Oh my gosh, a politician framing a discussion in political terms favorable at the moment. That's never happened before or since.

Government support is a major reason why we HAVE stupid lazy people.

Or, as Stefan Molyneux would put it, "The government is a transfer payment system from us to single mothers". And oh, by the way, 80% of rapists are the offspring of single mothers.

Government support is a major reason why we HAVE stupid lazy people.

Or, as Stefan Molyneux would put it, "The government is a transfer payment system from us to single mothers". And oh, by the way, 80% of rapists are the offspring of single mothers.

Government support is a major reason why we HAVE stupid lazy people.

Or, as Stefan Molyneux would put it, "The government is a transfer payment system from us to single mothers". And oh, by the way, 80% of rapists are the offspring of single mothers.

The same argument can be made with regard to almost any freedom. Some speech hurts others. Some religions are antithetical to other religions. Some guns are used to kill innocents.

But today, we don't even hold people accountable when they're caught, and there's a sliding scale standard depending on who the defendant is. (Take the recent drag-racing arrest of Justin Bieber… puh-lease!)

As for drunk drivers/meth tweakers killing others… in many cases it's after multiple arrests.

Even more surprising (given the Obama administrations' "war on guns") is the fact that over 70,000 people a year lie on the background check forms to buy guns. That's a crime. How many prosecutions are there? Fewer than 20.

I suspect that the process of drunk/tweaker killing someone generally includes many prior arrests for related crimes where trivial sentences were imposed.

Jackson did not kill three-quarters of a million people.

Lincoln did.

Lincoln's only interest in slavery was as it affected his ability to enslave the South ("Save the Union").

In his own words...
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." - Lincoln

Of course, the reason for the War was not to free anyone initially. It was only when it looked like Lincoln might lose the war that he tried to foment a "fifth column" by "freeing" slaves in the South. Of course, he did not free any slaves in any of the areas under Northern control. The Emancipation proclamation is quite clear about that. IIRC, two entire slave-holding states were under Northern control. Lincoln freed those slaves? NOT!

We think of WWI, WWII and Vietnam as huge wastes of lives, and yet none of them come close to Lincoln's carnage. Sherman was of course ordered to burn and sack everything in his march to the sea, but what is not generally recorded in the Yankee history books is the fact that all the other Yankee generals were under similar orders to destroy the lives of civilians. These war crimes extended to looting towns of everything the Northern armies could use and carry away - food, livestock, valuables. What could not be stolen was destroyed. Things like mirrors and pianos were routinely hauled out into the town squares and smashed for the pure meanness of it. More critically, any livestock not stolen was usually killed. Fields were burned. Mill stones were smashed. (Modern people can scarcely appreciate the importance of this, but without the millstone, there was no mill. Without the mill, no bread.) Even fence posts were ripped up and fences destroyed and when entire towns were burned to the ground, the only thing left was "Sherman's Sentinels", the naked fireplaces standing in silhouette looking a bit like soldiers on guard duty.

Lincoln routinely ordered his generals to commit war crimes. And he waged a form of war on the people of the North as well, suppressing free speech, suspending habeas corpus, even driving elected legislators out of the Country.

Lincoln was evil. But if you can imagine Stalin or Hitler winning out, and their supporters crafting history for the next 50 years, you can see how such a POS was canonized in an age where data flowed at a trickle compared to today.

Make no mistake - the man responsible for killing more than 1 in every 50 people was a monster with nothing whatsoever to recommend him. (Killing on a proportional scale today would involved the deaths of more than 7 MILLION people.)

It seems that we have the same view. The original comment was basically that regardless of governmental action there will always be problems. To which I responded that "Life's not fair." Which is a shorter way of saying that if you believe that life IS fair, you are going to be in for a whole lot of disappointment as you will find that that isn't true. And the sooner one comes to that realization, the sooner that they will understand that they shouldn't be looking for someone to "make it fair" and deal with the world as it is.
I'm no leftie socialist, rather a Constitutional Libertarian.

Not true.

Lincoln made all the others abuses possible. And he killed more than 750,000 people in his quest for control of the South.

He stands as the single most rapacious and despotic president in the history of America.

As for "letting it go" - you are perfectly welcome to carve a hole in your brain and forget history. I choose otherwise. Much of what is wrong with America today is a direct result of Lincoln's War.

Even more to the point, if secession wasn't mentioned, then it was retained, under the 9th and 10th Amendments, to the States or the People.

Here's what the average American today seems to miss: It's not that the Feral Government has powers only limited by the prohibitions in the Constitution, rather, the Feral Government ONLY legitimately exercises those powers specifically granted in the Constitution. Waging war to prevent states from secession? Not in the Constitution, therefore, not a legitimate power of the Feral Government.

The Federal Government was formed by the states. What state would join a union if one of the terms was that, no matter how abused they may be by the Feds, they could not leave? The States and the People are superior to the Federal Government and have determined those specific areas of where the Feds may legitimately exercise power. The fact that the Feds routinely go well beyond this grant of authority is one of the best arguments available for a Second American Revolution.

So, what I said, in more blunt language, was essentially what Rozar said. So why the hate?

So that's how they invented the bloomin' onion...