Do you think that if the slaves were purchased that way, it would've ended slavery? Wouldn't the South have just brought more slaves in to replace the old?

Of course the South would've brought more slaves.

My point is that the war was so expensive that even buying the slaves and land for their families would've been cheaper. I never claimed this was a practical solution. If I had to propose a solution, it would involve not provoking the South with tariffs which essentially amounted to commercial blockades, and avoiding a war altogether.

Americans are taught that the US civil war was about freeing the slaves, when in fact the slaves were only an aspect of a larger economic dispute.

Exactly.

The United States holds the distinction of being the only country where a civil war was tied to the issue of slavery. To put matters in perspective, it would've been cheaper to buy all the slaves and a fair amount of land for them than to pay for the civil war.

The twisted notion that Lincoln's civil war was an act of brilliance stinks of indoctrination.

After watching PETA's ad it's no surprise that it didn't air. I doubt they even have the budget to air commercials during the Superbowl.

PETA probably commissioned a sexy ad knowing fully well it wouldn't be approved by NBC. The fact that it's "banned" gives PETA the Superbowl publicity it can't afford. (And as others have said, Superbowl watchers aren't exactly PETA's target audience.)

(...) or the ability of the government to stimulate by borrowing dollars from domestic and foreign holders of dollars and spending it in particular, focussed areas (since such policy does not rely on manipulate M1.)

The Fed's balance sheet was spent on the first bailouts, and the US is now printing money to cover the current bailouts. The government is manipulating M1.

The author of that piece attempts to confuse the issue by posting a different graph that shows a falling trend in how effective stimulative government deficit spending has been on average recently, and attempting to suggest, without any real reason, that the two graphs are directly related

You're confusing the issue by implying that they are not directly related. Manipulation of M1 leads to an even worse trend on the second graph.

The second graph does show a long-term problem, and particularly does show why, once this recession ends, the US government must, in the subsequent expansion, begin to pay down the debt or at least stop expanding the debt faster than the GDP during expansions

I love how people like yourself, Bernanke and Paulson concede under pressure that deficit spending is disturbing, but at the same time hold a Keynesian attitude of printing money to "stimulate" the economy.

There's only one correct attitude during a recession: liquidate bad debt and expose fraud. Deficit spending during a recession only drains money from healthy sectors of the economy.

If I borrow $100 now and put it to work now, that $100 will have a net effect of the $100 spent x the current multiplier

Right. And the multiplier has fallen below 1.0. The United States cannot print or borrow out of this mess, which is the point that the grandparent post was making.

It's not like the United States has a safe with trillions of dollars that can be distributed or invested in some central planning scheme. The trillions of dollars which are being offered represent money that the US government doesn't have.

From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled.

You're very off base. I'm not Southern Baptist. I'm not even American.

Here's the deal: Muslims claim Jesus was just a man. Christians claim that Jesus is God. Therefore, the God of Islam cannot be the God of Christians (because a regular man obviously cannot be the one and only God). QED. No need to invoke the Trinity.

Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity. Reducing the role of Jesus to that of a prophet contradicts the New Testament and the Christian concept of salvation through grace.

Actually, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, all worship the same God, they just disagree on who was the last prophet.

I respectfully disagree.

The Christian God is Triune, and this "last prophet" is actually the Christian God. The fact that Jews, Muslims and Christians disagree regarding Christ means that they have differing opinions regarding the essential nature of God.

Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.

If the prevelence of 40 as a figure is what turns you off, note that semetic languages commonly use the number 40 as a non-literal figure meaning "many" and somewhere around that order of magnitude. However, translations commonly take this literally. Hence, the prevelence of "40 days" for Noah's ark, "40 years" in the desert, etc.

Sufficiently accurate for a religious text, but not at all appropriate for a technical description.