en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1222835 Comments by _angus_ http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/09/07/lincoln-and-the-death-of-the-constitution/#IDComment98274464 "...Abraham Lincoln launched his military invasion of the Southern States to prevent their peaceful and democratic assertion of independence..." You are kidding aren't you? Was Bleeding Kansas simply a peaceful demonstration for state's rights? All that you have said about Lincoln might be true, but the Civil War was going to happen regardless of who was President in 1861. The stage was set for the conflict and the resulting aftermath prior to the Mexican-American War (probably even before Texas became a republic). The true lesson to be learned from the Civil War is that tyranny often exists on both sides of a conflict. Do we pick the tyranny of a centralized federal government or do we choose the tyranny based in slavery? Would you prefer to have your left eye blinded or your right eye blinded? Lincoln took your left eye, would it be better if you had lost your right eye? Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:01:50 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/09/07/lincoln-and-the-death-of-the-constitution/#IDComment98274464 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/09/nullification-and-moving-forward-the-tenth-amendment-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/#IDComment84343766 B. Johnson, Has a king ever existed that wasn't a tyrant to some degree? If Voltaire stated a personal opinion on the subject of common sense, does that make it fact? Can a person even function in the world without common sense? Doesn't the most ignorant individual need to possess some degree of common sense? Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:44:08 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/09/nullification-and-moving-forward-the-tenth-amendment-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/#IDComment84343766 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/15/eu-chief-warns-democracy-could-disappear-in-greece-spain-and-portugal/#IDComment80339022 I might be mistaken, but the CBO figures are based on assumptions from Obama that inflation won't rise at all for the next decade, unemployment rates will fall to much lower levels next year (6% i think?), and the economy will grow at approximately 4-5% starting next year. Does anyone with half a brain believe that we aren't going to have higher inflation rates, unemployment rates around 10%, and dismal economic growth rates for the next 10 years? What would the deficit numbers look like with higher inflation, unemployment rates of 10% or higher, and a recession? Have CBO deficit projections ever been lower than predicted? If politicians actually wanted to fix these problems, why do they continually manufacture these fraudulent CBO figures? Wouldn't the first step be to project some halfway accurate numbers? Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:31:16 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/15/eu-chief-warns-democracy-could-disappear-in-greece-spain-and-portugal/#IDComment80339022 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/10/obama-muslim-affairs-advisor-is-an-islamic-ideologue-and-loves-sharia-law/#IDComment79546809 Progressives operate by changing the meanings of words and language. It is a continual process. By changing the meaning of words, the debate is altered significantly because the differing sides are basing their arguments of different definitions of words. Since the definitions of words have been altered and changed, an open debate is impossible. Without an open debate, tyranny results. This technique is used by all despots including the supporters of Sharia Law and radical Islam. Since the definition of terrorist has been changed (as described in your list), it is now impossible to link terrorist and Islam according to the new definition. Do any of the outlined descriptors point to any Muslim? Isn't it funny that under this new definition of terrorist, if you dare to point out that the definition of terrorist doesn't make any sense, you could then be labeled as a terrorist because you are questioning the authority of the government? Is that a coincidence? There are a number of questions that I would like to ask Obama and his various Islamic advisers. On the subject of Islam not condoning or supporting "violent actions", how is violent action defined by Muslims? Were the 9/11 attacks a "violent action"? Or, were they a misunderstood part of a jihad against the West? Can anything that occurs in a jihad be classified as a violent action? Isn't imposing Sharia Law actually a goal of a jihad? Is Islam and Sharia Law misunderstood by ignorance on the West's part or intentionally on Islam's part? Simply repeating over and over that Islam is misunderstood isn't sufficient, explain it to me and it won't be so misunderstood. Is it that difficult? Or, do I simply have to submit without question? Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:00:01 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/10/obama-muslim-affairs-advisor-is-an-islamic-ideologue-and-loves-sharia-law/#IDComment79546809 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/05/25/obama-adviser-says-sharia-law-misunderstood/#IDComment79521015 Sepp, Don't forget about those damn Scandinavians and their murderous Viking past of raiding peaceful monasteries in the British Isles and Ireland. Just who the hell do they think they are giving out Nobel Peace Prizes? Is there no longer a possibility of redemption? Is every nation, every culture, and every individual morally equivalent to every other nation, culture, or individual regardless of whether or not they have corrected past mistakes? Is redemption and correcting past wrongs isn't possible, if all nations, all cultures, and all individuals are deemed to be irredeemable, then what would justify recognizing past mistakes and correcting past wrongs? Maybe that is the difference between a Western culture and a Sharia Law dominated culture. Forgiveness and redemption is a fundamental part of a Judeo-Christian culture, but is it a part of Islam? Is that why the "defenders" of Sharia Law keep pointing to centuries old events? If past wrongs can never be corrected under any circumstances, then what happened centuries ago is still relevant isn't it? Does Obama's adviser (and Obama by extension) believe in redemption? Or, do we deserve to be punished for the wrongs that our grandfathers supposedly inflicted on the world? Is that why Obama's adviser (and Obama by extension) doesn't fiercely object to the thought and concepts of Sharia Law? Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:18:21 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/05/25/obama-adviser-says-sharia-law-misunderstood/#IDComment79521015 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/09/nullification-and-moving-forward-the-tenth-amendment-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/#IDComment79331781 Either sort of related or a complete tangent to this post, (you did mention the collapse of the Soviet Union) from my understanding, the Soviet Union spent itself into oblivion, "collapsed", then was reformed as numerous "sovereign" countries ran by mostly ethnic Russians (holdovers from the Soviet Union days). Greatly simplified, the Russian Federation kept control of the monetary system and most of the assets of the Soviet Union, while shedding most of the debt and social programs onto the rest of the former Soviet Union. I have a gut feeling that if some of the states in the U.S. started moving towards leaving the U.S, or trying to retake some of the powers laid out in the Constitution, etc., the federal government would only make a show of trying to stop them. Something similar to the breakup of the Soviet Union and reformation of the country under the Russian Federation could then happen in the U.S. Once the states had seceded (for lack of a better term), the Federal government would still control the monetary system, interstate commerce, the gold supply, mineral deposits, mortgages, etc. while shedding all of the expenses, debts, and liabilities that they created in the first place onto the states. How would a state or group of states set up a monetary system? How would existing mortgages be handled if Fannie Mae holds the note on a property in a state that has seceded or is resisting the Federal Government? How would U.S. military bases be handled? How would immigration (or is it emigration) between states be handled? Would the citizens of a state "see the light" and suddenly stop demanding unsustainable government handouts? But, what about all the tax money that the states will keep and the federal government will no longer receive? The Federal government prints as much money as it wants, why would it matter if worthless printed money stopped coming back to D.C.? The Federal government would rather shift its debt and liabilities to the states in exchange for less "money" returning to the treasury in the form of taxes. In return, the shifted debt and liabilities would cripple the states and make them vulnerable to a Federal takeover. The "lost" tax revenue would be a bargain compared to what a civil war would cost the Federal government. After the chaos finally settled down, the Federalists will "save" the secessionist states by allowing them to return to the United States of Amerika under a new Constitution that has had all the problems "fixed". Then, all the power will be consolidated in the Federal government. In a perverse way, the Progressives "need" the states to resist to set the stage for the construction of an all-controlling Federal government after the states are eliminated. After all that, I don't think this is the only possible or even likely outcome, but it is a possibility that few people are discussing. Any thoughts? Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:05:43 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/09/nullification-and-moving-forward-the-tenth-amendment-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/#IDComment79331781 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/05/25/obama-adviser-says-sharia-law-misunderstood/#IDComment78752102 So you see no purpose in comparing and contrasting the Sharia Law which limits individual freedom and liberty and the US Constitution which guarantees and protects the freedom and liberty of the individual? Most of the problems that you outlined currently exist in the US because the US Constitution has been ignored and Progressive laws have been enacted that favor the rights of the group instead of the rights of the individual. If it can be successfully argued that the problems under Sharia Law exist because of the abuse of individual rights, then it can also be argued that the problems that exist under the current Progressive perversion of the US Constitution also exist because of the refusal to protect our individual rights. If our individual rights were protected instead of attacked by politicians, then the problems you outline would cease to exist along with most of the power that politicians covet. Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:19:56 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/05/25/obama-adviser-says-sharia-law-misunderstood/#IDComment78752102 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/02/for-obamacares-impact-look-to-canada-and-great-britain/#IDComment78749027 Craig, It is fairly obvious that you are less concerned with the differences between Canada's apparently vastly superior healthcare system and either the United States former system of delivering healthcare or the eagerly anticipated form of healthcare affectionately dubbed Obamacare and are actually greatly concerned with the redistribution of wealth from those bastards with all the money to the truly deserving poor. If you believe and espouse the wholesale redistribution of wealth from the rich (thieving bastards one and all) to the poor (oppressed and deserving of anything and everything without question), can I safely assume that that sentiment also extends to a global scale? After all, if rich individuals in Canada have accumulated their assets through thievery from the poor individuals of Canada, can't the same be said about your nation as a whole? How else could Canada have became a rich nation in comparison to the rest of the world without stealing from the poorer nations of the world? It is indeed comforting to my cynical heart that you would be willing to forfeit your wealth (who did you steal it from?) to a number of poor individuals in places like Bangladesh, so that you and your nation could start to atone for the irredeemable wrongs inflicted on the world while starting to create a truly equitable economic system that would evenly redistribute the wealth of the world among all the world's citizens. Bravo, Craig, the world needs more people like you to create a global utopia built on the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Sun, 6 Jun 2010 02:33:16 +0000 http://www.wolvesofliberty.com/2010/06/02/for-obamacares-impact-look-to-canada-and-great-britain/#IDComment78749027