You are horrible at formulating arguments. Disliking bigotry and discrimination isn't the same as slavery. Following LAWS and SOCIAL NORMS isn't slavery. To compare the two is like derp level 9000!!!!!

An insurrection need not seek to gain control of a capital city. It was a group that formed against and actively defied federal authority, started building an Army, and had seized fort after fort, federal installation after federal installation. That's an insurrection.

Yeah - you would TOTALLY be fine with MLK, right? If it was MLK all these people bagging on Tubman would be totally cool with MLK. All he people saying, "It's Obama and BLM and SJW forcing them to change our money! It's all PC bullshit!" wouldn't say the EXACT SAME THING with MLK?

HAHAHAHAHA. Right.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

And that's why a lot of people don't take issue with it............but...........the South didn't want to take overall control of the U.S. government.........they wanted to split off and secede more than anything from what I have read.

They formed a new capitol and had their own president, etc.

Which is JUST AS STUPID of a reason. People not liking something because the left likes it are acting like children.

I still think this is a better choice:

Speaking of same old  - the South wasn't an "armed insurrection".  It was a secession.  A right they had to exercise.  It became an armed struggle when the United States, in contravention of its founding documents, decided to forcibly prevent that.



One of us is unable ...

"Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln."

Words mean things.

Whatever happened to that clown?

It was not defying Federal authority - the Federal government had no authority to prevent a State from leaving the Union.

Of course, I could be wrong - you could easily prove it by quoting the relevant portions of the Constitution and its ratification documents that prevent a State from seceding or grant tot he federal government to authority to prevent such an action.  You've yet to do so.

That doesn't seem very fair, as I've pointed out numerous times where States such as New York and Virginia reserved the right to leave the Union when they wished.

I firmly believe, and the quote you made from Lincoln above adds credence to this.....................Lincoln thought there simply could not be a U.S. country without the South.

It would not be the U.S. any longer and the South was viewed in his mind as so important to our existence and continued survival that they COULD NOT be allowed to secede.

I agree with him on that.

Do you agree and, if so, does that reduce your hatred of him a bit?

“America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed.” - Harriet Tubman

The legal issue of whether and how a state could secede was being debated... the reality of those states who claimed to right were amassing an Army and seizing federal property was not.

No, I do not agree.  Lincoln took the oath of office.  In doing so, he agreed to conduct the leadership of the executive branch in accordance with the Constitution and the ratification documents.

He even paid lip service to the same in his letter to Horace Greeley.

However, I can find no grant of authority for him to "preserve the Union". In fact, the proposition makes no sense!  It is a VOLUNTARY and REVOCABLE membership - were it not, the States would never have joined in the first place!


The "continued existence" of the United States is not one of the purposes of the United States.  Should the States, or even an "irreplaceable portion" of States chose to revoke their membership therein, it is no business of ANY PART of the government, Executive Branch included, to resort to force to attempt to prevent it.

To posit otherwise is to assert that Columbia Record House has the authority to force me to continue to buy the monthly selection, even if I wish to stop being a member.

the most common definition of an insurrection defines it as taking control of a government, which the south did not seek to do.  Likewise we did not seek to overthrow King George and Parliament.

There is no debate.  Perhaps you didn't read the ratification documents of New York and Virginia the many times I posted them.  There is no more debate about the right of secession than there is about the right of bearing arms - they are both spelled out in black and white.


And they were trying to peacefully negotiate their departure and pay for the Federal property that was within them - they were rejected.  You forgot that too.

Dick Heller believed he had the right to own a gun, and was ultimately proven correct. That doesn't mean that had he opted to express his rights by standing in his yard threatening people with an AR that he wouldn't have found himself rendered dead as the result of law enforcement action.

Fair enough..........you would not have liked me as president either because the South was too important to allow secession...........it would have destroyed us as a nation.

I would have viewed it as a survival issue and worthy of taking extreme measures that are arguably outside the confines of the Constitution.  

A bit off topic but I have some questions that have always mystified me a bit.....................

Why do you think the SCOTUS ruled after the Civil War that secession is not available (in essence) to the states?

Why was that rule not in place beforehand?

How could something that important go unanswered for so long?

I really don't know the answers.

Was there are was there not different opinion as the time as to whether secession was legal?

What mechanism does the Constitution offer to States to resolve such disputes?

What mechanism did the "Confederacy" opt for?

Who's that white lady?

Are you even remotely trying to follow what I'm saying, slugger?  I'm not a bible thumper, far from it, I'm agnostic.  If there's a God, fine, but I need more proof than what's coming from some televangelist asking me for money.  

That said I am also a libertarian, meaning that everyone has the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights.  You can argue until that cow Hillary Clinton comes home but the fact still remains those bakers had religious principles that dissuaded them from being involved in the gay community, and by the gov't fining them for refusing to do it it's the same thing as the gov't insisting the baker's religious beliefs are wrong.  Yes it very much is a 1st amendment issue.

What should have happened is exactly what did happen: the locals organized a boycott and they went out of business.  I have no problem with that- it's capitalism 101 to accommodate your clientele, and if you don't you lose their business.  The locals made their point and the bakers were able to stick with their religious beliefs.  But NOPE the gov't said that wasn't good enough because the gov't should be the one who controls everything, not the public, so they whack then with a $50,000 fine AND a gag order demanding they can't tell their side of the story.  How on Earth can you say this isn't a 1st amendment issue?

It seems the biggest proponents of Liberty are also the ones most interested in restricting it for others.

This.  I would put money on the sum knowledge of Harriet Tubman by the 'Tards being "She's black, she's a woman, and something something helped slaves escape something".

I am a libertarian too, and  Christian. Discrimination DOES infringe on people's rights.  THAT is what you don't get. Have you not read your history books? People were A-OK with systematic segregation, exclusion, and discrimination until laws were made to enforce equality. Capitalism is not the great equalizer. Far from it. So while people can be bigots all they want in their homes, when you are open for business you have to follow anti-discrimination laws. It appears you are saying segregated eating areas at a restaurant would be OK, right? To do other wise is the gov. telling people what they can or cant do, right?

The logic you can refuse service because you think the person partaking that service is sinful is RETARDED and NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment or religious freedom. Following that same course of logic, is a Jewish check out girl  able to refuse to sell you ham slices? A Catholic won't sell you condoms? A Mormon won't sell you beer or wine? A Christian doctor won't treat your STD because you got it from sin?

Also am anti-hypocrite and doing things based on no logic or bad reasoning. The reasons for not wanting to make a gay wedding cake are flawed. They are based on feelings, not logic. They do NOT have a basis on religious freedom, because weddings are NOT just a religious act and the cake is not for the WEDDING but for the PARTY after. They are also hypocrites because they are basing their refusal on the fact that they don't think gays can get married, or that gays are living a sinful life. But the chances are over half their cakes to STRAIGHT people are going to people not getting married in a church (so not recognized as married under the eyes of God), and/or living in sin or living a sinful life (pre-marital sex, etc), and/or coming in with tattoos or pants, both of which Leviticus forbids. So they aren't even trying to exclude sinners - just ONE kind of sinner. Hypocrites.

Now if two gays wanted a cake with a picture of two guys fucking, you can refuse service based on the request being vulgar. Just like you won't make a boob or dick cake for a party. But if they want a normal wedding cake that looks just like any other, there is zero rational reasons to refuse them, and no legal reason as well.

Ironically your idea of restricting liberty is saying it is ok if other people to restrict others' liberty.

I bet ol' Lew at least read the Wiki article on her. I bet she was chosen because she has many attributes appealing to conservatives, making her an ideal middle of the road choice.

But as bohr said - some people can't help themselves.

I swear, if Obama came out and said green was his favorite color, we would have people here burning anything green in their house and putting out a petition to change St. Patrick's day to orange.

Have we done this one yet?

"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" - Harriett Tubbman

"With so much drama in the ARF G.D., it's kinda hard being Harry-it to the T." - Harriet Tubman

Stop collaborate and listen - Tubman.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

+1



We just dream up ways to increase the deficit.



 

"The President has been kidnapped by ninjas. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?" - Harriet Tubman

That was Rosa Parks, and the verbatim quote was, "no."

"You must be really fun at parties." - Harriet Tubman

"Don't be so serious". Harriet Tubman

It's risen to such a level it's become an embarrassment. I also think GD/arfcom has become somewhat of a magnet for certain mindsets and personalities.

 


Some of this has always existed but now it's become the overall environment.




And it isn't just the thinly disguised racism and misogyny, it's everything. GD hates everything.




Scroll the pages, peruse the topics, and ask yourself what kind of people would wallow in this. This is the face of the conservative gun owner. They are out there talking, arguing, and spouting their opinion on everything. Is it any wonder people think what they think.




As the famous GD saying goes, "stereotypes exist for a reason"


 

Thank you for confirming what I have been thinking as well. It seemed there was SOME joking in the past, but it has gotten to the point where one can no longer tell if GD is full of racist or just assholes like 4chan. Like this one speaker I saw at the Heritage foundation, "When a friend you know says he hates his wife, you think he's joking. When he says it enough times you begin to think he really does." He was talking about Liberals and America, but the parralles is the same.

I know lots of shit that goes on here would be a ban on many tech sites. And any time I bring up gun rights on another forum, I first have to dispel the idea that I am a racist red neck. What is worse is the ideology many (most?) people spout on here is one of freedom, making fun of liberal about arguing with emotions, and claiming they are all just whiny babies - when they do THE EXACT SAME THINGS. Be the bigger person. Stop stooping to their levels.

Lol! I peed a little!

 

I like that

"Come with me if you want to live" - Harriet Tubman



Anyone plan on selling these as stickers?

It wasn't Lew's decision.  It was the result of a petition started by a group called WOMEN ON 20S to have a woman be put on the $20 bill in 2020, the 100 year anniversary of the 19th amendment.  Their goal was obviously to declare the portrait should be a woman FIRST, and then pick which woman in an online poll.  Originally it was Eleanor Roosevelt who was the forerunner in the first round of voting but in the next round the majority of backers of the eliminated candidates like Betty Friedan switched over to Tubman.  That makes it a political statement on women's rights first, and THEN as a commemorative of the subject's actual contributions as a secondary consideration.  I have no beef with their choice but claiming this has nothing to do with Libtards being Libtards is being naïve.

...and as for burning everything green...you still don't get it.  The color green was around long before Obama showed up and it will be around long after this weird Obama fad fades into history.

Yeah, "ol' Lew" probably knew this stuff but we ain't talking about him.

We are talking about your ordinary run of the mill 'tard.

I guess now the US 30th Infantry Division will change it historical nickname from Old Hickory to Old Tubman

Ok, I'll join in.............."I am still waiting for the first real man black president"...........Harriet Tubman.

"Stop whining and shaking and load my other rifle..........I'm running out of ammo in this one"...............Harriet Tubman

Having nothing to do with subject at hand, this continues your fine tradition of rubbish replies.

States aren't people, and the Federal government, unlike police, has been given no power or authority to "kill" a State, whether it is in or out of the Union at any particular point.

Plus, isn't it supposed to be Congress that declares ware?

Would have much preferred Tubman on the $10 and Reagan on the $20

 
Truth be told, there have been many threads/posts that lament that you can't beat up "fags" and openly discuss how people should have a right to hate, refuse a job to, and discriminate against anyone they want.


Cause that worked so well in the past. They honestly don't know how or why Hillary or her ilk easily influence the masses. They have no idea how we wound up this way, so polarized, and don't or can't see their role in the situation.

A handul.  None of them from someone whose opinion I value.  Assault is a vilation of the rights of the victim.




They should.  It is called "freedom of association".  Why do you hate freedom?

^^^^^"Why do you hate freedom?"............Harriet Tubman.

That's a cover of a book by Ann Petry:

http://www.amazon.com/Harriet-Tubman-Conductor-Underground-Railroad/dp/0064461815

"Reading is for faggots"

- H. Tubman