Magox

JTSP, are you persian?

Oh Jesus H Christ. Shut the !@#$ up! That's not the point he was trying to make!

Are you just being dense, again? Are you comparing the freeing of Slaves here in our country with the morality of liberating some country in the Middle East of Hussein? Is this what you are doing?

Let's dissect your ignorance. So what are you saying here? It's pretty obvious, what you are saying is that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves considering that the Emancipation only freed slaves from the South. Meaning, from your view, it was never about slavery but about exerting tyrannical control over the south. Of course, your ignorance didn't take into account that shortly after the executive order, the process of the 13th amendment began. Which pretty much blows up whatever you were trying to say. We all know the pretexts of the war, we know that States Rights was the reasoning provided from the Confederates to secede from the Union. We also know that Lincoln didn't solely go to war because he wanted to end Slavery. He wanted to preserve the Union, I stated that a couple times, but you are too much of a numbskull to see that. But make no mistake, the impetus for the war was about Slavery. If the South hadn't been so intent on keeping the status quo regarding slavery and got on board with the Republicans, then the war would have never have happened. But if you want to keep pretending that Slavery wasn't the driving force that started the Civil war, hey, that's your fantasy land and you are free to reside there.

So many words, with nothing of value. Basically your argument is "Hey, I've talked to some dudes and I know more than you, and No, Lincoln was not a good guy. Oh, and you are a simple guy, SO THERE!" Please, post more.

I'll tell you what else is cute, is your ignorance. You make this too easy. Are you insinuating that Lincoln's stated goal through the Emancipation was to just free Slaves in the South, and allow slavery to continue in the north? Is that what you are truly trying to say, numbskull? That's odd, maybe you are familiar with the 13th Amendment? Obviously not. The Emancipation was an executive order to take place immediately., the thirteenth Amendment was something that was done through the traditional channels of Government, barely a year later. Please, keep embarrassing yourself. Post more

For some, morality doesn't factor in to the equation. The argument basically is "Who are you to be the arbiter of what is morally just? Only the Constitution and the proper order of the three branches of government are to be considered, nothing else." Well, that simply ignores the potential unjust actions that could occur within those parameters. If something is blatantly inequitable or prejudicial, then there is a moral responsibility to fix that injustice. Obviously, it does present a slippery slope, because it begs the question of where do you draw the line? I understand that, but in this case, it was unequivocal. The Confederacy under the guise of State's rights wanted to continue to denigrate African American's and maintain them as Slaves, hence the secession. Make no mistake, the core issue of the civil war for most of the representative states under the Confederacy was about slavery and they were not going to have some damn Yankee Republican tell them how to conduct their business.

You are one thick-skulled dude.

Now you are just being dense. You are the one who brought up nobility, ya nitwit. Listen up goofball, if you don't see the distinction between freeing American citizens and freeing Iraquis then you are a bigger tool than I could have ever imagined. You gonna stick with that?

The argument is simple. Lincoln wants to preserve the union, he sees a rebellion from the South that stands firm on an indefensible position. His goal is to keep the union in tact and that this deplorable group from the south want to secede from the union because under the guise of state's rights, they don't want any yankee to tell them that they can't have slaves. He knows that the courts are in their pocket, and with just a few provocative actions from the South, he takes action with the suspension of habeus corpus, knowing that this most likely meant war. Yes, a noble guy that wanted to preserve the union and fought for the rights of slaves. Noble indeed. I'll tell you this, much more noble than any one that led the Confederacy.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Again, we are talking past each other..

Of course Ft. Sumter was the flashpoint, but I surmise that the the suspension of habeus corpus was the impetus of action from the North. He knew that this would kickstart things. And in my view, secession, rebellion, very little difference. Yes, I know there is a technical difference, but it was a rebellion no matter how you slice it and dice it. And how did it take out the rebellion? I don't understand your question, they took out the rebellion by defeating them in war. The fact that this statement comes from you, means nothing... Now !@#$ off, Neanderthal.

Because everything that led up to the war, the actions and provocations from the south, the court they knew they were up against, my guess is that he wanted to take out the rebellion of the south, and justifiably so. In other words an indirect declaration of war.

We are talking past each other. I understand what you are saying, but considering all the conditions around the events that took place, Lincoln's actions were justified. Very few people will consider his actions to be tyrannical considering the deplorable forces they were up against. History has rightfully judged Lincoln as a great man, and that history will stand the test of the time moving forward. We will just have to agree to disagree. I'm just truly awestruck that the sentiment shared by some on this board is that the Civil War was not a war that produced great actions and results for African Americans and the country. I truly am dumbfounded.

It does matter. We aren't talking about an Obamacare ruling, we are talking about a court that considers other human beings to be inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. This in my view, disqualifies this court in making any decisions moving forward. Specially considering that the court was made up of a bunch of Jacksonian cronies who supported the secession, supported the rights of slaveholders to continue to own slaves and that these human's, were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. That's pretty much the crux of it all. So you can go on and try to make the comparisons to Obama and I'm sorry, I'm going to believe that such comparisons are absurd. No offense.

And why did he suspend it? What caused that to happen? Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Context matters. And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before. I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble. So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship? I've answered your questions, now please answer mine.

That's not what I said, I said he rejected the courts judgement on the matter. And why shouldn't they, they were largely comprised of a bunch of Jacksonian Disciples that supported slavery, that supported the secession and would never be in agreement with Lincoln. Would you trust the judgement of a court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status?

You mean the same habeus corpus that was decided by the same court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and that couldn't be considered as citizens? So what you are saying is that Lincoln is the tyrant because he did not accept the ruling that African Americans were indeed not worthy of citizenship status and he rejected their judgement on the matter of habeus corpus. Some things are worth fighting for, this was one of them. And I can't !@#$ing believe I'm actually discussing this.

Please tell me more.

I suppose the crux of it all is that you believe that the Obama administration is some malevolent force that wants to control your life and that providing healthcare really wasn't the issue, it was just about control. Whereas my position is that I do believe they had good intentions in providing healthcare for some through the exchanges, and that as a result of their intentions, they do end up controlling the lives of many because they believe big government knows best. That's the difference, but I certainly do find your posts amusing, Please tell me more.

I'll comment on what I damn please... If TGreg has the patience to go into detail on something that I believe to be a given, good for him. I will spend my time going into detail about things that I find interesting and I certainly don't go into detail vs fringe positions.

Why do you believe they couldn't have written that into the law? I followed this as closely as anyone here and many of the posters that are on this board, which was before you came here know that I wrote and opined about the law more than anyone. I read this **** up and down it was a complete obsession of mine. Never was the idea of the state based exchanges vs federal exchanges a sticking point that would have prevented Democrats from voting for the law. The issue that prevented a few democrats from voting for the law was the public option more than anything. I'm not here to argue the merits of the law, that is a separate issue. What we are discussing was the intent of the law and this particular court ruling. If you believe what Gruber says, then their idea was to push the states into forming the exchanges at the state level. The argument that you are now trying to make contradicts Gruber and are saying that all along it was to have a Federal exchange. The reality of what happened doesn't jive with that theory. What happened was simple. Like Gruber says, the idea was for the states to set up the exchanges, they thought they were going to provide enough incentives that the states were going to play along. They miscalculated. The majority of states didn't go along with their script. The ruling almost went against them, and could have justifiably been ruled the other direction, and I wouldn't have been surprised. But they upheld it, and now that they upheld the Federal subsidies, it wouldn't surprise me if what the NY times is correct. Why set up the exchange and upkeep it, if the Federal Exchange will do it for them?

What? That the civil war wasn't something that benefited many people in this country and was a force for good? Sorry, when someone asks me something that is a given, I don't feel the need to have to explain why that is the case. I am more than happy to get in discussions about many different topics and go into detail about them, as I have proven on this board for years, this is not one of them, because I can't !@#$ing believe that anyone is making the case that the Civil War wasn't a good thing.

I'm confused, so which is it? The states were suppose to be bullied into providing the mechanism for subsidies or the plan all along was to put up a show that fooled everyone into thinking it was suppose to be the state providing the subsidies but knowing the states wouldn't cooperate, jeopardizing the law via the supreme court but having just enough confidence to know that the court would uphold the ruling and then anticipating that the states that did adopt the exchanges would abandon their mechanism to provide subsidies just so that they would and set up shop through the federal exchange? Think about that for a second B man. You are a smart guy, if that was the plan all along, then why didn't they simply write the law with the Federal Exchange? That was never the bone of contention, they could have easily have done that. Why, I'm getting your fantasy land explanations right here, no need for me to go there.