Posted: 2003-03-11 08:58pm
Well, you outdid me in 'em, I just never formally conceded.Patrick Degan wrote:Perhaps, if I could remember them...
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Well, you outdid me in 'em, I just never formally conceded.Patrick Degan wrote:Perhaps, if I could remember them...
Why would one state have any need for more or less strict drug laws than the next? If the law is bad, then it's bad for the whole nation and it should be repealed. If not, then it's OK for the entire nation and it should be kept. What's the problem?Patrick Degan wrote:Because while one state may choose to pass the most draconian drug laws conceivable, 49 may choose more moderate or even liberal drug laws as well as prosecutorial and judicial guidelines for trying and sentencing cases. Federalising the drug laws has removed that lattitude nationwide.Darth Wong wrote:Not to intercede here, but why does that fact serve as an indictment of federalizing crime and punishment, as opposed an indictment of those particular statutes? If the same statutes had been passed at the state level, the effect would be the same.
True, but this is merely an example of a bad federal law; if no state has prohibition laws today, that merely underscores the fact that it was bad at either the state or federal level, so what difference does it make? Why would one state want to have totally different laws than the next? What purpose would it serve, and why would a law that's bad in one state be good in the next?If another historical example might suffice, there is Prohibition. Alcohol control and criminalisation was largely a state and county affair from 1880 through to 1916. Such laws were effective mainly in rural areas and Bible Belt states until the passage of the Volstead Act and the ratification of the 18th Amendment. The results were bathtub gin, wood alcohol, the rise of the Capone Mob and its rivals in organised crime, the greatest wholesale civil disobedience to ever occur in American history streatching for two and a half decades, and the transformation of Chicago into a virtual battleground with a thoroughly corrupted city government. It was, in short, a disaster. Congress finally repealed Prohibition in 1933 and kicked the whole issue back to the states. There are still "dry" counties to this day, but I doubt that a single state still has state prohibition laws anymore.
I wouldn't think they would. However, given the popular support of drug prohibition, it's going to be much more feasible to experiment with drug legalization from the local and state level.Why would one state have any need for more or less strict drug laws than the next? If the law is bad, then it's bad for the whole nation and it should be repealed. If not, then it's OK for the entire nation and it should be kept. What's the problem?
There were SOME blacks that voluntarily chose to fight for the Confederacy. But they were rare; the exception, not the norm.Typhonis 1 wrote:I am southern but still .Don`t those idiots realise that every soldier who fought for the Confederate States of Amerioca commited an act of treason???The enlisted soldiers were given a blanket pardon I believe while the officers had to write the President for a pardon. Heres a few fun facts
1 Black people did fight ,of there won free will ,in the Confederate army
2 Every confederte state ,but South Carolina ,fielded regiments of Union volunteeers.
Lee was a big proponent of enlisting blacks to fight, and I also think that he was anti-slavery, if memory serves.Durran Korr wrote:There were SOME blacks that voluntarily chose to fight for the Confederacy. But they were rare; the exception, not the norm.Typhonis 1 wrote:I am southern but still .Don`t those idiots realise that every soldier who fought for the Confederate States of Amerioca commited an act of treason???The enlisted soldiers were given a blanket pardon I believe while the officers had to write the President for a pardon. Heres a few fun facts
1 Black people did fight ,of there won free will ,in the Confederate army
2 Every confederte state ,but South Carolina ,fielded regiments of Union volunteeers.
Yeah, he was...he would have been the general of the Union army had Virginia not seceded.Durandal wrote:Lee was a big proponent of enlisting blacks to fight, and I also think that he was anti-slavery, if memory serves.Durran Korr wrote:There were SOME blacks that voluntarily chose to fight for the Confederacy. But they were rare; the exception, not the norm.Typhonis 1 wrote:I am southern but still .Don`t those idiots realise that every soldier who fought for the Confederate States of Amerioca commited an act of treason???The enlisted soldiers were given a blanket pardon I believe while the officers had to write the President for a pardon. Heres a few fun facts
1 Black people did fight ,of there won free will ,in the Confederate army
2 Every confederte state ,but South Carolina ,fielded regiments of Union volunteeers.
General Chamberlain didn't see the Confederate forces as treasonous. He ordered the 5th Corps to salute them as they marched by after the surrender at the Appomattox. And if it wasn't for Abraham Lincoln's assassination, things might have gone a lot differently during reconstruction.Typhonis 1 wrote:I am southern but still .Don`t those idiots realise that every soldier who fought for the Confederate States of Amerioca commited an act of treason???The enlisted soldiers were given a blanket pardon I believe while the officers had to write the President for a pardon. Heres a few fun facts
1 Black people did fight ,of there won free will ,in the Confederate army
2 Every confederte state ,but South Carolina ,fielded regiments of Union volunteeers.
Yes indeed. A brief taste of what awaited for the world in WWI. The Southerners were the first to realize the new potential, yet also walked into the same trap (Pickett's charge). Slamming Napoleonic tactics against fortified positions against rifles. You would have thought Lee out of all people would've not ordered that charge, especially since it was by NOT doing such things that a small US force routed the Mexicans in the previous war. I guess overconfidence in his troops at constantly humilating the Union forces.Typhonis 1 wrote:It was also a war where technology had outstriped the tactics used and was the first taste of trench warfare.
Durandal wrote:Lee was a big proponent of enlisting blacks to fight, and I also think that he was anti-slavery, if memory serves.Durran Korr wrote:There were SOME blacks that voluntarily chose to fight for the Confederacy. But they were rare; the exception, not the norm.Typhonis 1 wrote:I am southern but still .Don`t those idiots realise that every soldier who fought for the Confederate States of Amerioca commited an act of treason???The enlisted soldiers were given a blanket pardon I believe while the officers had to write the President for a pardon. Heres a few fun facts
1 Black people did fight ,of there won free will ,in the Confederate army
2 Every confederte state ,but South Carolina ,fielded regiments of Union volunteeers.
Yes he was.HemlockGrey wrote:Wasn't Hancock a Union general?