT! JEFFERSON HAS MORE TO SAY! THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS!

    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/

    News Flash: The Civil War ended 150 years ago. The South lost, get over it.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Shelley was wise to dump you.
    :roll:
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    News Flash: The Civil War ended 150 years ago. The South lost, get over it.


    And here I thought you were a 10th Amendment supporter! HA! Still can't take the heat. So you deflect. Jefferson's own words scold you for you ill conceived notions.

    Since you seem to like to get facts from books, then I suggest 'The Federalist Papers' and "The AntiFederalist Papers". They are both free to read online, and are written from articles during the debates on the Constitution.

    The Federalist Papers online:
    http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/federalist_papers/index.php

    The AntiFederalist Papers online:
    http://rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    When it comes to genealogy, something of which I am very involved with, I think many of us can attest to many of our past ancestors involvement in the Civil War in one form or the other. My 2nd great-grandfather, Thomas ****** served in the confederacy. He, like his father was also a slave owner as early census records and old surviving letters indicate. Thomas was shot in the hand and after having it amputated (probably due to infection) served out the rest of the war in a Union Army POW hospital. We even have a letter in our family archives of a Union officer attesting to Thomas's character and condition and that he remain in the hospital instead of being sent to a POW camp proper. Another Irish relative (no relation to Thomas) was conscripted into the Union Army in trade for American citizenship as well. He also survived the war.

    After the war, Thomas eventually moved to Fresno, CA, and took up farming in the San Joaquin Valley and raised a large family. Letters by him to his grandson shortly before his death in 1910 show that although he cherished his southern heritage, he deeply regretted volunteering for the confederacy as it was a "foolish endeavor from the start" he goes on to say it was attributed to "youthful exuberance." In a letter to my living aunt, dated 1976, Thomas's daughter Clara mentioned that our surname was altered to differentiate the northern ******'s from the southern ******'s, something which still exists today. That is interesting as one of Thomas's brothers fought for the Union. "Brother against Brother" as they say. My surname is of the southern origin which was the original spelling when Thomas's ancestors originally immigrated here in the mid 1700s.

    Most all my ancestors of that time period fought for the South. It was rumored that one on my mother's side who was a son of one of my Great Great Grandfather's brother, who like my Great Great Grandfather was a German Immigrant, defected to the Union. My sister, the family genealogist says she's never found proof of that. And the German Immigrants were some of the hardest fighting, most dedicated Confederates to come out of Texas. Maybe they just like to fight. I know that most did NOT condone slavery but they detested the Union for wanting to tell the South what they should do and figured like most Southerners that each state could work out its own problems as they should have been allowed to do. I don't think they appreciated the Pius attitude of some of the Northern politicians. Krauts are hard headed like that.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
This discussion has been closed.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement