Baltimore Maryland

Here in Maryland crabs prefer to take a steam bath in Natty Boh. The only Sam Adams beer worth drinking is the Black Lager.

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

@newtboy:
A Minority View by Walter Williams:
"The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It detailed where slaves were freed, only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”"

And in Lincoln's own words:
“I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.”

The idea of buying the slaves possibly did not take root because Lincoln didn't really care about freeing the slaves, he cared about preserving the union, in his own words, and buying the slaves would not stop secession at that point.

I'm not a free university. It's not my job to educate you or to challenge your apparent historical expertise by telling you that there were four slave states which remained in the Union (Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, & Kentucky). I already responded to the rest of your comment in my previous posts above (and yes, taxes had something to do with it).

UMDSOM2014·Joined YT Joined Jun 22, 2013
(University of Maryland School of Medicine - Junior Jollies
Ben Khazan and Brandon Schwartz)

Doctor Talent hasn't screamed, "HEY!? WHY BAN??!" yet....

Two videos, 2 days, both for some cheese med school project-I call shenanigans.

And another one. So now that we have it in print, can we drop the pretence and call it what it is: the world's most sophisticated system of industrial espionage.

I'd complain about being spied upon by supposed friends and allies, but as recently declassified documents showed, the Allied Control Council reserved the right to spy on any and all communications in Germany, even beyond the reunification in 1990. So it's not like we had any privacy to begin with, only the illusion of privacy, lasting a whopping 61 years. And it's all legal. Unconstitutional, but legal.

Snowden's material included surveillance statistics, showing that the NSA is intercepting, on average, 20 million phone calls a day in this beautiful country of mine. Most of it will be plain old industrial espionage, just like the bugs they planted at the EU offices.
So I'm rather surprised at the lack of outrage coming from my government. I know they don't give a rat's ass about the privacy of us plebs, but industrial espionage on a massive scale? I'd assumed they wouldn't like that one bit. Not a peep though, only silent obedience.

Anyway, everything's presented as shocking news in the media, so I thought I'd just link a certain document, aptly named AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL. As you can see, it is a report that was presented to the European Parliament in 1998.

Skip to 7.4.1:

The Interim report said that within Europe, all email, telephone and fax communications are routinely intercepted by the United States National Security Agency, transferring all target information from the European mainland via the strategic hub of London then by Satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland via the crucial hub at Menwith Hill in the North York Moors of the UK.

It reminds me of the Maryland state tax on the amount of rainfall that falls on your property. But it's unclear to me what "water" here refers to. Is it the underground river going beneath my house? Is it Lake Michigan? Is it the collected rainfall in my wheelbarrow? Is it the ocean? Is it the water in the Las Vegas hotel fountain? Is it the reservoir?

"Ownership," in the legal sense of the word, for each of these may vary. Does the "government" own all of these? Is there a pragmatic and/or legal distinction between "owning" and "controlling?"

The Colorado River dries up before it reaches the ocean. California complains that not enough water reaches CA and that NV and others are using up too much of it. Who owns the water coming down the Colorado River?

Not according to David Thompson, a NASA astrophysicist and deputy project director on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope who compares the risk to Earth from a future gamma-ray burst to "the danger I might face if I found a polar bear in my closet in Bowie, Maryland. It could happen, but it is so unlikely that it is not worth worrying about."

Least stressful election night ever! Aside from Obama's swing state sweep, Elizabeth Warren was elected and some republican rape apologists got pink slips. Pot was legalized in Colorado and Washington. Gay Marriage in Maine and Maryland.

@dag, Nate was spot on, but the numbers suggest Obama picked up some extra electoral votes somewhere and I can't figure out where. What state did he nab from om-nom-Romneh? (edit: it appears he got all of the states right, but his prediction was 315 electoral votes, instead of 303 or 330. Why the discrepancy?)

What is this strange feeling overcoming me. Hope? Optimism?

Bachmann is still too close to call. Let's all pray to Cthulhu tonight to make her go away from our political system for good. (edit: ah fiddlesitcks
, she won)

I see the anti-government-handout right wing "libertarians" who were looking to get 5% of the vote so that they could get a government handout failed to get more than a single percentage point. Serves those hypocrits right.

Thank you Jesus!

Chris rewrote his letter with cleaned up language. His reasoning here:

http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbounds/2012/09/08/out-of-bounds-blog-no-8-inquisitive-kitten-pawing-at-yarn/


The letter here (former curse words in all caps):

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees”, more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a BEAUTIFULLY UNIQUE SPARKLEPONY. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-bogglingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. SAD PUPPY DOG EYES hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” DISAPPOINTED LEMUR FACE WITH SOLITARY TEAR TRICKLING DOWN TO CHIN. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a ten for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about DANCING CHUBTOAD? “ALACK AND ALAS MY TOP HAT HAS FALLEN. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that DELICIOUS STATE FAIR HOTDOG!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (unlikely, gay people enjoy watching football too)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero affect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful FROLICKING OSTRICH. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90% of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth SLIDE WHISTLE TO E FLAT you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

p.s. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. UNFORTUNATELY PHALLIC HEDGE SCULPTURE.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, arrest, direction, ask, innocent, cop, no help, stop sign, violation' to 'police, arrest, direction, maryland, 95 south, innocent, cop, stop sign, violation' - edited by bareboards2

Fair comment on all points.

Frankly, I don't care if the whole thing was justified. Human people becoming aware of how corporate people in general, and insurance companies in particular, treat human people can only be a good thing.>> ^Porksandwich:

Article I read said the guy who ran into his sister was underinsured, not uninsured.
And another said Maryland law says that if you are even partly at fault for the accident, you don't get any money from lawsuits because of it. You have to be 0% at fault to get money. It was kind of unclear, but apparently Maryland law is odd in that way. It seemed like they couldn't sue Progressive under this law until they proved that she was 0% at fault, so instead they had to sue the other driver to prove she wasn't at fault and that he was. Then use that ruling to make Progressive pay out, something like that.
And that's where Progressive was supposed to defending the guy who killed his sister, but again this was unclear because it sounded like they named both the guy and Progressive in the lawsuit. Progressive said they didn't defend the guy, but his own insurance company did....and perhaps Progressive was just on that side because they were named in the lawsuit with him.
Was kind of confusing to me, admittedly I didn't spend a whole lot of time trying to figure it out. Underinsured drivers are bullshit.....paying to be protected from the liability they cause shouldn't even be up for debate in this discussion. She paid for a service and they should be providing that service to her estate.

Article I read said the guy who ran into his sister was underinsured, not uninsured.

And another said Maryland law says that if you are even partly at fault for the accident, you don't get any money from lawsuits because of it. You have to be 0% at fault to get money. It was kind of unclear, but apparently Maryland law is odd in that way. It seemed like they couldn't sue Progressive under this law until they proved that she was 0% at fault, so instead they had to sue the other driver to prove she wasn't at fault and that he was. Then use that ruling to make Progressive pay out, something like that.

And that's where Progressive was supposed to defending the guy who killed his sister, but again this was unclear because it sounded like they named both the guy and Progressive in the lawsuit. Progressive said they didn't defend the guy, but his own insurance company did....and perhaps Progressive was just on that side because they were named in the lawsuit with him.

Was kind of confusing to me, admittedly I didn't spend a whole lot of time trying to figure it out. Underinsured drivers are bullshit.....paying to be protected from the liability they cause shouldn't even be up for debate in this discussion. She paid for a service and they should be providing that service to her estate.