Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Confederate Flag BAN
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Redhides" data-source="post: 1035630" data-attributes="member: 20308"><p>TB....there is no doubt that inconsistencies exist.</p><p>Both parties violated the Constitution at numerous points during this time.</p><p></p><p>My issue is that once again, government expanded beyond it's intent takes an overreaching measure that it's unauthorized to take.</p><p></p><p>I have serious reservations that the kids that actually wore grey in the war did so to preserve an institution they had no stake in for the sake of men they didn't care for. I also have reservations that men wearing blue would leave home to fight for a cause that didn't exist at the beginning of the war when they themselves often viewed, spoke of, and treated slaves as sub-human. Other than to serve as a mercenary, I can see no reason to leave home for the opportunity to get shot at to preserve a "union". The Confederacy was using scare tactics to rev up momentum for their boys. The Union was pulling guys fresh off the boat from Europe as fast as they could, slapping a blue suit on them, and sending them to Virginia and Pennsylvania before they could grab a cup of coffee and enjoy a bowel movement. It is the utter failure of leadership that the war ever took place. </p><p></p><p>The beliefs held and argued over in the mid 19th century was eerily similar to the debates held during the revolutionary period. The only difference is that the current of statesmanship was stronger in 1770-1795, than from 1850-1875. In my opinion chiefly because they had a far clearer understanding of what truly bad government looked like (The British Parliament). </p><p></p><p>It really all boils down to this. Government by it's nature is eventually corrupt, and always seeks to expand itself. There is not a more consistent theme in history. A well prepared Republic enumerates extreme specifics within its written charter addressing the chief goal of restricting itself. As all governments are ultimately comprised of men, they inevitably have failings. And all men, particularly those who would seek public office, hold strong opinions on certain matters and ultimately the desire to leave a mark (be they pure or impure motives).</p><p></p><p>The larger a land, the greater the opportunity to have diverse representation. Laws made at a national scale inevitably are suggestions of men that are influenced by the culture of their own region. Unfortunately, the ramifications of these laws don't simply effect a region, they effect a nation. And what's good for Texas often is not good for Rhode Island and visa versa. And as our congress has shown with the consistency of the atomic clock: members of our legislative branch rarely collaborate to remove ineffective law, but rather agree to exchange vote on 2 new pieces of legalism. And so regulation expands. Regulation can not expand without a contraction in what is acceptable. And the totality of all those things that you are permitted to do is well summed and defined as.....and it's our favorite buzzword here in the good ole USA.....FREEDOM. You put 535 busy bodies who do well to keep up with and observe the wishes of their constituents much less the needs of the other 434 sub regions of America, failure is not only possible, it's comfortably predictable. Surely men will consider the wishes of those a thousand miles away more so than one individual standing in front of them with a 20 grand handshake. Yeah Uh huh :nod: At least one in 50 will.</p><p></p><p>It is the height of folly to believe that 535 +1 people can ever represent the needs of 330 million. It's the inability of men to practice desired behavior that often leads to the lazy assumption that it's effective to try and regulate to ensure desired behavior. You CAN'T.</p><p></p><p>Government is nasty, evil, and necessary. It's at it's best when it's biggest at home and diminishes in size the further you get from the house. All powers not specifically implied shall reside with the states. :cry2: :help:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Redhides, post: 1035630, member: 20308"] TB....there is no doubt that inconsistencies exist. Both parties violated the Constitution at numerous points during this time. My issue is that once again, government expanded beyond it's intent takes an overreaching measure that it's unauthorized to take. I have serious reservations that the kids that actually wore grey in the war did so to preserve an institution they had no stake in for the sake of men they didn't care for. I also have reservations that men wearing blue would leave home to fight for a cause that didn't exist at the beginning of the war when they themselves often viewed, spoke of, and treated slaves as sub-human. Other than to serve as a mercenary, I can see no reason to leave home for the opportunity to get shot at to preserve a "union". The Confederacy was using scare tactics to rev up momentum for their boys. The Union was pulling guys fresh off the boat from Europe as fast as they could, slapping a blue suit on them, and sending them to Virginia and Pennsylvania before they could grab a cup of coffee and enjoy a bowel movement. It is the utter failure of leadership that the war ever took place. The beliefs held and argued over in the mid 19th century was eerily similar to the debates held during the revolutionary period. The only difference is that the current of statesmanship was stronger in 1770-1795, than from 1850-1875. In my opinion chiefly because they had a far clearer understanding of what truly bad government looked like (The British Parliament). It really all boils down to this. Government by it's nature is eventually corrupt, and always seeks to expand itself. There is not a more consistent theme in history. A well prepared Republic enumerates extreme specifics within its written charter addressing the chief goal of restricting itself. As all governments are ultimately comprised of men, they inevitably have failings. And all men, particularly those who would seek public office, hold strong opinions on certain matters and ultimately the desire to leave a mark (be they pure or impure motives). The larger a land, the greater the opportunity to have diverse representation. Laws made at a national scale inevitably are suggestions of men that are influenced by the culture of their own region. Unfortunately, the ramifications of these laws don't simply effect a region, they effect a nation. And what's good for Texas often is not good for Rhode Island and visa versa. And as our congress has shown with the consistency of the atomic clock: members of our legislative branch rarely collaborate to remove ineffective law, but rather agree to exchange vote on 2 new pieces of legalism. And so regulation expands. Regulation can not expand without a contraction in what is acceptable. And the totality of all those things that you are permitted to do is well summed and defined as.....and it's our favorite buzzword here in the good ole USA.....FREEDOM. You put 535 busy bodies who do well to keep up with and observe the wishes of their constituents much less the needs of the other 434 sub regions of America, failure is not only possible, it's comfortably predictable. Surely men will consider the wishes of those a thousand miles away more so than one individual standing in front of them with a 20 grand handshake. Yeah Uh huh :nod: At least one in 50 will. It is the height of folly to believe that 535 +1 people can ever represent the needs of 330 million. It's the inability of men to practice desired behavior that often leads to the lazy assumption that it's effective to try and regulate to ensure desired behavior. You CAN'T. Government is nasty, evil, and necessary. It's at it's best when it's biggest at home and diminishes in size the further you get from the house. All powers not specifically implied shall reside with the states. :cry2: :help: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Confederate Flag BAN
Top