Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He will exit the electoral field with the wost defeat in American presidential history.
The American voter will overwhelmingly reject him.
How does that make it moral and ethical to loot people through a majority vote?What you really mean is that the state (government) is a form of parasitism in which the predators settle in amongst their prey. "working together" constitutes socialism only when one party is holding a gun or a sword against the head or neck of the people doing the actual work. The theory that would we couldn't have homes, schools, hospitals and farms without some slave master compelling us to build them is pure idiocy.Civilization is a socialist concept. Working together to build homes, farm, heal(hospitals with doctors), educating our youth.Dumb ass, probably should be whining about how we need to give up on civilization.
No, our democracy is not a simple case of scabies. You have elections, you have the right to free speech to convince others to your point of view. Nothing more, nothing less.
Who is being looted? Whitey? Bitch, please.
Your candidate is awful, so I will let your conscience deal with that.Toddster is right if he is implying a populist progressive wind is blowing in the country.
Neither Sanders nor Trump have captured its force this cycle.
The candidate who does in 2020 (if s/he does) will alter the country's direction for a long time.
In the meantime it's 2016 and you are choosing to sit it out.
You're voting for a I hate investment liberterian and yet you call HIllary awful? What?
It doesn't matter what the reason was, they had every right to secede from the union. Lincoln had no authority to invade them. That much is certain.They seceded from the Union on the idea that they had the right to hold fellow humans in bondage. You guys lost the PR war before the last century even began.
You tend to lose PR wars when a foreign government invades your territory, slaughters your people and imposes a dictatorship on the ones who survive.
They had no right to secede form the union, just like they have no right today. This is going to piss you off, but the Supreme Court has already decided this. You're stuck and we're probably all worse off for it.
Really? Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede? Morons like you keep saying states can't secede but none of you have ever provided a shred of credible evidence to that effect.
When it granted the Judicial branch the authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
I asked you where does the Constitution grant this power. I didn't mention the Supreme Court. The later invented it out of thin air after the war.
As for the Supreme Court decision, a bunch of Lincoln appointed cronies made a laughable decision after the war that proved they didn't give a damn what the Constitution actually says. The didn't even give a damn about basic facts and logic.
The Supreme Court gets it right and wrong, they are still the arbiters of what is deemed Constitutional and what isn't. What do you propose instead? Mobs?
Since you admit the Court can be wrong, prove that it's right about secession. Otherwise admit Lincoln violated the law when he invaded Virginia and attempted to occupy a Fort in South Carolina.
You suffer from the delusions that the SC Decides what the truth is. The reality is that it only determine what the government wants it to determine.
No, I said the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and what isn't when something is brought before it.
Again, you're attempting to claim Supreme Court decisions are absolute truth regarding the Constitution. The reality is that they are only official government policy. The vast majority of these decisions simply ignore the actual words of the document.
Whenever you totalitarian douche bags get into trouble defending Lincoln's decision to wage war against states of the union, you always retreat to saying - the court ruled secession to be unconstitutional.
That isn't the issue being discussed.
Bripat et al have joined the fascists.
HappyJoy et al have joined the democratic socialists.
How does that make it moral and ethical to loot people through a majority vote?What you really mean is that the state (government) is a form of parasitism in which the predators settle in amongst their prey. "working together" constitutes socialism only when one party is holding a gun or a sword against the head or neck of the people doing the actual work. The theory that would we couldn't have homes, schools, hospitals and farms without some slave master compelling us to build them is pure idiocy.Civilization is a socialist concept. Working together to build homes, farm, heal(hospitals with doctors), educating our youth.Dumb ass, probably should be whining about how we need to give up on civilization.
No, our democracy is not a simple case of scabies. You have elections, you have the right to free speech to convince others to your point of view. Nothing more, nothing less.
Who is being looted? Whitey? Bitch, please.
I'm being looted, scumbag. Just consider Obama bringing in tens of thousands of so-called "refugees." Each one of them cost the taxpayers $20,000, at a minimum. That means we're being looted for the benefit of foreigners.
You have more and more serious, experienced republicans coming out and endorsing Clinton (Brent Scowcroft, Henry Paulson, Richard Armitage, Larry Pressler). You have others like Meg Whitman supposedly telling others she will support Clinton. You have the Bushes and Romneys not endorsing but saying they will not support Trump. Most these are national security folks. It is nice to see in the know, serious, and experienced people putting country before party.
Anyone ever tell you you're the less interesting version of Corky Thatcher?
It doesn't matter what the reason was, they had every right to secede from the union. Lincoln had no authority to invade them. That much is certain.
You tend to lose PR wars when a foreign government invades your territory, slaughters your people and imposes a dictatorship on the ones who survive.
They had no right to secede form the union, just like they have no right today. This is going to piss you off, but the Supreme Court has already decided this. You're stuck and we're probably all worse off for it.
Really? Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede? Morons like you keep saying states can't secede but none of you have ever provided a shred of credible evidence to that effect.
When it granted the Judicial branch the authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
I asked you where does the Constitution grant this power. I didn't mention the Supreme Court. The later invented it out of thin air after the war.
I told you, it left it in the hands of the Supreme Court, not Mississippi.
As for the Supreme Court decision, a bunch of Lincoln appointed cronies made a laughable decision after the war that proved they didn't give a damn what the Constitution actually says. The didn't even give a damn about basic facts and logic.
The Supreme Court gets it right and wrong, they are still the arbiters of what is deemed Constitutional and what isn't. What do you propose instead? Mobs?
Since you admit the Court can be wrong, prove that it's right about secession. Otherwise admit Lincoln violated the law when he invaded Virginia and attempted to occupy a Fort in South Carolina.
Anybody can get it right or wrong, it's irrelevant, the question about secession was answered by the Judicial branch (as well as the executive). Secession was brought before it, they said no. End of story. Maybe it will come up again and the Supreme court will at this point laugh it off the docket, won't even hear it. Congress won't touch it, who is left? The military? Sounds fascist.
You suffer from the delusions that the SC Decides what the truth is. The reality is that it only determine what the government wants it to determine.
No, I said the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and what isn't when something is brought before it.
Again, you're attempting to claim Supreme Court decisions are absolute truth regarding the Constitution. The reality is that they are only official government policy. The vast majority of these decisions simply ignore the actual words of the document.
That's your opinion, lots of people have opinions but when it comes down to it somebody has to be the ultimate decider as to what is Constitutional and what is not, that is the role of the Judicial branch, not you or me.
Whenever you totalitarian douche bags get into trouble defending Lincoln's decision to wage war against states of the union, you always retreat to saying - the court ruled secession to be unconstitutional.
That isn't the issue being discussed.
I don't see how I'm in trouble because you don't understand how our government works. For example, what does the Constitution say about BriPat disagreeing with the Supreme Court?
Bripat et al have joined the fascists.
HappyJoy et al have joined the democratic socialists.
You have more and more serious, experienced republicans coming out and endorsing Clinton (Brent Scowcroft, Henry Paulson, Richard Armitage, Larry Pressler). You have others like Meg Whitman supposedly telling others she will support Clinton. You have the Bushes and Romneys not endorsing but saying they will not support Trump. Most these are national security folks. It is nice to see in the know, serious, and experienced people putting country before party.
They had no right to secede form the union, just like they have no right today. This is going to piss you off, but the Supreme Court has already decided this. You're stuck and we're probably all worse off for it.
Really? Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede? Morons like you keep saying states can't secede but none of you have ever provided a shred of credible evidence to that effect.
When it granted the Judicial branch the authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
I asked you where does the Constitution grant this power. I didn't mention the Supreme Court. The later invented it out of thin air after the war.
I told you, it left it in the hands of the Supreme Court, not Mississippi.
No, it actually doesn't. However, even if it did, The SC would still have to find the words in the document to produce a correct decision. You're just saying you don't give a rat's ass whether their decision is correct, but we've already established that.
As for the Supreme Court decision, a bunch of Lincoln appointed cronies made a laughable decision after the war that proved they didn't give a damn what the Constitution actually says. The didn't even give a damn about basic facts and logic.
The Supreme Court gets it right and wrong, they are still the arbiters of what is deemed Constitutional and what isn't. What do you propose instead? Mobs?
Since you admit the Court can be wrong, prove that it's right about secession. Otherwise admit Lincoln violated the law when he invaded Virginia and attempted to occupy a Fort in South Carolina.
Anybody can get it right or wrong, it's irrelevant, the question about secession was answered by the Judicial branch (as well as the executive). Secession was brought before it, they said no. End of story. Maybe it will come up again and the Supreme court will at this point laugh it off the docket, won't even hear it. Congress won't touch it, who is left? The military? Sounds fascist.
You're just admitting you don't care what the truth is. You leave the determination of truth up to some gang of political hacks selected by our corrupt politicians. That's always been where douche bag leftists are coming from, but it's refreshing to see someone admit it so candidly.
You suffer from the delusions that the SC Decides what the truth is. The reality is that it only determine what the government wants it to determine.
No, I said the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional and what isn't when something is brought before it.
Again, you're attempting to claim Supreme Court decisions are absolute truth regarding the Constitution. The reality is that they are only official government policy. The vast majority of these decisions simply ignore the actual words of the document.
That's your opinion, lots of people have opinions but when it comes down to it somebody has to be the ultimate decider as to what is Constitutional and what is not, that is the role of the Judicial branch, not you or me.
No, it's not just my opinion. If that were the case, then why go through the farce of having judges make rulings on the document? Doesn't that presume they use some kind of objective logic process to make their determinations? That's the entire premise of our legal system, but here you are admitting that all that matters is the political biases of the justices. If that's the case, we may as well submit the rulings to popular vote.
Whenever you totalitarian douche bags get into trouble defending Lincoln's decision to wage war against states of the union, you always retreat to saying - the court ruled secession to be unconstitutional.
That isn't the issue being discussed.
I don't see how I'm in trouble because you don't understand how our government works. For example, what does the Constitution say about BriPat disagreeing with the Supreme Court?
I do understand exactly how it works - or doesn't work, rather. I'm not asking you how it works. I'm asking you where the Constitution authorized Lincoln to invade a sovereign state of the union. So far you have been singularly unable to quote the relevant text. Indeed, you have simply refused to do so. We can all see that you're waving the white flag.
You have more and more serious, experienced republicans coming out and endorsing Clinton (Brent Scowcroft, Henry Paulson, Richard Armitage, Larry Pressler). You have others like Meg Whitman supposedly telling others she will support Clinton. You have the Bushes and Romneys not endorsing but saying they will not support Trump. Most these are national security folks. It is nice to see in the know, serious, and experienced people putting country before party.
You mean, you have more and more Bushy dead-ender establishment hacks endorsing Clinton. That only makes Trump look more attractive.
I'm still trying to figure out who is dumber, trump or the morons who support him.He will exit the electoral field with the wost defeat in American presidential history.
The American voter will overwhelmingly reject him.
It shows.I don't read Breitbart shit.
