|
|
Post by jayohen on Nov 16, 2012 18:15:26 GMT -8
The full title is: "Better Off Without 'em: A Northern Manifesto For Souther Secession".
It's preaching to the choir for me, but it lays out just how different we are and that the south is a drag on the rest of our economy. I heard the author interviewed on the radio recently. He makes his points well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxflex on Nov 18, 2012 4:20:10 GMT -8
In giving this some deep thought ... New York (the city) and Calif. plus Chicago. While there might be others, theses 3 seem to be a big drain on the rest of America. Not just in funding, but in special treatment received. Anyone ever think about where Southern Calif gets its water from? Chicago, I lived there for a year, very corrupt city. And then New York City. During the 1970s, New York City became over-extended and entered a period of financial crisis. In 1975 President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the city.But this is about Northern greed. Where it seems as if a southern secession is favored by the north. Funny, last time we tried that the north started a war. But if you can give me your word, and the word of all Northern's,. Then I would agree that the South (or any state so choosing) should be allowed to leave the Union. After all, it would make for easy takeover of America. And if the south is no longer a part of America then it would be the Northern people fighting terrorism alone. Still, it would be a pain for me to need a passport to visit the places I enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Nov 18, 2012 9:19:31 GMT -8
Exactly. The South has been raped and pillaged enough by the North. If they will take Maryland this time and stay on their side of the line, then we will stay here except for visits to our grandchildren.
We all lost a lot of rights because of Northern Aggression.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayohen on Nov 18, 2012 11:23:30 GMT -8
did you read on by following the link withing that quote you gave? "All the loans, loan premiums and fees have since been repaid." I don't think that's the case with all the federal funding the red states have received in excess of what they have contributed to society. But this is about Northern greed. Where it seems as if a southern secession is favored by the north. Funny, last time we tried that the north started a war. I see...the north started a war by firing on Fort Sumter. The treasonous south started the war the north simply finished it. Another way of looking at it is like a child (the south) throwing a tantrum, the child lashed out and struck the adult, the adult then had to spank the child |
|
|
|
Post by jayohen on Nov 18, 2012 11:26:54 GMT -8
Exactly. The South has been raped and pillaged enough by the North. If they will take Maryland this time and stay on their side of the line, then we will stay here except for visits to our grandchildren. We all lost a lot of rights because of Northern Aggression. Raped and pillaged? really? all those federal tax dollars y'all take and what have we taken? Your obesity? your shorter average life-span? your lower average income? your lower education? your higher infant mortality rates? Again, this 'northern aggression' you whine about is a joke, you started it, we stopped it....and we stopped slavery in the bargain...sorry to infringe on your 'States rights' with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxflex on Nov 18, 2012 19:08:06 GMT -8
did you read on by following the link withing that quote you gave? "All the loans, loan premiums and fees have since been repaid." I don't think that's the case with all the federal funding the red states have received in excess of what they have contributed to society. But this is about Northern greed. Where it seems as if a southern secession is favored by the north. Funny, last time we tried that the north started a war. I see...the north started a war by firing on Fort Sumter. The treasonous south started the war the north simply finished it. Another way of looking at it is like a child (the south) throwing a tantrum, the child lashed out and struck the adult, the adult then had to spank the child ~chuckle~ And could New York have had money to borrow if the south was not a part of the union? But that is still overlooking the fact of how badly New York ms-manage there funding. What you think is an adult was really a bully at the time. You may need to study history a bit more. But in any case, please come with facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxflex on Nov 18, 2012 19:32:21 GMT -8
Exactly. The South has been raped and pillaged enough by the North. If they will take Maryland this time and stay on their side of the line, then we will stay here except for visits to our grandchildren. We all lost a lot of rights because of Northern Aggression. Raped and pillaged? really? all those federal tax dollars y'all take and what have we taken? Your obesity? your shorter average life-span? your lower average income? your lower education? your higher infant mortality rates?Again, this 'northern aggression' you whine about is a joke, you started it, we stopped it....and we stopped slavery in the bargain...sorry to infringe on your 'States rights' with that. The war did infringe on state rights. And if you know history you would also know the North ... sigh ... Sorry, forgot who I was talking with. If you do not like what someone says, then they, of course, must be wrong. It’s a familiar chronology: Under the terms of the First Confiscation Act of August 1861, disloyal masters would “forfeit” the use of their slaves, but the slaves were not actually freed. Lincoln ordered General John C. Frémont to rescind his decree of that September freeing the slaves of rebels in Missouri, and several months later the President rescinded General Hunter’s order abolishing slavery in three states. As late as the summer of 1862, we are reminded, Lincoln was writing letters to Horace Greeley saying that if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so. Even after the President finally promised an emancipation proclamation, in September 1862, several months elapsed until the proclamation actually came on 1 January 1863.
Only then, according to the standard narrative, was the North committed to emancipation. Only then did the purpose of the Civil War expand from the mere restoration of the Union to include the overthrow of slavery. Funny as time goes by, how what started the war changes. In fact, since we all know the winner writes the history, I am a bit surprise to find any information which admits slavery was not the start of the war. |
|
|
|
Post by george1861 on Nov 18, 2012 20:02:52 GMT -8
It’s a familiar chronology: Under the terms of the First Confiscation Act of August 1861, disloyal masters would “forfeit” the use of their slaves, but the slaves were not actually freed. Lincoln ordered General John C. Frémont to rescind his decree of that September freeing the slaves of rebels in Missouri, and several months later the President rescinded General Hunter’s order abolishing slavery in three states. As late as the summer of 1862, we are reminded, Lincoln was writing letters to Horace Greeley saying that if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so. Even after the President finally promised an emancipation proclamation, in September 1862, several months elapsed until the proclamation actually came on 1 January 1863. Only then, according to the standard narrative, was the North committed to emancipation. Only then did the purpose of the Civil War expand from the mere restoration of the Union to include the overthrow of slavery. [/link] Funny as time goes by, how what started the war changes. In fact, since we all know the winner writes the history, I am a bit surprise to find any information which admits slavery was not the start of the war. [/quote]Even then he only "freed" slaves that were in another Country, those slaves in the US, or in US controlled parts of another Country, were unaffected & still slaves. Slaves in Maryland, NJ, NY, De & Pa wern't freed untill the Constitution was amended, & that took 2 or 3 trys with only Yankee States in the Govt. |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Nov 18, 2012 20:11:00 GMT -8
Actually, the north was NOT for emancipation. Not all of them, anyway. The northern Democrats were the most ardent supporters of slavery. They were NOT pacifists, either. They wanted the wealth of the south, which they stole in the war, and ruined our economy. Reconstruction was a joke. Our agrarian way of life was never restored, and has led directly to the poverty of the south as well as the breakdown of the family. The North gave the South a choice: Abandon your private property that has been in your family since the early days of America and move to the Northern cites to work in factories that abused workers, or stay on your own land and be poor because industry has to be near sea ports, not up in the Appalachians.
The egalitarian faith traditions, and the Republicans were able to convince enough Democrats to support the full abolition of slavery that the 13th Amendment was passed in Congress. Enough southern states ratified the amendment that it eventually became law.
You can go on and on all you want about how liberal you are, but please remember the most ardent racists were and are Democrats. They are the ones who are determined to insist that there is a class system here and they are the ones who are determined to stir up racial hatred and class warfare.
Have you ever noticed that the air and water around a working farm is cleaner than in an industrial town? Whose lifestyle is more environmentally friendly, hmmmmm?
|
|
|
|
Post by jayohen on Nov 18, 2012 21:39:03 GMT -8
did you read on by following the link withing that quote you gave? "All the loans, loan premiums and fees have since been repaid." I don't think that's the case with all the federal funding the red states have received in excess of what they have contributed to society. I see...the north started a war by firing on Fort Sumter. The treasonous south started the war the north simply finished it. Another way of looking at it is like a child (the south) throwing a tantrum, the child lashed out and struck the adult, the adult then had to spank the child ~chuckle~ And could New York have had money to borrow if the south was not a part of the union? But that is still overlooking the fact of how badly New York ms-manage there funding. You're moaning about a loan that was taken out and paid back 30+ years ago, the south has been on the dole from the rest of us a lot longer than that- for much more money What you think is an adult was really a bully at the time. yeah, that's what the spanked child would say. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxflex on Nov 19, 2012 6:49:36 GMT -8
~chuckle~ And could New York have had money to borrow if the south was not a part of the union? But that is still overlooking the fact of how badly New York ms-manage there funding. You're moaning about a loan that was taken out and paid back 30+ years ago, the south has been on the dole from the rest of us a lot longer than that- for much more money What you think is an adult was really a bully at the time. yeah, that's what the spanked child would say. The south pays in ... the government made a deal to help the lower income states. So what is your beef? This is just what Obama wants. But, if we want to take a different tack. The south was raped and pillage and this is just our fair return. Or the abuse adult. Again, learn history. |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Nov 19, 2012 8:01:42 GMT -8
And let's remember that it was the Democrats who kept schools segregated so blacks were warehoused in substandard schools. Poor education meant they were not qualified for better jobs. The south was tossed a lot of bones in the form of subsidized housing and whatnot, but it has not broken the cycle of poverty that began with the War of Northern Aggression.
Johnson's War on Poverty did nothing to bring about real and lasting change. It only allowed poverty to become a way of life and define survival as having stuff. Survival and success depend on change beginning in the heart and life of the individual. Property ownership and real, upwardly-mobile work are better solutions than an automatic check in the mailbox.
In my opinion, the determination of Democrats to funnel money to so-called poverty projects are nothing more than Jim Crow laws in sheep's clothing. Democratic leadership does not want to rub shoulders with poor blacks. The swoop in and promise free stuff, then rush home to their suburban enclaves. If they lived in my neighborhood for one month, they might begin to have a clue.
As to the obesity rates, you can lay that at the foot of government as well. With free lunches available everywhere, and free dinners at schools across the south, poor people are fed a steady diet of over processed, starchy, high-fat foods. I have watched family after family of poor immigrants move into my neighborhood. Their kids are undersized and malnourished. Within a year on that public school garbage breakfasts, lunches, and dinners, the children are bordering on obesity. Fortunately it's not as bad in my neighborhood because we all own our homes and we are pretty much free from zoning restrictions. We can have gardens, and many people do. The lady across the street has the most amazing garden in her front yard. Not something one can do in public housing or the new subsidized communities where there are restrictions. It's something that has been lost in the generations growing up in the shadow of government.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Dec 19, 2012 7:13:21 GMT -8
And let's remember that it was the Democrats who kept schools segregated so blacks were warehoused in substandard schools. Poor education meant they were not qualified for better jobs. And let's not forget, the North's champion, Abe Lincoln, wanted to bundle all the blacks back onto the wooden ships they came here on and ship them to Liberia, Africa! (And yes, I say that as a proud Northerner and huge Lincoln fan.) |
|
