Sic'em: Questions, comments, notes of discord?

[Serenity Now]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-burns-reflects-civil-war-legacy-america/

I know Ken Burns' documentaries are highly regarded. Did you watch it the first time? Just curious. I do think you're well read on this stuff and I think a lot of your points. I may not fully agree with them but I do value them.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-nuENq9AmeSckENpssVafBXZU6N28osZSe4K3nrN-ps/mobilebasic?pli=1

One of those links is me trolling. :)

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-burns-reflects-civil-war-legacy-america/

I know Ken Burns' documentaries are highly regarded. Did you watch it the first time? Just curious. I do think you're well read on this stuff and I think a lot of your points. I may not fully agree with them but I do value them.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-nuENq9AmeSckENpssVafBXZU6N28osZSe4K3nrN-ps/mobilebasic?pli=1

One of those links is me trolling. :)

Seen him with his talking points on almost every channel the last few days and each time it is almost verbatim. Agenda??? Nawww, couldn't be.

[Serenity Now]

Seen him with his talking points on almost every channel the last few days and each time it is almost verbatim. Agenda??? Nawww, couldn't be.

So what's his agenda, other than getting people to watch his documentaries? I'd say that the issue has been in the consciousness of the nation. We've discussed it here over the last few months.

[Turd_Ferguson]

So what's his agenda, other than getting people to watch his documentaries? I'd say that the issue has been in the consciousness of the nation. We've discussed it here over the last few months.

That's what you'd say, but I think you'd be wrong. We all know that Trump questioning Obamas birth place, along with all the other **** he's hid, is just another way of saying ******. Please.

[Serenity Now]

That's what you'd say, but I think you'd be wrong. We all know that Trump questioning Obamas birth place, along with all the other **** he's hid, is just another way of saying ******. Please.

And how is ANY of what you just typed related to Ken Burns and the civil war?

[Turd_Ferguson]

And how is ANY of what you just typed related to Ken Burns and the civil war?

Re-read the link you provided. It's nothing more than stirring up more racial tension.

[Serenity Now]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

[Turd_Ferguson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

Nice retort. Handwring much?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Just one of many great comments in your linky...


EEHiker 20 hours ago

Ken Burns seems to be deceiving himself and the interviewer. Politicians are challenged by opponents all the time. I can think of several who have their nationality and origin of birth as election issues. Just because our President is black, doesn't mean that typical political challenges are a sophisticated form of the N-word.
Likewise, our wars are mostly fought over issues of security, power and control of resources. The issue of slavery is significant to the civil war, but mainly because the south faced an economic collapse if slavery was suddenly abolished. Once a war starts, you fight because the lives and livelihood of everyone you know is at stake. Suggesting that this was just a fight over slavery trivializes the complex nature of war. It oversimplifies the reasons that soldiers fight and die. And Ken Burns is glossing over the full impact of what the south went through at the hand of the more powerful northern army.

[Serenity Now]

Internet commenters are the gutter of our culture. I was actually just curious if Sic'em had watched the original Burns documentary. I did not but thought that I might now that I can DVR it. Handwringing much, indeedy do.

Now that you put this here: Why was Obama's birthplace an issue but Ted Cruz's is not? Both were born to American citizens. One is documented to be out of the US. Yet, it's normal for the "right" to question one and gloss over the other. I think Rafael was born in Canada and is eligible to be the President. What's that make me? I do wonder what his dad's ties to the CIA and the anti-Castro movement are. Where was he on 11/23/63? Just sayin'.

[olevetonahill]

Re-read the link you provided. It's nothing more than stirring up more racial tension.

YOU read the crap he links?

[Turd_Ferguson]

YOU read the crap he links?

Not usually, I had just seen the race baiter that his link was about and just thought I'd chime in to his white guilt world.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Internet commenters are the gutter of our culture. I was actually just curious if Sic'em had watched the original Burns documentary. I did not but thought that I might now that I can DVR it. Handwringing much, indeedy do.

Now that you put this here: Why was Obama's birthplace an issue but Ted Cruz's is not? Both were born to American citizens. One is documented to be out of the US. Yet, it's normal for the "right" to question one and gloss over the other. I think Rafael was born in Canada and is eligible to be the President. What's that make me? I do wonder what his dad's ties to the CIA and the anti-Castro movement are. Where was he on 11/23/63? Just sayin'.

Don't know. Why don't you asked you lib buddy's why they never asked about it? And do tell, what reason do you think Trump raised a stink to get the bc released, then offered $5m to Obamas favorite charity if he released his college transcripts? I'm sure it's because he's racist, right?

[Serenity Now]

Don't know. Why don't you asked you lib buddy's why they never asked about it? And do tell, what reason do you think Trump raised a stink to get the bc released, then offered $5m to Obamas favorite charity if he released his college transcripts? I'm sure it's because he's racist, right?

Trump is trying to feed the red meat to the meat eaters. In '11 he was trying to ride the wave of the birthers. That says nothing of his particular tendancies. This time he's banging the drum against the U.S. Constitution. Godspeed John Glenn.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Trump is trying to feed the red meat to the meat eaters. In '11 he was trying to ride the wave of the birthers. That says nothing of his particular tendancies. This time he's banging the drum against the U.S. Constitution. Godspeed John Glenn.

Your just like 8th and ST...why don't you just come out and say what you ****'n mean. Quite dancing around obamas maypole and just come out and say it...****.

[Serenity Now]

Your just like 8th and ST...why don't you just come out and say what you ****'n mean. Quite dancing around obamas maypole and just come out and say it...****.

What I mean is that Trump could give 2 poops about these issues. He cares about what the base will get behind. The base ate the birther crap 4 years ago like it was a McRib that was back for a limited time. He had people in Hawaii and what they were finding was "ublelievable". We've never seen this stuff. They're all about violating the Constitution now. Ironic, huh?

Trump cares about Trump.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Trump cares about Trump.

Name me one swing'n dick in DC that cares about you.

[Serenity Now]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/104-women-in-congress-does-it-matter-113903.html#.Vdtfk_lVhBc

Your logic is poor. No one in DC cares about you now. Because of that we should elect the most narcisistic candidate that this world has ever seen.

Hell, Deez Nutz would be a better choice and he can't drive yet.

[FaninAma]

Internet commenters are the gutter of our culture. I was actually just curious if Sic'em had watched the original Burns documentary. I did not but thought that I might now that I can DVR it. Handwringing much, indeedy do.

Now that you put this here: Why was Obama's birthplace an issue but Ted Cruz's is not? Both were born to American citizens. One is documented to be out of the US. Yet, it's normal for the "right" to question one and gloss over the other. I think Rafael was born in Canada and is eligible to be the President. What's that make me? I do wonder what his dad's ties to the CIA and the anti-Castro movement are. Where was he on 11/23/63? Just sayin'.

So, does that include internet message board commenters? LOL. Ted Cruz has already produced his birth certificate. It took Obama forever to produce a short form then a less than consistent long form. BTW, aren't you just a tad curious why Obama had his college records sealed?

I actually think the Clintons had all the dirt on Obama but were told not to take him down and that the party would get behind Hillary in 2016 if they played nice. Sorry Hillary...your window of opportunity closed in 2008. Whoever won the Democratic nomination that year was a shoo-in for POTUS. You shouldn't have played nice. You should have taken him down.

[Serenity Now]

So, does that include internet message board commenters? LOL. Ted Cruz has already produced his birth certificate. It took Obama forever to produce a short form then a less than consistent long form. BTW, aren't you just a tad curious why Obama had is college records sealed?

I actually think the Clintons had all the dirt on Obama but were told not to take him down and that the party would get behind Hillary in 2016 if they played nice. Sorry Hillary...your window of opportunity closed in 2008. Whoever won the Democratic nomination that year was a shoo-in for POTUS. You shouldn't have played nice. You should have taken him down.

Message boards? Not generally, we know we're crazy. The commenters on news stories or youtube videos is something that is actually crazy.

I have no idea why he has kept his college work sealed. Maybe I don't think it's a big deal what someone said/did 30-40 years ago. Ask yourself why aren't the same people who were part of the birther movement not having the same pissy fit about Rafael?

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/104-women-in-congress-does-it-matter-113903.html#.Vdtfk_lVhBc

Your logic is poor. No one in DC cares about you now. Because of that we should elect the most narcisistic candidate that this world has ever seen.

Hell, Deez Nutz would be a better choice and he can't drive yet.

Of course, my logic is poor...what a hack.

[dwarthog]

Is this a Sybil thread?

[Serenity Now]

Of course, my logic is poor...what a hack.

How is that good logic? Hack? Funny.

[Turd_Ferguson]

How is that good logic? Hack? Funny.

Heh, Einstein. You said "trump cares about trump", implying he cares about nobody else, and yes, you are a hack...get some new ****, cause your regular **** is beyond old.

[FaninAma]

Message boards? Not generally, we know we're crazy. The commenters on news stories or youtube videos is something that is actually crazy.

I have no idea why he has kept his college work sealed. Maybe I don't think it's a big deal what someone said/did 30-40 years ago. Ask yourself why aren't the same people who were part of the birther movement not having the same pissy fit about Rafael?

Then why go to the trouble and great expense to seal them?

[Serenity Now]

Heh, Einstein. You said "trump cares about trump", implying he cares about nobody else, and yes, you are a hack...get some new ****, cause your regular **** is beyond old.

Then you should totally quit responding to it. Or, new thought here, you could ding me some with spek, whatever that really means.

[Serenity Now]

Then why go to the trouble and great expense to seal them?

Because some people wanted to hang him like Mussolini over the claims of a falsified birth certificate. Ironically, had his birth certificate said that he was born in, I don't know, Kenya, he'd still be eligible to be President. It was not just some fringe crazies. Palin, Huckabee, Trump, Hannity, sitting Senators, sitting Congress members, Newt Gingrich, Bachmann, Sheriff Joe, etc.

I'd still like to know what Trump's people found in Hawaii. He's never told us.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Because some people wanted to hang him like Mussolini over the claims of a falsified birth certificate. Ironically, had his birth certificate said that he was born in, I don't know, Kenya, he'd still be eligible to be President. It was not just some fringe crazies. Palin, Huckabee, Trump, Hannity, sitting Senators, sitting Congress members, Newt Gingrich, Bachmann, Sheriff Joe, etc.

I'd still like to know what Trump's people found in Hawaii. He's never told us.

Makes no sense. He sealed his college transcripts over the claim of a falsified birth certificate?

[Serenity Now]

Makes no sense. He sealed his college transcripts over the claim of a falsified birth certificate?

I have no idea why. I think he sealed them because he knew that a guy with the middle name "hussien" that was going to be the first black president might be the target of unreasonable scrutiny. If that's the case, then his birth certificate issues CERTAINLY validated that. I mean, less than 8 years later we have a guy running who is documented to have been born in another country and no one's saying a word about it. If you point to me you're wrong as I think he's eligible. I'm just pointing out the hypocrits.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I have no idea why. I think he sealed them because he knew that a guy with the middle name "hussien" that was going to be the first black president might be the target of unreasonable scrutiny. If that's the case, then his birth certificate issues CERTAINLY validated that. I mean, less than 8 years later we have a guy running who is documented to have been born in another country and no one's saying a word about it. If you point to me you're wrong as I think he's eligible. I'm just pointing out the hypocrits.

You're dodging the question. Why did he seal his college transcripts? What is unreasonable scrutiny? Keep in mind, he's half white.

[Serenity Now]

You're dodging the question. Why did he seal his college transcripts? What is unreasonable scrutiny? Keep in mind, he's half white.

Good question. Kind of like the ones you guys dodge that I consistently ask on many issues.

I assume, given his career as "community organizer", that he might have some writings that dealt with the left side of politics. Heck, I consider myself moderate but I wrote a 29 page paper in grad school on affirmative action. Were I to delve into politics, I'm sure someone could pull a few lines from that document that could paint me with a brush of a certain color and completely ignore the conclusion of the paper. Or, there are papers that I wrote relating to access to health care that could probably be critiqued with 30 years of hindsight that would make me look foolish.

1/2 white. Funny. My dad was what we called "colorful". In our current time we'd also call him an outright racist. He'd laugh at that one.

[rock on sooner]

I have no idea why Obama sealed his college transcript...some guesses...
really bad or not very good grades...(heh, that's why I'd seal mine.)
some courses he took not in keeping with party ideals..
some courses he took were taught by "radicals"...

Maybe he feels that is none of anyone's business...

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ken-burns-reflects-civil-war-legacy-america/

I know Ken Burns' documentaries are highly regarded. Did you watch it the first time? Just curious. I do think you're well read on this stuff and I think a lot of your points. I may not fully agree with them but I do value them.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-nuENq9AmeSckENpssVafBXZU6N28osZSe4K3nrN-ps/mobilebasic?pli=1

One of those links is me trolling. :)

I have high regard for Burns as a documentary film maker. He's a liberal -- always has been, so it's going to be a bit much to expect such a person to rush to the defense of the flag or its heritage.

My thoughts on his recent statements should be no surprise: He is being intellectually and historically lazy while succumbing to the kind of group think on the subject that, for a very long time, results in historians or quasi-experts on the subject making statements exactly like what Burns said.

All of those issues that Burns dismissed were important issues that led to the decision to secede. Slavery may have been the catalyst, but I'm not entirely prepared to say the south would have seceded on the issue of slavery alone (if everything else was excluded). Furthermore, those issues cannot be separated from the issues of Constitutional states' rights -- they are one in the same. Slavery, nullification, free trade issues, etc. etc. all fall under that umbrella. Burns is just too terrified to admit it because support for states' rights in this climate (even in a modern contet believe it or not) is equated with support for the institution of slavery.

[SicEmBaylor]

I have no idea why Obama sealed his college transcript...some guesses...
really bad or not very good grades...(heh, that's why I'd seal mine.)
some courses he took not in keeping with party ideals..
some courses he took were taught by "radicals"...

Maybe he feels that is none of anyone's business...

I have no doubt Obama was born a legal citizezn, but I suspect the reason his records are sealed is because he fudged on the application and was admitted as an international student.

[TAFBSooner]

I have high regard for Burns as a documentary film maker. He's a liberal -- always has been, so it's going to be a bit much to expect such a person to rush to the defense of the flag or its heritage.

My thoughts on his recent statements should be no surprise: He is being intellectually and historically lazy while succumbing to the kind of group think on the subject that, for a very long time, results in historians or quasi-experts on the subject making statements exactly like what Burns said.

All of those issues that Burns dismissed were important issues that led to the decision to secede. Slavery may have been the catalyst, but I'm not entirely prepared to say the south would have seceded on the issue of slavery alone (if everything else was excluded). Furthermore, those issues cannot be separated from the issues of Constitutional states' rights -- they are one in the same. Slavery, nullification, free trade issues, etc. etc. all fall under that umbrella. Burns is just too terrified to admit it because support for states' rights in this climate (even in a modern contet believe it or not) is equated with support for the institution of slavery.

Please expound on the connection between states' rights and the Fugitive Slave Act.

[SicEmBaylor]

Please expound on the connection between states' rights and the Fugitive Slave Act.

That was a Constitutional issue not a states' rights issue. Not every issue is purely a state matter. Congress does have certain enumerated powers to act. The original Philadelphia convention was called, in part, to deal with debtors who were fleeing across state lines to escape their debts and prosecution. There was no mechanism in place for one state to extradite those individuals from one state to another.

If we view slaves entirey as property (as morally repugnant as that is), then there's a real question whether a state can deny an individual of personal property merely because that property crosses state lines. For example, if I buy marijuana in Colorado then it may be my personal property but Oklahoma can seize that property should I cross state lines. However, hypotheticaly, let's say laptops are illegal in Kansas. Should Kansas be able to seize my electronics after crossing the border? Certainly not. Ideally, in both cases, personal property trumps all. But you can see how some people would have a moral objection to one example and not the other.

So, you can make an interstate commerce case for the Fugitive Slave Act. You can also make a case against it. I agree with the case both for and against the act (if we are viewing slaves entirey as property). Short answer: It's really hard to come up with an answer to that question. Clearly, they are human beings and ought to be treated as such making the Fugitive Slave Act morally reprehensible. However, that's a very modern view....

[Serenity Now]

However, that's a very modern view....
If by modern, you mean in excess of 1.4 centuries, then yes...modern.

J/K

I appreciate your thoughtful responses. You can make me see the forest from your angle even if the trees look a little different to me.

[TAFBSooner]

That was a Constitutional issue not a states' rights issue. Not every issue is purely a state matter. Congress does have certain enumerated powers to act. The original Philadelphia convention was called, in part, to deal with debtors who were fleeing across state lines to escape their debts and prosecution. There was no mechanism in place for one state to extradite those individuals from one state to another.

If we view slaves entirey as property (as morally repugnant as that is), then there's a real question whether a state can deny an individual of personal property merely because that property crosses state lines. For example, if I buy marijuana in Colorado then it may be my personal property but Oklahoma can seize that property should I cross state lines. However, hypotheticaly, let's say laptops are illegal in Kansas. Should Kansas be able to seize my electronics after crossing the border? Certainly not. Ideally, in both cases, personal property trumps all. But you can see how some people would have a moral objection to one example and not the other.

So, you can make an interstate commerce case for the Fugitive Slave Act. You can also make a case against it. I agree with the case both for and against the act (if we are viewing slaves entirey as property). Short answer: It's really hard to come up with an answer to that question. Clearly, they are human beings and ought to be treated as such making the Fugitive Slave Act morally reprehensible. However, that's a very modern view....

Both cases (the Fugitive Slave Act and the long-term (but only hypothetical before the war) threat to slavery posed by Lincoln's election and how western expansion was to be handled) involved the Constitution AND slavery AND state's rights. Slavery was baked in to the Constitution, because the South was the OG in 1787.

The Fugitive Slave Act was all about the right of states to interfere with returning escaped slaves to slavery. The South was against letting Northern states have that right. That they had a Constitutional/interstate commerce argument didn't change the fact it was a states' rights issue.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Fugitive Slave Act was all about the right of states to interfere with returning escaped slaves to slavery. The South was against letting Northern states have that right. That they had a Constitutional/interstate commerce argument didn't change the fact it was a states' rights issue.

It depends entirely upon how you look at it. The interstate commerce clause does make it illegal for individual states to do certain things. For example, a state cannot tax the importation of goods into their states. A state cannot simply setup a checkpoint at the state line and seize the property of anyone trying to cross the state line. It isn't a states' rights issue in the sense that there are some things the states do not have the right or power to do. They can't engage in foreign relations, for example. You could, I suppose, call the attempt to do so a 'states' rights' issue; however, it's clearly not a state right.

[TAFBSooner]

It depends entirely upon how you look at it. The interstate commerce clause does make it illegal for individual states to do certain things. For example, a state cannot tax the importation of goods into their states. A state cannot simply setup a checkpoint at the state line and seize the property of anyone trying to cross the state line. It isn't a states' rights issue in the sense that there are some things the states do not have the right or power to do. They can't engage in foreign relations, for example. You could, I suppose, call the attempt to do so a 'states' rights' issue; however, it's clearly not a state right.

The Northern states didn't have the power under the Constitution to abolish slavery in the Southern states, so in the same limited sense that you quote, slavery itself wasn't a states right issue. The slave power was afraid that the growing North would eventually have the power to amend the Constitution to allow limitation or abolition of slavery. That and a bit of fear-mongering about Lincoln was enough to get them to secede.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Northern states didn't have the power under the Constitution to abolish slavery in the Southern states, so in the same limited sense that you quote, slavery itself wasn't a states right issue. The slave power was afraid that the growing North would eventually have the power to amend the Constitution to allow limitation or abolition of slavery. That and a bit of fear-mongering about Lincoln was enough to get them to secede.

The Fugitive Slave Law and slavery itself are apples and oranges though. The *intra* state regulation of slavery was, indeed, Constitutionally illegal. However, a state was obliged to return property to its rightful owner (I know...I know...). The banning of the importation of new slaves was Constitutional and illegal in the United States -- interestingly, it was also illegal under the Confederate Constitution. In any case, two different concepts with two different legal arguments at play. Slavery was both a Federal issue and a state issue depending upon what aspect of slavery you're looking at.

However, it is an interesting point that the Federal government did not have the power to ban slavery. I completely agree, and it's why the secessionist hotheads should have been brought to heel. It seems to surprise people, but I think secession at that point was a terrible idea. They should have waited to see what came of the Lincoln Administration before leaving the Union.

[olevetonahill]

Sicem, Do you have a REAL job yet? or are you still sucking at Mommas Tit?

[Serenity Now]

Sicem, Do you have a REAL job yet? or are you still sucking at Mommas Tit?What a dik!

[olevetonahill]

What a dik!

Yes he is. Peem me sometime Ill tell you about him.

[Serenity Now]

Yes he is. Peem me sometime Ill tell you about him.
You or sic'em. I respect one of you. I'll mind my own beezwax.

[olevetonahill]

You or sic'em. I respect one of you. I'll mind my own beezwax.

:bi_polo:

[TAFBSooner]

The Fugitive Slave Law and slavery itself are apples and oranges though. The *intra* state regulation of slavery was, indeed, Constitutionally illegal. However, a state was obliged to return property to its rightful owner (I know...I know...). The banning of the importation of new slaves was Constitutional and illegal in the United States -- interestingly, it was also illegal under the Confederate Constitution. In any case, two different concepts with two different legal arguments at play. Slavery was both a Federal issue and a state issue depending upon what aspect of slavery you're looking at.

However, it is an interesting point that the Federal government did not have the power to ban slavery. I completely agree, and it's why the secessionist hotheads should have been brought to heel. It seems to surprise people, but I think secession at that point was a terrible idea. They should have waited to see what came of the Lincoln Administration before leaving the Union.

The Fugitive Slave Law was instituted to quash a new states' right that Northern states were trying to create (the right to prohibit any acquiescence to slavery within their borders). The southern states seceded (they thought) to protect their existing Constitutional right to allow slavery. Two directions, two different cases, but both are definitely about states' rights. And the South was against states' rights when it came to freeing former slaves.

You could make the case that the South was about protecting states' rights as they existed at that time. But then you're really saying they were all about protecting the status quo, not about states' rights as a concept.