x
Click to expand

holycrapimacupcake

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/06/2010
Last Login:8/03/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#5487
Comment Ranking:#3740
Highest Content Rank:#3035
Highest Comment Rank:#1261
Content Thumbs: 743 total,  981 ,  238
Comment Thumbs: 18048 total,  24084 ,  6036
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 58 Content: Sammich eater → Level 59 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 83.5% (835/1000)
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:5
Content Views:56401
Times Content Favorited:39 times
Total Comments Made:15390
FJ Points:18307

latest user's comments

#43 - Where did you get that, you silly little truffle. 07/12/2015 on Karma is a Bitch +7
#94 - Bangers and mash, I mean what the **** ?! 07/12/2015 on That's why no one invades UK 0
#30 - Because ya don't **** with Jimbo! 07/11/2015 on end of the world 0
#44 - We have won. 07/11/2015 on RIP reddit bitch 0
#1131 - Ah...okay then. 07/10/2015 on Roll to beat John Cena 0
#1130 - **holycrapimacupcake used "*roll picture*"** **holycrapimac…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/10/2015 on Roll to beat John Cena 0
User avatar #1131 - holycrapimacupcake (07/10/2015) [-]
Ah...okay then.
#85 - Not to mention some of it goes to donations within itself. The… 07/10/2015 on Hey look things level 4 +2
#96 - Had me going there op... 07/10/2015 on Job Confessions 0
#8 - PUT THE MASK BACK ON! PUT IT BACK ON! 07/10/2015 on Splatoon Comp 11 0
#16 - We're a bunch of faggots here, but at least we know when we're… 07/10/2015 on Worth the read +20
#11 - Red Hood was only available if you got it from Game Stop. 07/09/2015 on The Matter of Family 0
#3 - Except it will always bounce back as Stark modified it to be m…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/08/2015 on Elevengers +38
#16 - silentwarrior (07/09/2015) [-]
Not in the avengers, which this bit is set from.
User avatar #12 - klick (07/09/2015) [-]
it doesn't always bounce back because it's magnetic. It bounces back because Capt's improvements wasn't just to his body but to his brain as well. He can calculate in a flash all possible variables like angle, strength, distance, ect before throwing so it will always return to him. Even while he is moving.
User avatar #7 - demandsgayversion (07/09/2015) [-]
But then why doesn't cutlery fly at Capn' when he turns the magnet on?
#8 - thereasonableperso (07/09/2015) [-]
Vibranium bruh. Not normal metal.
User avatar #9 - demandsgayversion (07/09/2015) [-]
I'm pretty sure there's only one kind of magnetic, either on or off.
#10 - thereasonableperso (07/09/2015) [-]
It's based on a comic book series with zombies, aliens and magic. Don't over think it.
User avatar #11 - demandsgayversion (07/09/2015) [-]
Marvel also does the best job of explaining their superheroes in entirely believable ways to those who aren't scientists.
#15 - No. No it isn't. One is natural evolution, the other is eating meat. 07/08/2015 on Read Description -1
#11 - And he seems to be doing pretty well. 07/08/2015 on Batman +3
#13 - Nignogs desacrating the flag because some dude who said he's a… 07/08/2015 on Edgy Didntdu Nuffin Starter... +7
#81 - HE BETTER BRIG HIM BACK! 07/08/2015 on so this happened 0
#6302 - **holycrapimacupcake used "*roll 1, 1-99*"** **holycrapimac… 07/07/2015 on Where will you be reborn... 0
#10 - Why did you put a normal picture of Ryback up? 07/07/2015 on I'll rek u m8 +64
#19 - The prophecy is upon us! Light the beacons!  [+] (1 new reply) 07/07/2015 on The gods of skateboarding... +2
#36 - darthblam (07/07/2015) [-]
#140 - Did you not get that anonwas making a joke?  [+] (2 new replies) 07/07/2015 on Alabama 0
#149 - Spitfirex (07/07/2015) [-]
"They" in context of people he was making fun of. It was funny, you can even check the time of my thumbs up
#148 - Spitfirex has deleted their comment.
#78 - I mean I don't care if gas get married, but pretty much ignori…  [+] (32 new replies) 07/07/2015 on Alabama +3
#89 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
they didn't ignore the 10th amendment, and it really annoys me when idiots claim this. the ruling only said states have to issue and recognize state marriage license the 10th amendment doesn't apply as the 14th amendment says the state can't make laws that discriminate, so it is unconstitutional for a state to make a law that discriminates on the distribution of state marriage licenses. it's like trying to argue "10th applies because the fed's do not have place in deciding slavery for states" the 13 amendment would override that claim just as the 14th does here.
User avatar #105 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
The 13th and 14th amendments were passed without quorum in the Senate. They were forced and aren't legal.
#207 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
that's only the case if you think the south should have had a say in the matter, hell the 13th was passed during the war, why should the south have had any say in that matter when they said they weren't even in the country. i mean the south left, they outright reject the US and were even the first to attack throwing the whole notion of "states having the right to leave" out the window as states definitely don't have the right to form an army and attack federal troops.
User avatar #213 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
What do you mean the South attacked first? Fort Sumter was in the south, and the North refused to leave it, even after every plea and offer from the South to leave peacefully.

Do you think voting is only important if everyone agrees, and force is acceptable if they don't? If there are 36 states in the US then 36 states need to vote to amend the constitution. If a new state wants to join the union, it must choose to ratify the constitution first. The war against the South was illegal, the Reconstruction Amendments were illegal, and the constitution itself was undermined for the first time, creating the precedent necessary for government overreach and abuse of power today. You'd think they'd at least mention this in federally funded public schools...hmm.
#214 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
i see, you are a big proponent in states regardless of what it is a right for. i'm not, to me the south's actions were treason as they left the union and fought back when the union wouldn't allow them to leave. to me states rights have always just been an excuse to keep discriminatory laws. it's why the US, a country founded on "freedom", had slaves until the 1860s and anti black laws until the 1960s. in my opinion a state's right to discriminate or have slaves isn't a right they should have, so ya the government might have pressured the amendments through but i am glad they did because it made the country better. i mean i doubt you'd be advocating a state's right to have slaves or discriminate if it would affect you negatively. would you happily become a slave if your state decided that you should be one?
User avatar #217 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Thinking the federal government will be more good than the states is the great mistake. Big government makes bad decisions too, except they affect everyone and there is no escape. You also get less say in what decisions are made, and someone you can barely relate to will be writing your laws. To paraphrase renowned economist and thinker Milton Friedman, "The greatest enemy of freedom is concentrated power."

It wasn't treason for the states to secede, it was a constitutional right back then. Abraham Lincoln changed that by reuniting the South through force, and silencing dissenting voices in the North. The content of the Reconstruction Amendments is less important than the way they were passed -- setting a precedent in government and undermining the constitution itself.

I would much rather my state decide that I should be a slave, than to give the power to make that decision to my federal government.
#223 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
i have my doubts, i mean you say that but you don't seem like a person that would be content with a life of a slave. "You also get less say in what decisions are made, and someone you can barely relate to will be writing your laws." good thing for states rights, it really allowed all those black people to have an input. states rights is one things but a state's right to limit who can participate in the state's government is good. ya technically the south had the constitution on it's side but was that a good thing? was it good that the constitution allowed these white guys to rule their state and label blacks as property who couldn't participate in society let alone politics? should we have allowed the south to re-institutionalize slavery out of this notion of "states rights"?
User avatar #226 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
You're missing the point. I would not be content with slavery. But, I would rather my state make a bad decision, and have a chance to escape to another state, than to give all the power to the federal government to make the bad decision, and have nowhere to run. You make the mistake of thinking the states make bad decisions, but the federal government will never do you wrong.

It's not a matter of whether slavery is right, it's the way it was handled. You act like throwing away the constitution was the only way to resolve the issue, and the end justified the means. You seem to care less about the principles that birthed freedom to the world, and more about your own limited sense of morality. The issue of slavery would have been resolved either way, but now you have another beast to deal with, and that will surely cost more lives than you thought it saved.
#227 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
the federal government can make bad decisions, yes bad is a subjective but limiting one's liberties is generally considered bad, but for a country that was founded on the notion of freedom allowing states to make legislation that limits freedom isn't a good thing. to me the notion that slaves should have just dealt with being slaves for a few more decades to save this notion of states rights ludicrous idea. both the states and the federal government can do wrong and make laws that limit one's liberties but neither should be tolerated.
User avatar #229 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Of course neither should be tolerated. Now, look up "end justifies the means" and "precedent". The war was illegal, the amendments were illegal, and the foundation of our country changed forever. We don't actually live in the same country the founders created anymore. That wasn't necessary to end slavery; slavery was just the moral justification to do it.

EDIT: Fixed grammar
#230 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
maybe, but to me the country was better, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment were necessary in moving the country towards a more free nation. saying that we should have just let blacks suck it up for a few more decades to uphold this notion of states rights would not have been a sound decision to me.
User avatar #231 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
>freedom is important, no matter how many rights i have to erase to achieve it
that's where we disagree. your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades
#250 - noschool (07/09/2015) [-]
well to me, and i know you won't agree, it was a good trade.
User avatar #251 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2015) [-]
You make me sad. But, if that's the way you feel, you should move back to Europe. They tend to agree with your views on freedom.
#248 - noschool (07/09/2015) [-]
if slavery didn't exist the war wouldn't have happened, i mean the reason SC left when it did was because lincoln got elected and it felt he was a threat to slavery in the south. even if you don't think it was the primary reason, it was a reason and was even written into the confederacy constitution. the southern states preemptively left to protect their interests and slavery was one of them.
User avatar #249 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2015) [-]
We traded one freedom for another with blood, but this one we won't get back, at least not without more blood.
#246 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
no, i believe in rights as long as they don't hurt others, i believe in freedom of speech but, and i know it is overused, i don't believe that gives someone the right to yell fire in a movie theater. i believe states should have the right to succeed but not so the state can continue oppressing people.
User avatar #247 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Like I said, slavery was only part of the reason the South seceded. It just became the moral justification for the war.
#244 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
well all that wasn't enough to prevent the country from splitting apart, plus culturally we were fairly divided at the time, i mean a united people wouldn't divide like that. in a word no, but to me it comes down more to "should a state have the right to leave the union" and i have to say it depends, to me the reasoning is the important part. i mean a state leaving the union so it can continue oppressing people isn't a valid reason. yes i am aware "valid" can be morally ambiguous. to me a state having the ability to leave could be good to avoid tyranny but not when the state is leaving to retain its ability of oppressing people.
User avatar #245 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Then, we have nothing in common. You don't seem to understand value of freedom, you think it's okay to break the law if you believe you are morally superior to your enemies, and you think governing by force is an acceptable practice. You are well-trained.
#242 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
idk, to me it isn't much logic there. i mean allowing the south to leave would somehow lead to both sides reconciling their differences years later, reuniting, and creating a better country that the one the split apart doesn't seem like the most logical outcome, especially since it is not really based on anything. really all we can say definitively is different actions would have led to different outcomes, we don't have much evidence to make a logical assumption about long term outcomes let alone their quality.
User avatar #243 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
What are you talking about? There are lots of reasons they would get back together. They were highly dependent on each other financially. They had a great monetary incentive to work out their differences. Let alone, we are culturally similar, which is the only basis for people to have the same government. If we didn't reunite, it would be for a good reason, and both would still be better off.

But all of that is beside the point. It all boils down to one principle. Do you think it's okay to force a territory to become a state without their consent?
#240 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
idk, it seems that's just pure speculation on your part, i mean letting the south leave could have been the worst decision the government could have made. i honestly don't believe we would be better off if we just let the south leave, there isn't much evidence for that but there isn't evidence we would be better off, you just believe we probable would be. to me the constitution, while revolutionary for the time and a fairly good document, wasn't not the end all be all of government structures that needs to be treasured in order to lead us to this perfect society. also the confederacy did have a constitution, it was based on the us's constitution except it made it so slavery couldn't be illegalized, and was altered to be close to the articles of confederation in that it gave states a lot more power, a common theme for people that break away, so i doubt we'd take much from it.
User avatar #241 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
We're talking about possible timelines and you say "pure speculation". Of course it is, but it's logical, which is more than enough. The current timeline left us with a continually devolving government. I'm very nationalistic and pro-America, but I won't be blind to our huge bureaucratic dysfunctions.
#238 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
so what, should we have let half the country leave and go form their own constitution and government? would that have shown the success of the original constitution, or is preserving the original idea of the constitution worth sacrificing half the country? i ask this because the south left before lincoln was even inaugurated let alone did anything.
User avatar #239 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Yes they should have been allowed to secede to honor it as a constitutional right. By the time they did secede, there was no union of minds anyway. The North had been waging financial war on the South for 30 years. That's no union I've ever heard of.

They probably would have reunited in 10 years after whichever side was at fault on different issues started respecting the other side's position. And, the Confederate constitution would have probably been similar to the U.S. constitution. It might have even had some important additions that were wiped from the original constitution behind the forefathers' backs. Instead, our union has been preserved through force, and we have become the great empire we were meant to be.
#236 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
what you said is such a vague statement it could be referring to anything. if the statement is in reference to the constitution, i'd assume you mean the actions taken during the civil war nullified the ideal balance between a balance of state and national government by tipping the scale towards national government. fair enough but if that is what you are going for it is a bit dramatic to say it "set civilization back a couple hundred years" as the constitution, while revolutionary for the time and very adaptable, is not the pinnacle of government. so enlighten me what does "your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades" mean?
User avatar #237 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Who do you think the worst president we've ever had was? Obama? Bush? Nixon? Hoover?

The precedents set in the Civil War nullified several core tenants of the constitution that we won't see in an Earth government again until the next age. You say giving too much power to the Federal government isn't that bad, but all of the major problems we complain about in government today can be traced back to that first time we decided it was okay to break the constitution for "a good cause".

Obama isn't the first president to backdoor congress, ignore the people, and pass unconstitutional laws. It was Abraham Lincoln. In fact, presidents since then are still yet to match all of the unlawful and underhanded things he did to get his way. Abraham Lincoln is the single worst president we've ever had. And, we probably won't get another chance to see the full fruits of the constitution, the culmination of the minds of political geniuses, until we colonize fucking mars. I know you don't see the point, few people ever do until they see what freedom can do.
#232 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
"your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades" what does that even mean?
#235 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
mfw they didn't teach you the significance of the constitution
#228 - cabbagemayhem has deleted their comment.
#83 - anon (07/07/2015) [-]
Same here. I could care less if gays can marry or not, but nobody fucks with the constitution. Not without a fucking vote. I took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, to see them wipe their ass with it is blurring the lines between "enemies both foreign and domestic" Sorry if I'm coming off a bit strong, but I'm fucking livid... I'm losing hope for this country, damnit...
#71 - Isn't that yknow...unconstitutional and not allowed?  [+] (35 new replies) 07/07/2015 on Alabama 0
User avatar #101 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Ironically, the precedent to disregard the 10th Amendment was establish in the Civil War. So, the Confederate flag, that is the basic symbol of the 10th Amendment, is being banned as well.
#76 - anon (07/07/2015) [-]
Very. That's why a lot of people are angry. Most people, such as myself, couldn't care less if gay marriage was legal or not, but the way legalization was implemented by the SCOTUS is very fucking wrong. They've given themselves a precedent to do whatever they want, ignoring the other branches, and the thought that unelected officials who serve for life is frankly terrifying.
User avatar #78 - holycrapimacupcake (07/07/2015) [-]
I mean I don't care if gas get married, but pretty much ignoring the tenth ammendment is a bug issue.
#89 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
they didn't ignore the 10th amendment, and it really annoys me when idiots claim this. the ruling only said states have to issue and recognize state marriage license the 10th amendment doesn't apply as the 14th amendment says the state can't make laws that discriminate, so it is unconstitutional for a state to make a law that discriminates on the distribution of state marriage licenses. it's like trying to argue "10th applies because the fed's do not have place in deciding slavery for states" the 13 amendment would override that claim just as the 14th does here.
User avatar #105 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
The 13th and 14th amendments were passed without quorum in the Senate. They were forced and aren't legal.
#207 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
that's only the case if you think the south should have had a say in the matter, hell the 13th was passed during the war, why should the south have had any say in that matter when they said they weren't even in the country. i mean the south left, they outright reject the US and were even the first to attack throwing the whole notion of "states having the right to leave" out the window as states definitely don't have the right to form an army and attack federal troops.
User avatar #213 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
What do you mean the South attacked first? Fort Sumter was in the south, and the North refused to leave it, even after every plea and offer from the South to leave peacefully.

Do you think voting is only important if everyone agrees, and force is acceptable if they don't? If there are 36 states in the US then 36 states need to vote to amend the constitution. If a new state wants to join the union, it must choose to ratify the constitution first. The war against the South was illegal, the Reconstruction Amendments were illegal, and the constitution itself was undermined for the first time, creating the precedent necessary for government overreach and abuse of power today. You'd think they'd at least mention this in federally funded public schools...hmm.
#214 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
i see, you are a big proponent in states regardless of what it is a right for. i'm not, to me the south's actions were treason as they left the union and fought back when the union wouldn't allow them to leave. to me states rights have always just been an excuse to keep discriminatory laws. it's why the US, a country founded on "freedom", had slaves until the 1860s and anti black laws until the 1960s. in my opinion a state's right to discriminate or have slaves isn't a right they should have, so ya the government might have pressured the amendments through but i am glad they did because it made the country better. i mean i doubt you'd be advocating a state's right to have slaves or discriminate if it would affect you negatively. would you happily become a slave if your state decided that you should be one?
User avatar #217 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Thinking the federal government will be more good than the states is the great mistake. Big government makes bad decisions too, except they affect everyone and there is no escape. You also get less say in what decisions are made, and someone you can barely relate to will be writing your laws. To paraphrase renowned economist and thinker Milton Friedman, "The greatest enemy of freedom is concentrated power."

It wasn't treason for the states to secede, it was a constitutional right back then. Abraham Lincoln changed that by reuniting the South through force, and silencing dissenting voices in the North. The content of the Reconstruction Amendments is less important than the way they were passed -- setting a precedent in government and undermining the constitution itself.

I would much rather my state decide that I should be a slave, than to give the power to make that decision to my federal government.
#223 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
i have my doubts, i mean you say that but you don't seem like a person that would be content with a life of a slave. "You also get less say in what decisions are made, and someone you can barely relate to will be writing your laws." good thing for states rights, it really allowed all those black people to have an input. states rights is one things but a state's right to limit who can participate in the state's government is good. ya technically the south had the constitution on it's side but was that a good thing? was it good that the constitution allowed these white guys to rule their state and label blacks as property who couldn't participate in society let alone politics? should we have allowed the south to re-institutionalize slavery out of this notion of "states rights"?
User avatar #226 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
You're missing the point. I would not be content with slavery. But, I would rather my state make a bad decision, and have a chance to escape to another state, than to give all the power to the federal government to make the bad decision, and have nowhere to run. You make the mistake of thinking the states make bad decisions, but the federal government will never do you wrong.

It's not a matter of whether slavery is right, it's the way it was handled. You act like throwing away the constitution was the only way to resolve the issue, and the end justified the means. You seem to care less about the principles that birthed freedom to the world, and more about your own limited sense of morality. The issue of slavery would have been resolved either way, but now you have another beast to deal with, and that will surely cost more lives than you thought it saved.
#227 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
the federal government can make bad decisions, yes bad is a subjective but limiting one's liberties is generally considered bad, but for a country that was founded on the notion of freedom allowing states to make legislation that limits freedom isn't a good thing. to me the notion that slaves should have just dealt with being slaves for a few more decades to save this notion of states rights ludicrous idea. both the states and the federal government can do wrong and make laws that limit one's liberties but neither should be tolerated.
User avatar #229 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Of course neither should be tolerated. Now, look up "end justifies the means" and "precedent". The war was illegal, the amendments were illegal, and the foundation of our country changed forever. We don't actually live in the same country the founders created anymore. That wasn't necessary to end slavery; slavery was just the moral justification to do it.

EDIT: Fixed grammar
#230 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
maybe, but to me the country was better, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment were necessary in moving the country towards a more free nation. saying that we should have just let blacks suck it up for a few more decades to uphold this notion of states rights would not have been a sound decision to me.
User avatar #231 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
>freedom is important, no matter how many rights i have to erase to achieve it
that's where we disagree. your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades
#250 - noschool (07/09/2015) [-]
well to me, and i know you won't agree, it was a good trade.
User avatar #251 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2015) [-]
You make me sad. But, if that's the way you feel, you should move back to Europe. They tend to agree with your views on freedom.
#248 - noschool (07/09/2015) [-]
if slavery didn't exist the war wouldn't have happened, i mean the reason SC left when it did was because lincoln got elected and it felt he was a threat to slavery in the south. even if you don't think it was the primary reason, it was a reason and was even written into the confederacy constitution. the southern states preemptively left to protect their interests and slavery was one of them.
User avatar #249 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2015) [-]
We traded one freedom for another with blood, but this one we won't get back, at least not without more blood.
#246 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
no, i believe in rights as long as they don't hurt others, i believe in freedom of speech but, and i know it is overused, i don't believe that gives someone the right to yell fire in a movie theater. i believe states should have the right to succeed but not so the state can continue oppressing people.
User avatar #247 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Like I said, slavery was only part of the reason the South seceded. It just became the moral justification for the war.
#244 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
well all that wasn't enough to prevent the country from splitting apart, plus culturally we were fairly divided at the time, i mean a united people wouldn't divide like that. in a word no, but to me it comes down more to "should a state have the right to leave the union" and i have to say it depends, to me the reasoning is the important part. i mean a state leaving the union so it can continue oppressing people isn't a valid reason. yes i am aware "valid" can be morally ambiguous. to me a state having the ability to leave could be good to avoid tyranny but not when the state is leaving to retain its ability of oppressing people.
User avatar #245 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Then, we have nothing in common. You don't seem to understand value of freedom, you think it's okay to break the law if you believe you are morally superior to your enemies, and you think governing by force is an acceptable practice. You are well-trained.
#242 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
idk, to me it isn't much logic there. i mean allowing the south to leave would somehow lead to both sides reconciling their differences years later, reuniting, and creating a better country that the one the split apart doesn't seem like the most logical outcome, especially since it is not really based on anything. really all we can say definitively is different actions would have led to different outcomes, we don't have much evidence to make a logical assumption about long term outcomes let alone their quality.
User avatar #243 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
What are you talking about? There are lots of reasons they would get back together. They were highly dependent on each other financially. They had a great monetary incentive to work out their differences. Let alone, we are culturally similar, which is the only basis for people to have the same government. If we didn't reunite, it would be for a good reason, and both would still be better off.

But all of that is beside the point. It all boils down to one principle. Do you think it's okay to force a territory to become a state without their consent?
#240 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
idk, it seems that's just pure speculation on your part, i mean letting the south leave could have been the worst decision the government could have made. i honestly don't believe we would be better off if we just let the south leave, there isn't much evidence for that but there isn't evidence we would be better off, you just believe we probable would be. to me the constitution, while revolutionary for the time and a fairly good document, wasn't not the end all be all of government structures that needs to be treasured in order to lead us to this perfect society. also the confederacy did have a constitution, it was based on the us's constitution except it made it so slavery couldn't be illegalized, and was altered to be close to the articles of confederation in that it gave states a lot more power, a common theme for people that break away, so i doubt we'd take much from it.
User avatar #241 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
We're talking about possible timelines and you say "pure speculation". Of course it is, but it's logical, which is more than enough. The current timeline left us with a continually devolving government. I'm very nationalistic and pro-America, but I won't be blind to our huge bureaucratic dysfunctions.
#238 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
so what, should we have let half the country leave and go form their own constitution and government? would that have shown the success of the original constitution, or is preserving the original idea of the constitution worth sacrificing half the country? i ask this because the south left before lincoln was even inaugurated let alone did anything.
User avatar #239 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Yes they should have been allowed to secede to honor it as a constitutional right. By the time they did secede, there was no union of minds anyway. The North had been waging financial war on the South for 30 years. That's no union I've ever heard of.

They probably would have reunited in 10 years after whichever side was at fault on different issues started respecting the other side's position. And, the Confederate constitution would have probably been similar to the U.S. constitution. It might have even had some important additions that were wiped from the original constitution behind the forefathers' backs. Instead, our union has been preserved through force, and we have become the great empire we were meant to be.
#236 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
what you said is such a vague statement it could be referring to anything. if the statement is in reference to the constitution, i'd assume you mean the actions taken during the civil war nullified the ideal balance between a balance of state and national government by tipping the scale towards national government. fair enough but if that is what you are going for it is a bit dramatic to say it "set civilization back a couple hundred years" as the constitution, while revolutionary for the time and very adaptable, is not the pinnacle of government. so enlighten me what does "your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades" mean?
User avatar #237 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Who do you think the worst president we've ever had was? Obama? Bush? Nixon? Hoover?

The precedents set in the Civil War nullified several core tenants of the constitution that we won't see in an Earth government again until the next age. You say giving too much power to the Federal government isn't that bad, but all of the major problems we complain about in government today can be traced back to that first time we decided it was okay to break the constitution for "a good cause".

Obama isn't the first president to backdoor congress, ignore the people, and pass unconstitutional laws. It was Abraham Lincoln. In fact, presidents since then are still yet to match all of the unlawful and underhanded things he did to get his way. Abraham Lincoln is the single worst president we've ever had. And, we probably won't get another chance to see the full fruits of the constitution, the culmination of the minds of political geniuses, until we colonize fucking mars. I know you don't see the point, few people ever do until they see what freedom can do.
#232 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
"your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades" what does that even mean?
#235 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
mfw they didn't teach you the significance of the constitution
#228 - cabbagemayhem has deleted their comment.
#83 - anon (07/07/2015) [-]
Same here. I could care less if gays can marry or not, but nobody fucks with the constitution. Not without a fucking vote. I took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, to see them wipe their ass with it is blurring the lines between "enemies both foreign and domestic" Sorry if I'm coming off a bit strong, but I'm fucking livid... I'm losing hope for this country, damnit...
#67 - Marriage is now a state matter. Separation of church and state man.  [+] (37 new replies) 07/07/2015 on Alabama 0
#70 - anon (07/07/2015) [-]
Incorrect: It is now a Federal matter. The states no longer have a say, and were denied their 10th amendment rights.
User avatar #71 - holycrapimacupcake (07/07/2015) [-]
Isn't that yknow...unconstitutional and not allowed?
User avatar #101 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Ironically, the precedent to disregard the 10th Amendment was establish in the Civil War. So, the Confederate flag, that is the basic symbol of the 10th Amendment, is being banned as well.
#76 - anon (07/07/2015) [-]
Very. That's why a lot of people are angry. Most people, such as myself, couldn't care less if gay marriage was legal or not, but the way legalization was implemented by the SCOTUS is very fucking wrong. They've given themselves a precedent to do whatever they want, ignoring the other branches, and the thought that unelected officials who serve for life is frankly terrifying.
User avatar #78 - holycrapimacupcake (07/07/2015) [-]
I mean I don't care if gas get married, but pretty much ignoring the tenth ammendment is a bug issue.
#89 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
they didn't ignore the 10th amendment, and it really annoys me when idiots claim this. the ruling only said states have to issue and recognize state marriage license the 10th amendment doesn't apply as the 14th amendment says the state can't make laws that discriminate, so it is unconstitutional for a state to make a law that discriminates on the distribution of state marriage licenses. it's like trying to argue "10th applies because the fed's do not have place in deciding slavery for states" the 13 amendment would override that claim just as the 14th does here.
User avatar #105 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
The 13th and 14th amendments were passed without quorum in the Senate. They were forced and aren't legal.
#207 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
that's only the case if you think the south should have had a say in the matter, hell the 13th was passed during the war, why should the south have had any say in that matter when they said they weren't even in the country. i mean the south left, they outright reject the US and were even the first to attack throwing the whole notion of "states having the right to leave" out the window as states definitely don't have the right to form an army and attack federal troops.
User avatar #213 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
What do you mean the South attacked first? Fort Sumter was in the south, and the North refused to leave it, even after every plea and offer from the South to leave peacefully.

Do you think voting is only important if everyone agrees, and force is acceptable if they don't? If there are 36 states in the US then 36 states need to vote to amend the constitution. If a new state wants to join the union, it must choose to ratify the constitution first. The war against the South was illegal, the Reconstruction Amendments were illegal, and the constitution itself was undermined for the first time, creating the precedent necessary for government overreach and abuse of power today. You'd think they'd at least mention this in federally funded public schools...hmm.
#214 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
i see, you are a big proponent in states regardless of what it is a right for. i'm not, to me the south's actions were treason as they left the union and fought back when the union wouldn't allow them to leave. to me states rights have always just been an excuse to keep discriminatory laws. it's why the US, a country founded on "freedom", had slaves until the 1860s and anti black laws until the 1960s. in my opinion a state's right to discriminate or have slaves isn't a right they should have, so ya the government might have pressured the amendments through but i am glad they did because it made the country better. i mean i doubt you'd be advocating a state's right to have slaves or discriminate if it would affect you negatively. would you happily become a slave if your state decided that you should be one?
User avatar #217 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Thinking the federal government will be more good than the states is the great mistake. Big government makes bad decisions too, except they affect everyone and there is no escape. You also get less say in what decisions are made, and someone you can barely relate to will be writing your laws. To paraphrase renowned economist and thinker Milton Friedman, "The greatest enemy of freedom is concentrated power."

It wasn't treason for the states to secede, it was a constitutional right back then. Abraham Lincoln changed that by reuniting the South through force, and silencing dissenting voices in the North. The content of the Reconstruction Amendments is less important than the way they were passed -- setting a precedent in government and undermining the constitution itself.

I would much rather my state decide that I should be a slave, than to give the power to make that decision to my federal government.
#223 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
i have my doubts, i mean you say that but you don't seem like a person that would be content with a life of a slave. "You also get less say in what decisions are made, and someone you can barely relate to will be writing your laws." good thing for states rights, it really allowed all those black people to have an input. states rights is one things but a state's right to limit who can participate in the state's government is good. ya technically the south had the constitution on it's side but was that a good thing? was it good that the constitution allowed these white guys to rule their state and label blacks as property who couldn't participate in society let alone politics? should we have allowed the south to re-institutionalize slavery out of this notion of "states rights"?
User avatar #226 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
You're missing the point. I would not be content with slavery. But, I would rather my state make a bad decision, and have a chance to escape to another state, than to give all the power to the federal government to make the bad decision, and have nowhere to run. You make the mistake of thinking the states make bad decisions, but the federal government will never do you wrong.

It's not a matter of whether slavery is right, it's the way it was handled. You act like throwing away the constitution was the only way to resolve the issue, and the end justified the means. You seem to care less about the principles that birthed freedom to the world, and more about your own limited sense of morality. The issue of slavery would have been resolved either way, but now you have another beast to deal with, and that will surely cost more lives than you thought it saved.
#227 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
the federal government can make bad decisions, yes bad is a subjective but limiting one's liberties is generally considered bad, but for a country that was founded on the notion of freedom allowing states to make legislation that limits freedom isn't a good thing. to me the notion that slaves should have just dealt with being slaves for a few more decades to save this notion of states rights ludicrous idea. both the states and the federal government can do wrong and make laws that limit one's liberties but neither should be tolerated.
User avatar #229 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
Of course neither should be tolerated. Now, look up "end justifies the means" and "precedent". The war was illegal, the amendments were illegal, and the foundation of our country changed forever. We don't actually live in the same country the founders created anymore. That wasn't necessary to end slavery; slavery was just the moral justification to do it.

EDIT: Fixed grammar
#230 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
maybe, but to me the country was better, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment were necessary in moving the country towards a more free nation. saying that we should have just let blacks suck it up for a few more decades to uphold this notion of states rights would not have been a sound decision to me.
User avatar #231 - cabbagemayhem (07/07/2015) [-]
>freedom is important, no matter how many rights i have to erase to achieve it
that's where we disagree. your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades
#250 - noschool (07/09/2015) [-]
well to me, and i know you won't agree, it was a good trade.
User avatar #251 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2015) [-]
You make me sad. But, if that's the way you feel, you should move back to Europe. They tend to agree with your views on freedom.
#248 - noschool (07/09/2015) [-]
if slavery didn't exist the war wouldn't have happened, i mean the reason SC left when it did was because lincoln got elected and it felt he was a threat to slavery in the south. even if you don't think it was the primary reason, it was a reason and was even written into the confederacy constitution. the southern states preemptively left to protect their interests and slavery was one of them.
User avatar #249 - cabbagemayhem (07/09/2015) [-]
We traded one freedom for another with blood, but this one we won't get back, at least not without more blood.
#246 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
no, i believe in rights as long as they don't hurt others, i believe in freedom of speech but, and i know it is overused, i don't believe that gives someone the right to yell fire in a movie theater. i believe states should have the right to succeed but not so the state can continue oppressing people.
User avatar #247 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Like I said, slavery was only part of the reason the South seceded. It just became the moral justification for the war.
#244 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
well all that wasn't enough to prevent the country from splitting apart, plus culturally we were fairly divided at the time, i mean a united people wouldn't divide like that. in a word no, but to me it comes down more to "should a state have the right to leave the union" and i have to say it depends, to me the reasoning is the important part. i mean a state leaving the union so it can continue oppressing people isn't a valid reason. yes i am aware "valid" can be morally ambiguous. to me a state having the ability to leave could be good to avoid tyranny but not when the state is leaving to retain its ability of oppressing people.
User avatar #245 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Then, we have nothing in common. You don't seem to understand value of freedom, you think it's okay to break the law if you believe you are morally superior to your enemies, and you think governing by force is an acceptable practice. You are well-trained.
#242 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
idk, to me it isn't much logic there. i mean allowing the south to leave would somehow lead to both sides reconciling their differences years later, reuniting, and creating a better country that the one the split apart doesn't seem like the most logical outcome, especially since it is not really based on anything. really all we can say definitively is different actions would have led to different outcomes, we don't have much evidence to make a logical assumption about long term outcomes let alone their quality.
User avatar #243 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
What are you talking about? There are lots of reasons they would get back together. They were highly dependent on each other financially. They had a great monetary incentive to work out their differences. Let alone, we are culturally similar, which is the only basis for people to have the same government. If we didn't reunite, it would be for a good reason, and both would still be better off.

But all of that is beside the point. It all boils down to one principle. Do you think it's okay to force a territory to become a state without their consent?
#240 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
idk, it seems that's just pure speculation on your part, i mean letting the south leave could have been the worst decision the government could have made. i honestly don't believe we would be better off if we just let the south leave, there isn't much evidence for that but there isn't evidence we would be better off, you just believe we probable would be. to me the constitution, while revolutionary for the time and a fairly good document, wasn't not the end all be all of government structures that needs to be treasured in order to lead us to this perfect society. also the confederacy did have a constitution, it was based on the us's constitution except it made it so slavery couldn't be illegalized, and was altered to be close to the articles of confederation in that it gave states a lot more power, a common theme for people that break away, so i doubt we'd take much from it.
User avatar #241 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
We're talking about possible timelines and you say "pure speculation". Of course it is, but it's logical, which is more than enough. The current timeline left us with a continually devolving government. I'm very nationalistic and pro-America, but I won't be blind to our huge bureaucratic dysfunctions.
#238 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
so what, should we have let half the country leave and go form their own constitution and government? would that have shown the success of the original constitution, or is preserving the original idea of the constitution worth sacrificing half the country? i ask this because the south left before lincoln was even inaugurated let alone did anything.
User avatar #239 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Yes they should have been allowed to secede to honor it as a constitutional right. By the time they did secede, there was no union of minds anyway. The North had been waging financial war on the South for 30 years. That's no union I've ever heard of.

They probably would have reunited in 10 years after whichever side was at fault on different issues started respecting the other side's position. And, the Confederate constitution would have probably been similar to the U.S. constitution. It might have even had some important additions that were wiped from the original constitution behind the forefathers' backs. Instead, our union has been preserved through force, and we have become the great empire we were meant to be.
#236 - noschool (07/08/2015) [-]
what you said is such a vague statement it could be referring to anything. if the statement is in reference to the constitution, i'd assume you mean the actions taken during the civil war nullified the ideal balance between a balance of state and national government by tipping the scale towards national government. fair enough but if that is what you are going for it is a bit dramatic to say it "set civilization back a couple hundred years" as the constitution, while revolutionary for the time and very adaptable, is not the pinnacle of government. so enlighten me what does "your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades" mean?
User avatar #237 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
Who do you think the worst president we've ever had was? Obama? Bush? Nixon? Hoover?

The precedents set in the Civil War nullified several core tenants of the constitution that we won't see in an Earth government again until the next age. You say giving too much power to the Federal government isn't that bad, but all of the major problems we complain about in government today can be traced back to that first time we decided it was okay to break the constitution for "a good cause".

Obama isn't the first president to backdoor congress, ignore the people, and pass unconstitutional laws. It was Abraham Lincoln. In fact, presidents since then are still yet to match all of the unlawful and underhanded things he did to get his way. Abraham Lincoln is the single worst president we've ever had. And, we probably won't get another chance to see the full fruits of the constitution, the culmination of the minds of political geniuses, until we colonize fucking mars. I know you don't see the point, few people ever do until they see what freedom can do.
#232 - noschool (07/07/2015) [-]
"your way set civilization back a couple hundred years for the sake of a few decades" what does that even mean?
#235 - cabbagemayhem (07/08/2015) [-]
mfw they didn't teach you the significance of the constitution
#228 - cabbagemayhem has deleted their comment.
#83 - anon (07/07/2015) [-]
Same here. I could care less if gays can marry or not, but nobody fucks with the constitution. Not without a fucking vote. I took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, to see them wipe their ass with it is blurring the lines between "enemies both foreign and domestic" Sorry if I'm coming off a bit strong, but I'm fucking livid... I'm losing hope for this country, damnit...
#35 - Well that I didn't actually know. Thanks for the info. 07/06/2015 on george carlin R.I.P +2
#34 - The Daly Mail fishes for anything these days. 07/06/2015 on Racism +2

items

Total unique items point value: 1911 / Total items point value: 6511

Comments(12):

holycrapimacupcake has disabled anonymous comments.
 
User avatar #78 - mcburd (03/12/2015) [-]
I did see it.

I have not said anything, both because Davidickerson has long ago blocked me, and
because I could not care less what the fukko thinks.
User avatar #79 to #78 - holycrapimacupcake (03/12/2015) [-]
Ah wonderful. Have a glorious day my friend.
#76 - bible (02/15/2015) [-]
Oh man, Wikipedia link spams. These guys must know their 			****		.    
   
Look, if you're willing to believe some omnipotent being poofed us into existence, not a lot of things should be surprising. Worry not about the fellas arguing with you.    
   
Put it simply, the more we learn about the universe round us, the less we find out we know. Quite frankly believing in a Divine Purpose isn't that er, "Out there"
Oh man, Wikipedia link spams. These guys must know their **** .

Look, if you're willing to believe some omnipotent being poofed us into existence, not a lot of things should be surprising. Worry not about the fellas arguing with you.

Put it simply, the more we learn about the universe round us, the less we find out we know. Quite frankly believing in a Divine Purpose isn't that er, "Out there"
User avatar #77 to #76 - holycrapimacupcake (02/15/2015) [-]
Thank you.
User avatar #75 - newpulse ONLINE (02/11/2015) [-]
Accept my invitation friend. Pretty please.
#72 - include (02/05/2015) [-]
Thanks for the accept cupcake.
User avatar #73 to #72 - holycrapimacupcake (02/05/2015) [-]
Oh it's no problem! I've been meaning to send you one actually!
User avatar #74 to #73 - include (02/05/2015) [-]
Thank you.
#70 - satanisrealgod (07/09/2014) [-]
**satanisrealgod rolled image** Dumbass
**satanisrealgod rolled image** Dumbass
User avatar #71 to #70 - holycrapimacupcake (07/09/2014) [-]
Love you too pumpkin.
#69 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/22/2014) [-]
 
 Friends (0)