• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abraham Lincoln - Right or Wrong?

haymarket said:
Again, you make the same fundamental mistake: you are only considering property rights and not others.
Click to expand...

If I want to enter your home and you say no, is that violating my rights? No, as I have no right to access your property.
 
Henrin said:
If I want to enter your home and you say no, is that violating my rights? No, as I have no right to access your property.
Click to expand...

Why are you confusing your home with other property that was under discussion?
 
haymarket said:
Why are you confusing your home with other property that was under discussion?
Click to expand...

I'm not. Its governed by the same principle and is rooted in the same foundation. No one has a right to access any property they do not own.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not. Its governed by the same principle and is rooted in the same foundation. No one has a right to access any property they do not own.
Click to expand...

Do you advertise for the general public to come to your home? Is it open to the public?
 
haymarket said:
Do you advertise for the general public to come to your home? Is it open to the public?
Click to expand...

I already dealt with this argument of yours. No Business is not open to the public, but to who the owner wants in. Putting word out about your business does not mean that there is no rules of access and that anyone can access the property. You could have easily read the thread to find this answer to your argument.
 
Henrin said:
I already dealt with this argument of yours. No Business is not open to the public, but to who the owner wants in. Putting word out about your business does not mean that there is no rules of access and that anyone can access the property. You could have easily read the thread to find this answer to your argument.
Click to expand...

Please provide verifiable evidence that your claim is indeed the legal policy in our nation. I have already provided you the laws saying it clearly is NOT.
 
haymarket said:
Please provide verifiable evidence that your claim is indeed the legal policy in our nation. I have already provided you the laws saying it clearly is NOT.
Click to expand...

Are we in a wheel here? You already made that argument.
 
ChezC3 said:
For there to be a "more perfect union" you must be uniting something, what was that something? seperate and sovereign States.
Click to expand...

Before there was a "more perfect Union", there was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Do you know what 'perpetual' means?
 
Henrin said:
Are we in a wheel here? You already made that argument.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect illustration that you do NOT live in the real world that I do.
 
zstep18 said:
Before there was a "more perfect Union", there was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Do you know what 'perpetual' means?
Click to expand...

Do you know what "replaced" means?

What about, "non-statutory" eh? any ideas?

I mean, I can let your condescending tone slide, I understand your frustrations. Can't come up with the requisite information so, throw snarky gibes instead....:rock Rock on brother...

However if we are going to look to posterity, to documents that hold no legal binding, than we need look no further than the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...

What you may want to ponder before coming back with another quip, is if the Union was indissoluble, why didn't they just say it?
 
rocket88 said:
Wouldn't have been possible. That's a myth perpetrated by the apologists of slavery.

People ask "Why couldn't Lincoln let them go in peace?" Nobody ever asks why the South couldn't come back in peace because everybody knows that they were completely willing to fight. If it wasn't Ft. Sumter, it would have been something else. Lincoln had a vital national security interest in seeing the Union preserved - If Maryland and Delaware followed the other slave states, that would have left Washington completely surrounded by a hostile nation. As it was, the only thing separating DC from the Confederacy was the Potomac.

Simply put, a peaceful separation was impossible.
Click to expand...

Well, your starting point is a common tactic....Let's start off by demonizing people for their supporting the South's right to succession by relating them to "slavery apologists". I have said many, many times, this is childish. No one is supporting slavery, no one is supporting the South's argument for slavery. You've attempted to infer this upon me, and I'd ask you don't do it again. I merely argue for the right of succession.

Now what people always fail to address about Ft Sumter is that the CSA didn't just up and open a can of whoopass on them. They gave them more than a reasonable chance to leave. It was Lincoln who kept them there in order to provoke confrontation and give pretext for War.

I never said that peaceful seperation was possible I said that it SHOULD have been. Meaning it is what "ought" to have happen. The Tyrant would have never allowed this, but he SHOULD have.
 
rocket88 said:
Just because the south wanted Ft. Sumter didn't make it theirs. It was the property of the United States military, as in, they held the title.

Should the Union have just abandoned their property rights because South Carolina asked?
Click to expand...


I've already argued this point, please look back a page or two for where I touched on this.
 
haymarket said:
This is a perfect illustration that you do NOT live in the real world that I do.
Click to expand...

You already ran to the law as your defense. Did you somehow forget?
 
Henrin said:
You already ran to the law as your defense. Did you somehow forget?
Click to expand...

I give you reality..... you give me fantasyland.

What is the point of engaging with you when you retreat into your own make believe world where things only are as you wish them to be or as you believe them to be?
 
haymarket said:
I give you reality..... you give me fantasyland.

What is the point of engaging with you when you retreat into your own make believe world where things only are as you wish them to be or as you believe them to be?
Click to expand...

I gave you reality to support my view and you gave me the law to support the law. You figure it out.

Supporting my view details that I look how people behave with property in nature and society and I did that. What you did was say its the law and when you got cornered repeat that it's the law.
 
MadLib said:
Where did it say that?
Click to expand...

The constitution only applies to the states that are currently members of the compact it establishes. A state that quits the union is no longer a party to the compact.

Perfect implies indivisible, not divisible.
Click to expand...

Perfect implies divisible, not indivisible.
 
Henrin said:
I already dealt with this argument of yours. No Business is not open to the public, but to who the owner wants in. Putting word out about your business does not mean that there is no rules of access and that anyone can access the property. You could have easily read the thread to find this answer to your argument.
Click to expand...

That isn't how it works in real life. In real life Business owners either follow the law or go out of business.
 
captainawesome said:
That isn't how it works in real life. In real life Business owners either follow the law or go out of business.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think I'm not aware that the law is the law? :roll:
 
Federalist said:
Where crybaby is defined as someone who is dissatisfied with the status quo?
Click to expand...

Where cry baby is someone who whines about law that isn't going to change over and over and over. Like the law that bans white only apartment buildings for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom