back to the original topic. apparently there have been a huge number of cases so far where jobs that were reported as being saved included schools and other public entities simply paying payroll for jobs that were not in any real danger of being lost even going as far as to say that giving someone a raise was in fact saving a job. dont get me wrong i am loving this website! its just the reality of government ineptitude that it brings to light that i find frustrating.

If you don't know, then probably none. Any infractions you've ever gotten will be listed on your User CP under Latest Infractions Received. I probably wouldn't know either if I didn't have an (expired, but completely deserved) infraction for posting a useless thread.

I already made the main point of contention clear. States' rights. Of course southern states that believed they were entitled to keep and use slaves were wrong.

And, yes, I know Michael has asked things I haven't answered. One post I missed until somebody, probably you, quoted his second post asking for answers and the other one I just haven't gotten to yet. Sorry but, seriously, I get really drained during the week and just don't feel like expanding my arguments and discussion any further when I just don't have the energy. Plus I'm f'ing with Christmas decorations now too.

So yeah, the state's rights argument really boils down to slavery. It's not that they didn't think slavery should be abolished.... it's that they didn't want the ****in yanks telling them to do it. Right?

*sigh*

I think what Wookie is saying is that states' rights are important, but that slavery wouldn't be considered one of those rights.

It's because measuring jobs "created or saved" is impossible. The government (either by mistake or by intention, I don't know) really didn't attach to many strings to the stimulus money, so a lot of people just did with it what they please, which was most likely padding their more productive employees.

The states' rights argument is the only one that even comes close to not being about slavery. Trouble is, it's circular. The main right being contested was the right to secede, and even though most southerners bill the Civil War as 'northern aggression' they were the ones who started it.

It's not like the government was going to actually ban slavery, anyway. IIRC they were all just pissy because they couldn't use slave labor in the new land grab states that were opening up.

Absolutely. That is what makes my "states' rights" views hard to swallow in this particular discussion because I obviously don't believe the states had a constitutionally protected right to keep slaves so there would be no legal justification to support secession. But it seems that a negative result of the Northern victory is a sense of diminished states' rights. Don't mistake that opinion for a desire for the Civil War to actually have ended with a different result, though.

Now, the admonishment of states' rights has continued to what we now see as an incremental and ever continuing nationalization of practically everything. That is what I believe is absolutely contrary to the role of a federal government as is outlined in our constitution. That is why I say everything B. Hussein Obama is doing seems to be unconstitutional in my view (this is meant to at least partially address some of Michael questions).

For some reason some members here interpret comments such as these from me to mean that I have no problem when Republicans are doing the same things. That is absolutely false and I am very critical of my party when they are not acting conservative on various issues.

What exactly has been nationalised?

Again, can you articulate that diminishing of states' rights in terms of specific rights that were infringed upon as a result of the Civil War? Because it appears to me that the Civil War was chiefly fought over "rights" that the states never really had anyway.