Is the USA a free country?

[Lucas156]

It looks like this is turning into a pissing match. Obviously, there are multiple ways to get things changed. You can vote, you can protest, you can run for office, you can have intelligent debates in forums or in person even. Who is to say which will be the greater influence? We don't know until we try. Can we debate something else now?

 

[E5RANGER375]

so with all the numbers im seeing in this pole we should see some libertarians get elected in november right? and some democrats and republicans slither home

WAHAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah right. people have the finger strength to be big on the internet but in real life they lack the balls to do whats right.

 

[yepthatsme]

I have been sitting back and reading all of the posts and I would have to agree that it seems everyone has a different opinion. This is our problem. The people or special interest groups that lobby our government officials to advance their issues are organized where as we are not. Instead of everyone trying to fix all of the problems at the same time, we should learn from the opposing side and focus our energy on little changes, working towards a larger goal. We should agree to work on reversing a specific law and take small bites out of it, with the eventual ultimate goal of removing it altogether. If we would agree to work together and gather our numbers, we could make some significant changes in our laws.

There are some that are very sincere about passing legislation to limit our choices and freedoms with the thinking that the laws will be a change for the better. I would agree with them if this was a perfect world, but it's not. So, we must join together as they do, to oppose their efforts and prevent them from passing restrictive laws and remove the laws that already have been passed.

I believe that if each of us just devoted a small amount of time each week towards this effort, we could make some large changes. Just my .

 

[beararms1776]

I wold love to see that and form my own opinion. I have always refused to get into the debate as to whether slavery was the main issue in the Civil War. The benefit of the north winning was the freeing of the slaves. I refuse to believe the majority of free citizens believed slaves should be free based on ethics. Nothing has ever changed in this company in the area of equality without there being a fiscal benefit or punishment.

Also, referencing an earlier post, the flags flown on ships, including slave ships, had to be recognized by England. Those that were not were deemed to be pirates and destroyed.

This is a broad subject and I have various thoughts. Bottom line, just as some wish to put the past behind us, I wish we could just accept our history without attempting to relieve our hearts and minds concerning some of the atrocities that occurred by attempting to find or create a silver lining.

As to the OP, yes, I believe America is a free country. Accountability and punishment results from violating the freedoms we have.

Now that is very well said.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The 3/5ths Compromise was actually an anti-slavery provision in the constitution, in order to reduce the power of the south in terms of representatives in congress.

You're typically spot on, but with this one I disagree. The 3/5 compromise was a boon for the south. It became law after the 1787 Convention (ie the real birth of the nation-the drafting of the original Constitution)

The founders were wise in leaving the slavery issue alone, to be eventually abolished constitutionally, on the state level.

In keeping the young nation together, I agree, not addressing slavery was a smart idea however, it severely weakened the idea the nation was founded upon.

 

[Kutnupe14]

que, I will get back to you with the references, you have my word. England did recognize the confederacy and England wanted the south to win, but the south ran out of gold so the weapons and support stopped.
If nothing else, I think its important that we at least know the TRUTH behind our history. no matter how wrong we were or right in doing things we as a nation did. the truth of it deserves to be told. not just the PC version of the victor. I do not believe slavery was right at all, but Im also judging it with a 20th & 21st century mind. Some people in the world still eat human flesh because they havent been modernized. I dont judge them for it by 21st century laws.
another misconception in America, is that although only about 10% of americans are related to any of the original colonist, a lot more think they are. just like a lot of blacks think they are related to slaves just because they are black. its simply a misconception that no one cares to disprove. just like I want to know and do know who my ancestors were, I also wanna know as many details about my countries history as possible, and the truth, not just whats printed in school books that are corrupted versions of the truth.

Whoa there... outside of Africans and those from the Caribbean, what blacks don't have a connection to slavery? Your comparison of original colonists to slaves isn't valid. Everyone is familiar (I hope) with the droves upon droves of European immigrants that entered the nation throughout our history. Africans/Caribbeans however were purposefully excluded from that number due to US immigration policy. So where did they come from? Nowhere, they were already here. After the end of the Civil War, there was no substantial immigration of blacks until the early 1970s. I imagine that if that's when black immigration "spiked," those persons would be well aware of their heritage.

 

[Garb]

so with all the numbers im seeing in this pole we should see some libertarians get elected in november right? and some democrats and republicans slither home

WAHAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah right. people have the finger strength to be big on the internet but in real life they lack the balls to do whats right.

Take this last election. There were actually quite a few people on here b****ing because some libertarian candidates stole votes from the "conservative" republican candidates in the state elections. You also had some people who were saying they just voted for the Republican because they knew they were more likely to win. Now I'm not one to vote for someone just because they say they're a libertarian, but too many people vote for candidates because they're "more likely to win." In some cases that might be warranted, but if people would start voting on their principles, then we would stand a much better chance. Even if a libertarian did cause a republican to lose a race, people might think "woah, a third party beat out the republican candidate, maybe we should check them out." Just my .

 

[dross]

You're typically spot on, but with this one I disagree. The 3/5 compromise was a boon for the south. It became law after the 1787 Convention (ie the real birth of the nation-the drafting of the original Constitution)
.

How was it a boon for the South? The Southern states wanted slaves to count as full person for purposes of apportionment. Three fifths was a compromise.

 

[dross]

Take this last election. There were actually quite a few people on here b****ing because some libertarian candidates stole votes from the "conservative" republican candidates in the state elections. You also had some people who were saying they just voted for the Republican because they knew they were more likely to win. Now I'm not one to vote for someone just because they say they're a libertarian, but too many people vote for candidates because they're "more likely to win." In some cases that might be warranted, but if people would start voting on their principles, then we would stand a much better chance. Even if a libertarian did cause a republican to lose a race, people might think "woah, a third party beat out the republican candidate, maybe we should check them out." Just my .

You're assuming that if "people voted their principles" libertarians would be elected. I don't think so.

Also, it's not about "voting for someone who will win" it's about getting the lesser of two evils. If voting for a Libertarian will cause a greater evil to be elected and the Libertarian can't win, then I won't vote for the Libertarian.

Now, some see both large parties as equally evil. If you truly see it that way, vote Libertarian. I don't see it that way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How was it a boon for the South? The Southern states wanted slaves to count as full person for purposes of apportionment. Three fifths was a compromise.

How? You have an entire segment of the populace that didnt vote or have rights, and yet 5 slaves counted as 3 persons which translated to more representation in Congress.
Look at it this way, should illegals be counted in terms of representation in Congress now? If they were, wouldn't that be a "boon" politically for the states that gained increased influence for an entire group that doesnt have the power to vote?

The Southern slaveholding States wanted to count slaves as full persons, the non slaveholding states didnt want them considered in any fashion. The South came out with the win with the 3/5 "Compromise."... which occurred specifically to ensure that the South ratified the Constitution.

Based on this "representation," the South dominated national politics for some time after the initial ratification.

 

[Plinker]

so with all the numbers im seeing in this pole we should see some libertarians get elected in november right? and some democrats and republicans slither home

WAHAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah right. people have the finger strength to be big on the internet but in real life they lack the balls to do whats right.

How could Nixon have won? Everyone I know voted for McGovern.

 

[Garb]

You're assuming that if "people voted their principles" libertarians would be elected. I don't think so.

Also, it's not about "voting for someone who will win" it's about getting the lesser of two evils. If voting for a Libertarian will cause a greater evil to be elected and the Libertarian can't win, then I won't vote for the Libertarian.

Now, some see both large parties as equally evil. If you truly see it that way, vote Libertarian. I don't see it that way.

Maybe, maybe not. I know plenty of people who are ready for government officials who aren't constantly growing the size of government, and not in somebody's pocket. I'm not saying libertarians are perfect, but the overall philosophy of the libertarian philosophy steers away from that type of thing. Anyways, those people I mentioned aren't always aware of libertarians, or they only watch one news source (Fox, CNN, or MSNBC), or sometimes they're just around people who engrain a certain thought process into their brain. I think a lot more people would adopt the libertarian philosophy if they were exposed to it, and saw some of the problems that big government is creating in areas where they thought it was helping. Not that you aren't right by any means, but if the American people were to be truly educated on ALL the issues, I think more people would definitely lean in the right direction at least. Geez this is a long winded post, I'm going to drink a coke now.

 

[rambone]

You're typically spot on, but with this one I disagree. The 3/5 compromise was a boon for the south. It became law after the 1787 Convention (ie the real birth of the nation-the drafting of the original Constitution)

How? You have an entire segment of the populace that didnt vote or have rights, and yet 5 slaves counted as 3 persons which translated to more representation in Congress.
Look at it this way, should illegals be counted in terms of representation in Congress now? If they were, wouldn't that be a "boon" politically for the states that gained increased influence for an entire group that doesnt have the power to vote?

The Southern slaveholding States wanted to count slaves as full persons, the non slaveholding states didnt want them considered in any fashion. The South came out with the win with the 3/5 "Compromise."... which occurred specifically to ensure that the South ratified the Constitution.

I just pointed that out because the types of people who hate our founders will point out, with scorn, that the founders only viewed a slave as 3/5ths of a person. The truth is that compromise represented a political battle over the congressional power of the slave states. Letting the South have full representation from the slave population, while appearing more Politically Correct to the modern liberal, would have been a win for slavery. It was a compromise; the north would have preferred that slave populations added no representation in congress, ironically.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I just pointed that out because the types of people who hate our founders will point out, with scorn, that the founders only viewed a slave as 3/5ths of a person. The truth is that compromise represented a political battle over the congressional power of the slave states. Letting the South have full representation from the slave population, while appearing more Politically Correct to the modern liberal, would have been a win for slavery. It was a compromise; the north would have preferred that slave populations added no representation in congress, ironically.

Ah gotcha. That clarification makes better sense. In that regard I certainly agree. It was either 3/5s or no nation.

 

[sensationals]

i must be cynical but if we went to the streets to protest for change and held our ground i believe our government would take up arms agains us

 

[Kutnupe14]

i must be cynical but if we went to the streets to protest for change and held our ground i believe our government would take up arms agains us

Example?

 

[dross]

How? You have an entire segment of the populace that didnt vote or have rights, and yet 5 slaves counted as 3 persons which translated to more representation in Congress.
Look at it this way, should illegals be counted in terms of representation in Congress now? If they were, wouldn't that be a "boon" politically for the states that gained increased influence for an entire group that doesnt have the power to vote?

The Southern slaveholding States wanted to count slaves as full persons, the non slaveholding states didnt want them considered in any fashion. The South came out with the win with the 3/5 "Compromise."... which occurred specifically to ensure that the South ratified the Constitution.

Based on this "representation," the South dominated national politics for some time after the initial ratification.

This is a glass half empty or half full argument, but I get your point. It was a boon for the south if you if you assume the North could have won the battle of slaves not counting at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is a glass half empty or half full argument, but I get your point. It was a boon for the south if you if you assume the North could have won the battle of slaves not counting at all.

True, but honestly, slaves shouldn't have been counted at all. So anything given to South which consider slaves as part of representation was a positive.
The 3/5 Compromise directly affected the Southern domination of the USSC and Presidency. Jefferson, Madison, and Van Buren all owe their elections to the 3/5. It also factored heavily in the Missouri Compromise, The Kansas Nebraska Act, and the Compromise of 1850.... Had 3/5's not been enacted, the pro-slavery provisions with those events would have easily been excluded by northern interests.

 

[mrjarrell]

Example?

How about the Bonus Army marchers? The government went after them like rabid dogs. There have been numerous other times where soldiers have fired on civilians. Kent State comes to mind.
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SGT Bull]

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe