Comments on: Jim Burns for President? http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:44:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: long beach home equity loans http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-200257 Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:23:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-200257 <strong>long beach home equity loans</strong> boy servicemen snaked long beach home equity loans

boy servicemen snaked

]]> by: Refinance Mortgage Loan http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-189852 Tue, 22 May 2007 15:55:10 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-189852 <strong>Refinance Mortgage Loan</strong> Lorelei!deposed factor,abraded metallurgy subscribing Refinance Mortgage Loan

Lorelei!deposed factor,abraded metallurgy subscribing

]]> by: Insurance Homeowners http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-101513 Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:27:09 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-101513 <strong>Insurance Homeowners</strong> accumulates Churchill earnest migrates annoys:Home Owner Insurence [url=http://www.homeownerinsurenceok.com/#]Home Owner Insurence[/url] http://www.homeownerinsurenceok.com/# Insurance Homeowners

accumulates Churchill earnest migrates annoys:Home Owner Insurence [url=http://www.homeownerinsurenceok.com/#]Home Owner Insurence[/url] http://www.homeownerinsurenceok.com/#

]]> by: Cream Ice Parlor http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-57273 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:53:37 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-57273 Your post is on target. Keep it up. Your post is on target. Keep it up.

]]> by: KY_Liberal http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-511 Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:55:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-511 I disagree with the idea that the US represented tyranny. The entire reason for secession was the idea by the Southern states that they were losing power in the US government, and their "way of life" was under attack. Yes, they were state's right's people, but they were using that to defend slavery. They saw the election of Lincoln as the North deciding that it wanted to curtail the Southern custom of Slavery, and so seceded. Whether or not the every-day soldier knew that is not at issue, for it is not the poor who started that war. It was the rich, the people in power. The upper-class riled up the public in a chance to ensure that they would respond and support the cause of secession. Yes, it is the rich who started the war (to maintain their money, and ensure that their 'way of life' is not threatened), and the poor who mostly fought and died. (I am not saying that all confederates were redneck hicks who didn't give a damn about the common man. Some of them really did believe that the US had no right to attempt to end slavery because of the constitution, though they were morally opposed. General Lee was an honorable man, however the cause he fought for was not just. Nor was it as honorable as the man leading.) I disagree with the idea that the US represented tyranny. The entire reason for secession was the idea by the Southern states that they were losing power in the US government, and their “way of life” was under attack.

Yes, they were state’s right’s people, but they were using that to defend slavery. They saw the election of Lincoln as the North deciding that it wanted to curtail the Southern custom of Slavery, and so seceded.

Whether or not the every-day soldier knew that is not at issue, for it is not the poor who started that war. It was the rich, the people in power. The upper-class riled up the public in a chance to ensure that they would respond and support the cause of secession.

Yes, it is the rich who started the war (to maintain their money, and ensure that their ‘way of life’ is not threatened), and the poor who mostly fought and died. (I am not saying that all confederates were redneck hicks who didn’t give a damn about the common man. Some of them really did believe that the US had no right to attempt to end slavery because of the constitution, though they were morally opposed. General Lee was an honorable man, however the cause he fought for was not just. Nor was it as honorable as the man leading.)

]]> by: Abe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-490 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:14:34 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-490 No Libertarian could ever defend slavery, but the Confederate flag has a lot in common with the original US flag, if you think about it: Both represented countries that were trying to secede from a tyrannical central government. Both represented countries that permitted slavery. So if you object to the Confederate flag, you should object to the Stars and Stripes on the same grounds. No Libertarian could ever defend slavery, but the Confederate flag has a lot in common with the original US flag, if you think about it:

Both represented countries that were trying to secede from a tyrannical central government.

Both represented countries that permitted slavery.

So if you object to the Confederate flag, you should object to the Stars and Stripes on the same grounds.

]]> by: R.D. http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-489 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:55:18 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-489 ^ A couple things people care to forget concerning the Confederate flag and slavery. 1. Slaveholders were rich (at best, 5% of the population). 2. The South, like the North, had a buyout clause in their conscription. 3. Since they were rich, slaveholders did not fight by buying out. 4. Because they had no money and no slaves then, the people that actually fought under the Confederate flag were not slaveholders. Why would a poor white boy care if a rich white boy down the road has to start paying for help? If anything, because of that reason the poor white boy would fight for the North, to ensure he makes more money. But you and I know that's not what happened. fyi: I'm from New Bern, North Carolina, former colonial capital of the state and a somewhat large city back then. The second largest slaveowner in the city was black. ^ A couple things people care to forget concerning the Confederate flag and slavery.

1. Slaveholders were rich (at best, 5% of the population).

2. The South, like the North, had a buyout clause in their conscription.

3. Since they were rich, slaveholders did not fight by buying out.

4. Because they had no money and no slaves then, the people that actually fought under the Confederate flag were not slaveholders.

Why would a poor white boy care if a rich white boy down the road has to start paying for help? If anything, because of that reason the poor white boy would fight for the North, to ensure he makes more money. But you and I know that’s not what happened.

fyi: I’m from New Bern, North Carolina, former colonial capital of the state and a somewhat large city back then. The second largest slaveowner in the city was black.

]]> by: George Phillies http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-487 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:23:25 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-487 Mr. Burns has campaigned with a Confederate flag, the flag of people trying to maintain slavery in this country (cf. e.g., the Mississsippi Secession declaration). Slaveholders had two reasons to keep their slaves. Less important, it gave them a supply of near-free forced labor. More important, it gave them a regular supply of marginally nubile little girls on which they could work their desires. Supporters of the slaveholder perverts have no business claiming to be Libertarians. Mr. Burns has campaigned with a Confederate flag, the flag of people trying to maintain slavery in this country (cf. e.g., the Mississsippi Secession declaration). Slaveholders had two reasons to keep their slaves. Less important, it gave them a supply of near-free forced labor. More important, it gave them a regular supply of marginally nubile little girls on which they could work their desires.

Supporters of the slaveholder perverts have no business claiming to be Libertarians.

]]> by: Jason http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-486 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:59:17 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-486 I have to agree with Chris Bennett. This guy has gone off the deep end. I have to agree with Chris Bennett. This guy has gone off the deep end.

]]> by: Austin Cassidy http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-485 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:15:07 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-485 I didn't think Badnarik had a chance either. I didn’t think Badnarik had a chance either.

]]> by: Alex Peak http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-483 Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:16:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-483 I get the feeling he's not going to win. I get the feeling he’s not going to win.

]]> by: Chris Bennett http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-480 Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:34:54 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/07/30/jim-burns-for-president/#comment-480 I remember both candidates at the LP convention. Jim Burns had a brochure and in his picture he had the confederate flag in the background. That turned off many libertarians even myself cause of my ethnicity. Burns may be the founder of the Nevada LP but he's a nut! I remember both candidates at the LP convention. Jim Burns had a brochure and in his picture he had the confederate flag in the background. That turned off many libertarians even myself cause of my ethnicity. Burns may be the founder of the Nevada LP but he’s a nut!

]]>