IntenseDebate - EyeOfCygnus

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Media Matters' Hyster... · 4 replies · +8 points

I regret it is time to bid you all adieu. In recent days, I have attempted to answer a perfectly reasonable reply to one of my posts (only to have it repeatedly deleted), attempted to comment on this article (unsuccesfully), and given up on anyone ever engaging me in debate on one of my many "states rights" posts.

The father of Romneycare just won a straw poll, and there is nothing on any of these sites hurling outrage. It was fun while it lasted. Take care.

13 years ago @ Big Journalism - Paper-Thin Newsweek's ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Progressive Insurance advertiseses on Glen and Rush's sites because it knows it is striking an untapped audience there. Pfizer's marketing people should realize that advertising only to people who are already using Lipitor is kind of pointless.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - End of the Kalashnikov... · 0 replies · +4 points

Hard to believe. The AK may harken back to the days of vacume tubes, but you can't beat it for durability and ease of maintenance.

13 years ago @ Big Government - Wednesday Open Thread:... · 0 replies · +1 points

As the great-great-grandson of 2 men (and great-great-grandnephew of a third) who made it through 4 years each for the Union, it would be great if my southern brethren could accept that the North also fought for "states rights."

The slave powers had effectively abolished the right of a state to be "free," via the cumulative effect of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Nebraska Act (1854), and the Dredd Scott decision (1857). It is no coincidence that the Republicans, a party that did not exist in 1853, gained control of the House in 1858 and the Senate in 1860. The original 7 states to secede did so before Lincoln could even get to Washington for his inauguration, not because of anything he did, but out of fear that he would re-assert northern demands to live in "free" states.

13 years ago @ Big Government - Wednesday Open Thread:... · 0 replies · -1 points

In a legal sense, the EP did nothing of the kind. In order for slaves to be freed by the EP, the areas in rebellion would have to accept that they were under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Given that this would have required submission to the most massive transfer of wealth in American history, this was hardly likely to happen, and you can bet Lincoln knew it.

The EP's primary purpose was to tell European states (who had all rejected slavery) who were thinking of supporting the South that the war was over the issue of slavery; not tariffs, or some other silly rationale.

13 years ago @ Big Government - Wednesday Open Thread:... · 0 replies · -1 points

I agree with you, that "states rights were far more meaningful than they are now," but not, I suspect, in the way you mean.

It was the southern push to federalize slavery which led to the war, abolishing the right of a state to be "free," via the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Nebraska Act (1854), and the Dredd Scott decision (1857).

It is no coincidence that the Republicans, a party that did not exist in 1853, gained control of the House in 1858 and the Senate in 1860. The original 7 states to secede did so before Lincoln could even get to Washington for his inauguration, not because of anything he did, but out of fear that he would re-assert northern demands to live in "free" states.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Where's the Rest of th... · 0 replies · +1 points

Your reply didn't directly address anything I wrote. You called Libertarians idiots incapable of logical thought. There was nothing to indicate that your remark about the milk was specific to the "violence against Christians issue," as opposed to a general comment that Libertarians are uniquely afflicted by some tendency to look the other way instead of standing up to oppression.
My reply to you would be that every time we pay taxes we are being oppressed to a certain extent, yet we meekly swallow our outrage and pay the bill, so I reject that generalization because it is not unique to Libertarians.
If you want to be specific about the Christian issue, I simply refer you back to my original comment, as well as Frank Gaffney's Jan. 19 post on this very site in the way of example.

13 years ago @ Big Peace - Tunisia's Uncertain Im... · 0 replies · +4 points

Of course every Arab potentate is quivering in fear. The islamic system makes it very difficult for those with private wealth to increase it, unless they invest it with the government, which is free from most of the religous restrictions. This concentration of wealth inevitably leads to corruption, as it is easier to spend the money than employ it efficiently. This is their nightmare.

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Anne Hathaway: Meet Ho... · 0 replies · +6 points

Anne, as Catwoman in "The Dark Knight RISES"?? Oh, that's good!

13 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Top 25 Left-Wing Films... · 0 replies · +1 points

There is an interesting corollary to that. The Lakota had originally been trying to migrate eastwards, but the Ojibway alliances with France and then England gave them a hefty supply of guns. It is only because of those guns that the Lakota turned westward.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with EyeOfCygnus

People I'm following

EyeOfCygnus