Forum Thread

Is This Statement Factual

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 26 of 26 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    GemsWoven: The North was blockcading the southern seaports to prevent the south from selling the raw cotton to England at a higher price. We have a habit of making ourselves look good when it comes to history. I have been under yhe impression that everyone knew the real reason. We had discussions in high school US History on the subject in the 1950's.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jperry Wrote: GemsWoven: The North was blockcading the southern seaports to prevent the south from selling the raw cotton to England at a higher price. We have a habit of making ourselves look good when it comes to history. I have been under yhe impression that everyone knew the real reason. We had discussions in high school US History on the subject in the 1950's.
    The blockade came after hostilities began. The south hated tariffs and wanted free trade. The south should be happy today.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Gems,
    Not sure if they're happy but they sure are proud. That's why they still fly and display "Their" flag. In all of it's bigoted glory. I don't think many rejoined the north after the war. They just quit fighting.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: Gems,
    Not sure if they're happy but they sure are proud. That's why they still fly and display "Their" flag. In all of it's bigoted glory. I don't think many rejoined the north after the war. They just quit fighting.
    And when they scream "states rights" they should wink since we all know what that is code for.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    GemsWoven Wrote:
    TJ Wrote: Gems,
    Not sure if they're happy but they sure are proud. That's why they still fly and display "Their" flag. In all of it's bigoted glory. I don't think many rejoined the north after the war. They just quit fighting.
    And when they scream "states rights" they should wink since we all know what that is code for.
    As an old Dutchman I looked at the US from overseas; I was always surprised to statements: "I'm from Texas etc" In the Netherlands they say; "I'm from the Netherlands and live in Gelderland (province)". So here it is not the USA, but the state what counts. My feeling is with a lot of things here that from state to state indeed the old confederate lines are still in place. That is also a main reason why the federal government system does not work here; way too much polarization because of the only two party system. Polarization is just about the same as it was South versus North; Radicals versus moderates. As long as all the states can create their own laws; this never will be a coherent country which can be centraly governed.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    When I was over seas and one of the locals asked me what nationality I was, I answered that I was Filipino and Cuban, and then he asked me which island I was born on and I would say I was born in the United States and then he told me" Oh your an American", I was embarrassed because he didn't know that I just realized then that I thought more of my heratige than my nationality. So now when asked I say American.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, things are getting better. In the 1950's just driving cross country was an experience. The laws of the road varied from state to state. Care was advised to any driver from the north while in southern states. The southern states had a reputation for using traffic violations as income. I can remember, while keeping up with traffic, being pulled over and given a ticket for speeding. That was usually handled by a Justice of the Peace and carried a $10.00 fine plus a court cost of from $15.00 to $25.00. The tactic I ever came across was driving from San Antonio to Corpus Christi. A high speed limit was posted and a local police signaling me to pull over. Another ticket for speeding. He did point to an additional sign with a 30 mph speed limit which was positioned so that it would not be seen due to a bill board blocking it to south bound cars. The distance between the two speed limit signs would require the braking ability of a present day F1 car for deceleration.
    There still are many differences between some states but far fewer today than back then.
    Many things are still controlled by states which should be handled at the national level, Drivers Licenses being one, health insurance presented a problem for a while as you had to be in a certain state or group of states in order to receive benefits a condition which was corrected in the 1960’s I believe.
    I believed that much more should be taken care of at the National rather than State for a long time. What we see happening in Congress has caused me to change my mind. It wouldn’t be bad if the Department or Agency which is tasked in that area to set National Rules and Regs but if Congress is involved . . . I don’t even want to think of how screwed up they would make things.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes the argument against states rights has one huge obstacle: Congress.

    Jperry has it right, as bad as Congress screws up things now can you just imagine the damage they would inflict if they had even MORE control over us? Dutch and pgr and you others who think the feds should have even more control...just think about who you would hand that control to.

    If we had a decent, functional Congress, and we all know that we don't then maybe your argument would make sense.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: Yes the argument against states rights has one huge obstacle: Congress.

    Jperry has it right, as bad as Congress screws up things now can you just imagine the damage they would inflict if they had even MORE control over us? Dutch and pgr and you others who think the feds should have even more control...just think about who you would hand that control to.

    If we had a decent, functional Congress, and we all know that we don't then maybe your argument would make sense.
    Yeah, may be make Micky Mouse president; sorry to say I do not see another solution then to have a revolution and start from schratch.
    The point is, as long as our laws are the way they are and no term limits nor performance goals are set; nor lobbying is allowed or kickbacks, then things will stay as they are; until when? I have no idea. If we keep electing representatives who only are interested in themselves and their backpockets, then they do not represent us. May be in the Netherlands it does not work optimal either, but the one's elected know they get only a reasonable salary; that is it. No lobbying or election donors/funds. etc. and term applicable limits apply. Furthermore about 10 to11 parties, so you get a good mixture, less polarization. Actually here it is more like the old castle lords who refuse to leave their castles; only if you bribe them may be.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I do not see a way to get the Nation going in the PROPER direction. (I find it difficult to use that "R" word to imply the Right Direction). The GOP and Tea Party want us to turn Right, the Democrats want us to turn Left. There are actually a few acceptable ideas coming from both sides but the inability for them to do what the Constitution directs them to do will not allow these to be considered.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm afraid that we'll continue to go 4 - 8 years in one direction... then 4 - 8 years in the opposite direction without any significant progress on any issues. Instead just parties trying to undo what the opposing party previously did. What a shame. If it didn't cost a billion dollars to run, and if you didn't need a majority of senators or congress to back your ideas........it would be damned refreshing to have a legitimate 3rd party.