...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Liability]

Rights preceded the formation of our Constitution.

All rights not expressly delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the States and/or to the People -- and that is true whether or not those rights are spelled out in the Constitution.

I have yet to see an answer, in light of the foregoing, to the proposition that since the States CREATED the Union upon certain very specific terms and conditions, they MUST have reserved the right to withdraw from the agreement and from the Union when the terms are not honored by the Federal government.

Certainly, it is true that President Lincoln disagreed with that proposition. And later the SCOTUS has insinuated itself into the discussion without valid basis to do so. But I have yet to see a coherent argument which refutes the rather straightforward proposition I laid out.

By way of a small analogy. Let's stipulate that I have certain rights in a company, as an employee. But a proposed worker's UNION asks me to join so that we can have a larger group voice backed by a legitimate threat of collective action. Part of the deal in joining the Union is my agreement to cede TO the Union (majority vote) the authority to call strikes etc. What used to be my individual right has been given by me to the Union upon certain terms and conditions.

Now the Union starts acting in violation of my agreement to JOIN the Union. I say, "Whoa! Knock that shit off!" But the Union tells me to STFU insisting that they can do whatever they wish in my name and in the name of all other union members. I say, "Not so fast, bucko. You are violating my agreement with you. And that which I can voluntarily enter I can also voluntarily leave."

If the Union doesn't take the damn hint, I can quit the Union. In short, the rights I ceded to them were given CONDITIONALLY. If they don't honor those conditions, terms and agreements, then I reserve the right to terminate my Union membership. Violate the condition, violate the contract, suffer the repercussions.

On what possible authority can anybody logically claim that a State, which entered the UNION upon very clear terms and conditions, is somehow not free to withdraw from that Union when the Federal Government breaches the agreement?

 

[HUGGY]

OH shit!!!!!

Liability is gonna tug on that thread and unravell the whole thing!

I bet he doesn't have one good pair of socks!

Personally I like his "Lincoln" thread better..less long wind ...simple...

Do ya think if Lincoln hadn't been shot he would have introduced "The Goose Step"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Heil, Abraham."

 

[JBeukema]

Answer the question: Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?


Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?

[bullshit]

Stop dodging.

Did the CSA have the right to secede or did the FF have no right to their war for independence?

Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?

 

[Liability]

OH shit!!!!!

Liability is gonna tug on that thread and unravell the whole thing!

I bet he doesn't have one good pair of socks!

Personally I like his "Lincoln" thread better..less long wind ...simple...

Do ya think if Lincoln hadn't been shot he would have introduced "The Goose Step"?

Hell. Even YOU could learn if you'd just listen to me once in a while instead of metaphorically flapping your gums.

Did old Abe kinda sorta ignore the Constitution in order to preserve the Union?

Yeah. Probably. Does that make him a villain on the order of magnitude of a Hitler?

Obviously not. That's such a retarded proposition, in fact, that even you should be able to avoid making such idiotic assertions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You made an assertion without evidence. Support it or fail.

 

[Liability]

You made an assertion without evidence. Support it or fail.

Helpful hint time:

It often proves useful to give the readers SOME idea of the person to whom you are addressing your questions and, maybe, even a hint as to which assertion you are referencing.

No need to thank me for this small gesture of good will. It comes naturally to me as a conservative.

 

[syrenn]

ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide. "group of people"= the American people.

You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong.
Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
WordNet Search - 3.0
You can follow the distinction, yes?

Yes you are right. Lets try real definitions instead of your self serving ones. Try using and understanding the whole definitions of a word and not picking and choosing your pet ones.

analogy
- 6 dictionary results
a·nal·o·gy
   /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology. an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics.
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

genocide
gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


I will assume you understand "analogy"

What part of the genocide "analogy" are you confused with?

The south proclaimed themselves as a nation unto themselves and no longer part of the union.
The south proclaimed themselves a nation based on their political views.
To this day there are cultural differences between the south and the rest of the country.
And using one word from your definition. The south leaving the union was a radical idea in and of itself.


The north set out to destroy the "nation" of the confederacy, its radical, political views. The north ADDED the moral grounds of destroying the south for its culture of slavery

]It makes no different upon which state right was in question. The south technically did have the right. The war was fought to keep the union together.

And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.

The south had every right. I suggest you actually read the Constitution. The Constitution of the united States neither explicitly or implicitly disallows secession. The south optioned out to leave.

Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.

Agreed. And that goes both ways.

 

[Kalam]

Let's get you straight, Kalam. I have always honored Islam and those who followed its quiet path of peace. Those extremists, and their supporters, who defend the murdering of innocents, by your fighters and bombers, spit the name of God and trod with unclean feet on the scriptures. I possess only the deepest revilement for those type of people.

Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth, because for them is Jannah. They fight in the way of Allah; they slay and they are slain. It is a promise upon Him true in the Torah, and the Gospels, and the Qur'an - and who is more faithful to his promise than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And that is the greatest triumph. - 9:111​

 

[syrenn]

Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.

And that is the excuse all muslim terrorists use as their rallying cry. It is why muslim terrorists do target civilians. anything, ANYTHING NON islam is considered an attack and persecution.

 

[rikules]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...


there are SOOOOOOO many examples!

and here is another one...


today....lincoln is hitler...

yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."

so
according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"

 

[Kalam]

Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.

And that is the excuse all muslim terrorists use as their rallying cry. It is why muslim terrorists do target civilians. anything, ANYTHING NON islam is considered an attack and persecution.

That philosophy is inconsistent with the teachings of the religion.

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said, "Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about spoils, but collect your gains, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do good." - Sunan Abu Dawud​

 

[paperview]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...


there are SOOOOOOO many examples!

and here is another one...


today....lincoln is hitler...

yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."

so
according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"

That one rides alongside MLK Jr. was a low life adulterous communist - and didja know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!

 

[syrenn]

Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.

And that is the excuse all muslim terrorists use as their rallying cry. It is why muslim terrorists do target civilians. anything, ANYTHING NON islam is considered an attack and persecution.

That philosophy is inconsistent with the teachings of the religion.

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said, "Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about spoils, but collect your gains, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do good." - Sunan Abu Dawud​

I understand that, which is why not all muslims are islamic terrorists. terrorists use that quote of islam and take it as far as they can as both reason and truth.

 

[syrenn]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...
there are SOOOOOOO many examples!
and here is another one...
today....lincoln is hitler...
yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."so
according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"

That one rides alongside MLK Jr. was a low life adulterous communist - and didja know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!

Just a side note and nothing to do with this thread.

Is it just me or is obam trying very hard to make himself into, and many people likening him to, Lincoln?

 

[JakeStarkey]

conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...
there are SOOOOOOO many examples!
and here is another one...
today....lincoln is hitler...
yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."so
according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"

That one rides alongside MLK Jr. was a low life adulterous communist - and didja know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!

Just a side note and nothing to do with this thread.

Is it just me or is obam trying very hard to make himself into, and many people likening him to, Lincoln?

Due respect but vestri perception est erroris.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just you, Siren.

The problems that President Obama faces are far more like those of President Roosevelt than those of President Lincoln.

Failed policy that resulted in a major economic disaster.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just you, Siren.

The problems that President Obama faces are far more like those of President Roosevelt than those of President Lincoln.

Failed policy that resulted in a major economic disaster.

And, like Roosevelt, he continues those same failed policies he ran against.

 

[jillian]

ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide. "group of people"= the American people.

You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong.
Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
WordNet Search - 3.0
You can follow the distinction, yes?

Yes you are right. Lets try real definitions instead of your self serving ones. Try using and understanding the whole definitions of a word and not picking and choosing your pet ones.

analogy
- 6 dictionary results
a·nal·o·gy
   /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology. an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics.
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

genocide
gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


I will assume you understand "analogy"

What part of the genocide "analogy" are you confused with?

The south proclaimed themselves as a nation unto themselves and no longer part of the union.
The south proclaimed themselves a nation based on their political views.
To this day there are cultural differences between the south and the rest of the country.
And using one word from your definition. The south leaving the union was a radical idea in and of itself.


The north set out to destroy the "nation" of the confederacy, its radical, political views. The north ADDED the moral grounds of destroying the south for its culture of slavery

And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.

The south had every right. I suggest you actually read the Constitution. The Constitution of the united States neither explicitly or implicitly disallows secession. The south optioned out to leave.

Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.

Agreed. And that goes both ways.

and as soon as you use terms correctly, i'll be happy to discuss this issue further.

but good that you looked up the words. perhaps you'll understand them now.

 

[syrenn]

Agreed. And that goes both ways.

and as soon as you use terms correctly, i'll be happy to discuss this issue further.
but good that you looked up the words. perhaps you'll understand them now.

Happy to post information for you that helps you understand definitions a bit better.