Jump to content
Guess again. Yes they were Jihadists. I stand corrected on the authorization. but while Congress did authorize, that is exactly what George Bush got from Congress and the U.N. and liberals called it an illegal war! And Bush had even more standing as Iraq was under a cease fire agreement.
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
False. The last thing they did was grant self rule or there would not have been a war.
"British Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade
Boarding the slave ship
For well over 300 years, European countries forced Africans onto slave ships and transported them across the Atlantic Ocean.
The first European nation to engage in the Transatlantic Slave Trade was Portugal in the mid to late 1400's. Captain John Hawkins made the first known English slaving voyage to Africa, in 1562, in the reign of Elizabeth 1. Hawkins made three such journeys over a period of six years. He captured over 1200 Africans and sold them as goods in the Spanish colonies in the Americas.
To start with, British traders supplied slaves for the Spanish and Portuguese colonists in America. However, as British settlements in the Caribbean and North America grew, often through wars with European countries such as Holland, Spain and France, British slave traders increasingly supplied British colonies".
And our history is no more uncomfortable than many countries throughout the world especially Europe. And while we were not the first to abolish slavery, we ere not the last either. That distinction belongs to Brazil (1888) in our Hemisphere and Ethiopia in 1935 across the pond.
Incorrect as Jefferson fought the jihadist Pirates in the Mediterranean without congressional approval. And he was anything but hypocritical in the case of Benghazi which dovetailed with his position on the bombing of Libya.
It was the British Scott. We were a British colony. You site British law. We fought the British for independence that which along with the constitution established the the U.S.A. You're kidding me, right? Thanks for making my point.
Jim, watching cartoons about Fox and Rush is not an intellectual argument. And when someone who says what Farquhar said about Mr. Meglen in reference to the same and then says matter-of-factly that there are 33 amendments more than qualifies a response Pat West! Not to mention that this is more than just a historical argument, but what is actually being taught or more to the point what is not being taught in our public schools. While you may find it silly, I find it dangerous.
The pattern is the same. They don't listen to the folks they put down but are somehow experts on what they say and believe. Same with his knowledge of the constitution. 33 amendments? An F in constitution 101.
And it was both Parliament and the King.
The 17th amendment applies only to Senators. The House was always a direct vote. But I do agree that it was a huge mistake as different components to the republic need to take a different path to their seats.
The constitution is a Living Breathing Document by way of the amendment and only the amendment process, not the interpretation process. Because who is doing the interpretation? The government? That is like the Wolf guarding the Henhouse. It's also why the constitution says We the People, not we the Government, or we the Judges. Otherwise it could never pass muster as the Supreme Law of the Land. And it must be interpreted strictly for the same.
Maybe if you watched Fox News or listened to Rush Limbaugh instead of disparaging them you would learn something Mr. Farquhar. There are 27 amendments to the constitution, not 33! So it seems you are the impaired one by not watching and listening to the same, not Mr. Meglen. And it was the British who brought slavery to the U.S. not Americans, and we had no stomach for another war over the same upon independence. Therefore, our Founders gave us the tools to deal with the issue including a 3/5ths compromise for representative purposes to change it legislatively to go along with the courts and the amendment process. No, it did not work out smoothly as most things don't. But to assume that our Founders could merely release them into freedom is naïve. Where were they going to go? Back to Africa where they were owned by Black Slave owners? The fact that woman did not have the same rights as men also misses the point of what they gave us. A document that we could grow with as we evolved as a society. Not to be perfect from the get - go. Woman had no rights in any society that I know of at the time and still don't in many societies. And the first 10 amendments, better known as the Bill of Rights were, while not strictly part of the original document were incorporated for ratification purposes. Otherwise it would not have been ratified. And it's the amendment process and only the amendment process that makes the constitution the Living Breathing Document the Left refers to, not the interpretation process. Both Liberals (on the M.O.) and the Conservatives (It's not one) get this wrong. Therefore it seems that you are the one that needs the history lessen.
Last login: Saturday, October 25, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.