Conservatives near revolt on Senate health care negotiations

[Sanguine]

Just trying to clarify what you were saying. 

You said that the South wouldn't have put any kind of reparations on the North because of States Rights.

But - this is what I was replying to:

...they'd have forced the North with the "barrel of a gun pointed at their head" to accept changes to the Constitution that fit what they wanted to see happen too.

[txradioguy]

But - this is what I was replying to:

I still think they would have forced the North to accept certain changes...like legalizing slavery.

Or been allowed to continue to exist as a separate country.

[Night Hides Not]

OK, not sure what set that off, but good for you!

My comment was not directed at you, I was caught up in your conversation with Jazz.

Carry on!   

[DiogenesLamp]

And had President Davis and General Lee been the victors you can bet they'd have forced the North with the "barrel of a gun pointed at their head" to accept changes to the Constitution that fit what they wanted to see happen too.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here,   and judging by what you have said,  I don't believe you do either. 

[DiogenesLamp]

But, they wouldn't have had to - states' rights were already a part of the Constitution.

The Southern States,  being in their own country,   would hardly give a damn what the Northern states did to their own constitution.   


What the Southern Confederacy did in their constitution would be their own business,  and not that of the Northern Union. 

[txradioguy]

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here,   and judging by what you have said,  I don't believe you do either.

Nope I know exactly what I was getting at and what I said.

You as much made my point in your post after this one I quoted.

[DiogenesLamp]

That gun pointed at them is the reason the South was overwhelmingly a single-party for a hundred years.  Generations passed along the awful treatment imposed on those states.

From what I can see,  the "treatment"  has never stopped.   New York has been controlling the "News"  and  North Eastern states have been more or less controlling academia and social commentary ever since. 


It is not an accident that there is much hatred directed at White Christian males from all the "beacons of enlightenment"  out there,    and I suspect much of it is a consequence of keeping up the Civil War narrative.   

[Sanguine]

I still think they would have forced the North to accept certain changes...like legalizing slavery.

Or been allowed to continue to exist as a separate country.

Could be.  I wasn't addressing that particular issue.

[DiogenesLamp]

I get he states rights part.  But the slaves wouldn't have been freed...lets not pretend that the Civil War was at least partially about that.  There would have been no Emancipation Proclamation...or fast forward 100 years no Civil Rights Act or anything of the kind.

There would have been no dead 750,000 people,  no FedZilla currently operating far beyond it's constitutional boundary,   and no century of economic destitution in the South.  The nation would also have missed the age of Robber Barons and  the Massive corruption in the aftermath of the civil war.

Are you saying that had the South won, you'd be fine with slavery still being around...Jim Crow Laws in effect and no Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of States Rights?

Slavery would have lasted between 40 and 80 years longer had the South won.    Had the South simply remained part of the Union,  slavery would have lasted between 40 and 80 years as well.    The economics of it wouldn't have worked longer than that,  and the social opprobrium was only going to get worse over time.   


The only way slavery ended as early as it did was because a man exercised the power of a tyrant to destroy the people who wanted independence.     Slavery was ended more because it benefited the political power players in the Boston/Washington corridor and for revenge than for any other reason. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I still think they would have forced the North to accept certain changes...like legalizing slavery.

Slavery *WAS*  legal in the North.   It was legal all the way up to December of 1865.    It was legal in the Union for six months longer than it was legal in the Confederacy. 

 

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope I know exactly what I was getting at and what I said.

You know exactly what you were getting at,  but  from the looks of what you said,   you were working with either incomplete or incorrect knowledge when you said it. 

Your premises are all squirrelly,  therefore what you said didn't make any sense. 

You as much made my point in your post after this one I quoted.

It would be nice if you quoted the aspect of my post to which you are referring so I wouldn't have to open a new tab,  go find it,  and then try to get everything in context between two different tabs. 

[Jazzhead]

You are aware that this is a conservative site, are you not?  It may not be the most effective use of your time to come to a place full of conservatives and tell them they are worse than useless backbenchers and responsible for the socialism that you support. Just sayin'.

Socialism I support?   I want to beat back the socialist tide - but for that to happen we must back effective alternatives to single payer in the context of the times.  Simply repealing ObamaCare is a non-starter - and any conservative with an ounce of political savvy knows that.   I've been saying for months that the current Congressional proposals that wean us off of the worst aspects of the ADA merit support from conservatives - but as the OP suggests,  too many conservatives won't take half a loaf, won't compromise their sacred "principles", and - so I conclude - are more interested in beating their chests in self-righteous indignation than effectively combatting socialism.

Yes, too many conservatives  - not all, as shown by the eloquent posts of folks like mesaclone - prefer to be out-out-power backbenchers.   And they will get their wish.     

[Sanguine]

Socialism I support?   I want to beat back the socialist tide - but for that to happen we must back effective alternatives to single payer in the context of the times.  Simply repealing ObamaCare is a non-starter - and any conservative with an ounce of political savvy knows that.   I've been saying for months that the current Congressional proposals that wean us off of the worst aspects of the ADA merit support from conservatives - but as the OP suggests,  too many conservatives won't take half a loaf, won't compromise their sacred "principles", and - so I conclude - are more interested in beating their chests in self-righteous indignation than effectively combatting socialism.

Yes, too many conservatives  - not all, as shown by the eloquent posts of folks like mesaclone - prefer to be out-out-power backbenchers.   And they will get their wish.   

Yes, but I'm just not sure you can "beat back the socialist tide" by proposing more socialist options.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, but I'm just not sure you can "beat back the socialist tide" by proposing more socialist options.

Or by agreeing to accept socialist principles.    Social Security,  medicare and now welfare are the biggest sinks of money in our nation.    They are killing us,  and will kill us if we don't eventually stop them.   



It would have been much less painful for them to have never taken root in the first place.

[Smokin Joe]

Or by agreeing to accept socialist principles.    Social Security,  medicare and now welfare are the biggest sinks of money in our nation.    They are killing us,  and will kill us if we don't eventually stop them.   



It would have been much less painful for them to have never taken root in the first place.

Except for the people who kept their phony baloney jobs by getting them passed.

However, I predict Social Security will be eliminated, cold turkey, in seven years.

[Bigun]

I still think they would have forced the North to accept certain changes...like legalizing slavery.

Or been allowed to continue to exist as a separate country.

Neither would have been required!  The FACT is that the South was NEVER fighting to take control of the United States Government. They simply wished to be left alone and allowed to go their own way with a government more suited to them!  This entire "Civil War' business is  100% myth!  We may indeed have a civil war in this country someday but it hasn't happened yet!

[Sanguine]

Except for the people who kept their phony baloney jobs by getting them passed.

However, I predict Social Security will be eliminated, cold turkey, in seven years.

I wouldn't be sad to see it go (and, I'm about to be old enough to draw on it), but why do you think it will go away? 

[truth_seeker]

Socialism I support?   I want to beat back the socialist tide - but for that to happen we must back effective alternatives to single payer in the context of the times.  Simply repealing ObamaCare is a non-starter - and any conservative with an ounce of political savvy knows that.   I've been saying for months that the current Congressional proposals that wean us off of the worst aspects of the ADA merit support from conservatives - but as the OP suggests,  too many conservatives won't take half a loaf, won't compromise their sacred "principles", and - so I conclude - are more interested in beating their chests in self-righteous indignation than effectively combatting socialism.

Yes, too many conservatives  - not all, as shown by the eloquent posts of folks like mesaclone - prefer to be out-out-power backbenchers.   And they will get their wish.   

While forum junkies wrangle, call names, make declarations of absolutes, speechify about "principles, our elected politicians are going to come up with something fairly soon, according to another articles I read. Their best shot at a pragmatic solution.

So there will be yet another opportunity to call names, make declarations of absolutes, speechify about "principles," etc.

To me it is about makin sausage. If can't stand to watch, don't watch.

[Smokin Joe]

I wouldn't be sad to see it go (and, I'm about to be old enough to draw on it), but why do you think it will go away?

Because I will have paid in for 54 years but not drawn a dime. Any later and I'll get a check.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Or by agreeing to accept socialist principles.    Social Security,  medicare and now welfare are the biggest sinks of money in our nation.    They are killing us,  and will kill us if we don't eventually stop them.

Here's another principle we need to kill, what constitutes 'mandatory' vs 'discretionary' spending.

Look closely at these two pie-charts.

Welfare is seen to be 'mandatory' whereas the entire defense of our country is deemed 'discretionary'.

I consider the military for the most part to be a lot more mandatory that most of the welfare doled out.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

However, I predict Social Security will be eliminated, cold turkey, in seven years.

Care to relay how you are preparing for this?

I too consider this is one scenario that is very plausible, just do not know timing.

[txradioguy]

Interesting that defense is considered discretionary spending since that's actually one of the Constitutional obligations the Government and the President are Constitutionally directed to do.

[Smokin Joe]

Care to relay how you are preparing for this?

I too consider this is one scenario that is very plausible, just do not know timing.

I'm not, beyond saving what I can, holding some assets until they appreciate in value, and trusting The Almighty to provide.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Interesting that defense is considered discretionary spending since that's actually one of the Constitutional obligations the Government and the President are Constitutionally directed to do.

I thought so too.  Seems to me it should be split between a mandatory defense spending amount and a discretionary one(like new missile systems)

This could just be the source agency making this - I do not know who is "National Priorities Project', and assume it is a liberal camp.

[Smokin Joe]

Here's another principle we need to kill, what constitutes 'mandatory' vs 'discretionary' spending.

Look closely at these two pie-charts.

Welfare is seen to be 'mandatory' whereas the entire defense of our country is deemed 'discretionary'.

I consider the military for the most part to be a lot more mandatory that most of the welfare doled out.

Yep. I think you are on to something.

The military, (at whatever level deemed appropriate) for Providing for the Common Defense is Constitutionally mandated.

No social programs are authorized by the Constitution. None.