FireChan

Cecede.

It's a considerable leap to think someone will let you die becaus they think you're stupid or fat.

Show me. Demonstrate it. Demonstrate what Payton does to make Brees accurate. Show me what Belichick does to enable Brady to read defenses. You can't. Also, the Cassel argument is sorta invalid when he was on the second best team in NFL history. EJ puts up 20 TD's on that team. But some of the other squads that Brady has had to drag to the postseason? No way.

Brady and Brees would've been great in virtually any system.

I personally could not give a damn about South.

No shout out to me? !@#$ you Boyst.

I think he's arguing that Lincoln did the right thing for the wrong reasons and through the wrong means. Intonations matter, unless you subscribe to utilitarianism crap.

Hey Magox, did you support the Iraq invasion because the morality was clear that Saddam was murdering people and needed to be stopped?

Roman didn't want Spiller either.

It was because you used the cowardly tactic of calling someone a racist when they disagreed with you.

How did the suspension of habeus corpus ignite the war? And no, you did when you waxed poetically on how history remembers Lincoln as a good guy, like that means anything.

I watched a decent amount of him. Thought he had the best chance to be a superstar in this draft out of the top 3. He's an athlete but not crazy. Best G in the draft for sure. Even with Mudiay.

How did the suspension of habeus corpus ignite the war? Bush was infinitely more noble than Hussein. Who cares? Are you just throwing out nonsense?

So Lincoln violated the rights of his citizens and broke tenets of our government to start a war? What a noble guy. Sounds like a few other noble global leaders.

How did the suspension of habeus corpus, a right, help win the war? Unless you're saying it started the war? And that's how it helped win it? Pretend you're Lincoln, sell me on why I should agree on suspending rights of our citizens. It was a rebellion if you don't actually understand the definition of a rebellion. But then dinosaurs are gumdrops.

The Constitution of the USA gave states the right to secede no matter what. It wasn't a "right to secede, only if you aren't doing bad stuff." Both sides in the Civil War were wrong. Even if the Union did some good things along the way.

How did it help take out the rebellion? Why was it a rebellion and not a legal secession? What came first, Ft. Sumter or your "indirect declaration of war?" Had no idea, thanks.

You're using the wrong definition of tyrant. I used the word tyrant to express that the use of Lincoln's power was oppressive to the rights of his citizens and the rules of his government. It was. You even admit it was. Justification notwithstanding, he went over the Constitution and the other branches of government. He may have been a benevolent tyrant, but he was one. Personally, I think that sets a poor precedent, but I digress. Again, I'd like to ask you why the suspension of habeus corpus was justified. Not the War. Not the eventual emancipation. The suspension.

Fine. We'll concede you think the separation of powers and the Constitution is not paramount. What justification did Lincoln have to suspend habeus corpus?

And why did he suspend it? Unrest in Maryland, and the presence of political enemies. What caused that to happen? The legal secession of the South. Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Does that matter? Presidents can tell the court to screw off if they don't like it? Sounds like an absolute monarchy. And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before. Suspensory powers were explained in the Article I, which explained Congress' powers. If Lincoln's suspension was legal, why did Congress try 3 times to approve it? 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. And Obama is noble to try to get every American health insurance. Do you approve of him circumventing Congress to achieve this end, if he did? If not, you're a hypocrite. Again, living in the morally subjective world of Magox is not how our government works. 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? Would you trust a doctor about your cancer if he was racist to Chinese people? Would you trust a renowned economist about infaltion if he hated vegans? The courts made the right decision, it doesn't matter if I trust them or their past decisions. This is irrefutable. Giving President's carte blanche to suspend the basic foundation of our country is patently moronic. No matter how noble you or he thinks.

I'd call it a tyroded-scheme, at best

He suspended it first. Congress was not in court to sanction his supsenion of US citizens' liberties. It was challenged and appealed because only Congress can suspend habeus corpus. This is a clear standard, no matter if it is supported by bigots. You realize you're using the argument that it's okay to oppress the rights of your citizens if you have a really good reason, I hope. I hope I only have to point out the fallacies of such an argument once, and how it has been used to defend the actions of tyrants for years. I also hope you note the similarities to President Obama. He's circumventing Congress because he thinks it's a benevolent end, no need to obey the separation of powers, right? Or only if your personal and subjective moral standard agrees?

Fred's ability is not just demonstrated by numbers. Football IQ, vision, balance and blocking all go into the metric of "football player." None of those things get stat lines. Fred's brain in Spiller's body is one of the best RB's of all time. Whereas the converse is Tashard Choice.

Because you've been spoonfed the "Lincoln went to war as a great Liberator," narrative.

I'd like to clear a few things up. I'm only arguing from a Constitutional and legal viewpoint. My posts are not tantamount to saying that Lincoln was unjustified, or that slavery shouldn't have ended. I don't know if you specifically meant me, but this conversation is spiraling in a couple different directions.