Where do you stand on State succession?

[Mojo2]

There is no unique situation.

Just admit that you and your ilk are assholes determined to meddle in whatever state declares its independence.

.

If you hot heads will just settle down a moment.

Take a deep breath.

Count to 10.

Then listen to the points proposed by Mark Levin in his book, "The Liberty Amendments" you will see that there is a way for states rights people to maintain their states rights and stay with the Republic.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JFFBYvDFQ]The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin on Hannity - YouTube[/ame]

After watching this vid and paying attention to what he says, I believe you will feel no further compulsion to secede.

You can get what you want with this plan.

How the fuck can you praise someone who approves of the Patriot Act and who denounced Edward Snowden,

.

In WWII when the good ole Texas boys were isolated and stranded away from friendly lines and were being besieged by Germans and in danger of being wiped out, the battalion that came to save the "Lost Battalion" of tough Texans were the little squinty eyed Nisei soldiers of the 442 Combat Regiment.

Now, today, we have our country being so fucked up there are people who are in mental turmoil. They are threatening secession from the Union. They are readying for domestic combat. They are turning on their ideological brethren for not being in complete and insane lock step with them on every issue.

And you are ignoring a remedy given to us (in the same document as the 2nd Amendment) by the framers of the Constitution for emergencies like this because you don't like Levin's stance on the Patriot Act or what he thinks of Snowden???

You need a chill pill.

Stop acting from your emotions. And start thinking rationally.

This Liberty Amendments idea is the life raft you want to climb into.

Otherwise you will just splash around until you go under forevermore.

 

[Contumacious]

If you hot heads will just settle down a moment.

Take a deep breath.

Count to 10.

Then listen to the points proposed by Mark Levin in his book, "The Liberty Amendments" you will see that there is a way for states rights people to maintain their states rights and stay with the Republic.

The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin on Hannity - YouTube

After watching this vid and paying attention to what he says, I believe you will feel no further compulsion to secede.

You can get what you want with this plan.

How the fuck can you praise someone who approves of the Patriot Act and who denounced Edward Snowden,

.

You remind me of the character played by Eddie Murphy in the film, The Distinguished Gentleman." He dated the most beautiful, sexy, sweet, nice women around but rejected them if they had less than perfect looking feet.


?

re: Mark Levin (“The Grate One&#8221 and Those “Liberty Amendments”

You’re absolutely right, Laurence, the federal government no longer pays any attention whatsoever to constitutional limits on its powers, and only a fool or a deceiver thinks or says new amendments will somehow be magically enforced. The fatal flaw in all such talk is the acceptance of the idea that the federal government itself, through its “supreme” court, should be the sole decision maker in matters of constitutionality. Lincoln’s war created this type of regime, which the Jeffersonians had long warned would lead to the tyranny of an unlimited state. To oppose this position, however, is to oppose Lincoln and the whole idea of a centralized, bureaucratic, imperialistic regime. One cannot be a highly-paid neocon talk radio host if one chooses to do that."

.

 

[Mojo2]

EDIT: And remember, we are NOT talking about personalities here. That's what LIBERALS and Women and Kids tend to do.

It's a telling point that you equate women as a whole to those you consider to be inferior to you.

It's a point I've been telling for years.

It's about time you got the news.

Women and Liberals are light on rational thinking but heavily represented in the feelings, emotions, passion, impulsiveness, appearances side of things. Men are Conservatives...generally.

And Women are Liberals...generally.

Or I should say, Liberals are like Women.

They are lovely and perfectly suited for lots of things. And I've said I couldn't imagine (nor want to try!) a world without them in it.

But, when it comes to the way libs and women process information and make decisions and solve problems, they are both less than rational or it takes them some time and a greater amount of effort to control themselves and their emotions to use their rational thinking parts of their brains.

Incidentally, prison inmates are more likely to be Liberals.

They make rash, dumb, impulsive, emotion based decisions that get them in trouble. They are quick to violence and don't think rationally about solving problems.

Those are also the traits of Liberals and liberalism right there.

And that is generally, how females act.

Am I being clear enough for you?

 

[Mojo2]

How the fuck can you praise someone who approves of the Patriot Act and who denounced Edward Snowden,

.

You remind me of the character played by Eddie Murphy in the film, The Distinguished Gentleman." He dated the most beautiful, sexy, sweet, nice women around but rejected them if they had less than perfect looking feet.


?

re: Mark Levin (“The Grate One&#8221 and Those “Liberty Amendments”

You’re absolutely right, Laurence, the federal government no longer pays any attention whatsoever to constitutional limits on its powers, and only a fool or a deceiver thinks or says new amendments will somehow be magically enforced. The fatal flaw in all such talk is the acceptance of the idea that the federal government itself, through its “supreme” court, should be the sole decision maker in matters of constitutionality. Lincoln’s war created this type of regime, which the Jeffersonians had long warned would lead to the tyranny of an unlimited state. To oppose this position, however, is to oppose Lincoln and the whole idea of a centralized, bureaucratic, imperialistic regime. One cannot be a highly-paid neocon talk radio host if one chooses to do that."

.

Ahhh!

I just outed you.

Your refusal to even listen to Mark Levin discuss what the Constitution provides us as a remedy for this situation means you don't WANT there to be a solution.

You are a foreign agent who wants to sew discord amongst the American 'sheeple.'

Found you out, ASSHOLE!

GTF out of my Country!

 

[House]

Am I being clear enough for you?

So women are inferior, illogical, substandard creatures.

Clear as a bell.

Out of curiosity, do they register as human to you at all?

 

[whitehall]

Don't leave, make it better. Only the lazy, the under educated or the left wing dirty tricksters would advocate seceding from the Union at this point in American history. I bet most of the secessionists are also against the agenda of the Tea Party. That would put them in the dirty trickster category or the 10% low I.Q.

 

[Mojo2]

How the fuck can you praise someone who approves of the Patriot Act and who denounced Edward Snowden,

.

You remind me of the character played by Eddie Murphy in the film, The Distinguished Gentleman." He dated the most beautiful, sexy, sweet, nice women around but rejected them if they had less than perfect looking feet.


?

re: Mark Levin (“The Grate One”) and Those “Liberty Amendments”

You’re absolutely right, Laurence, the federal government no longer pays any attention whatsoever to constitutional limits on its powers, and only a fool or a deceiver thinks or says new amendments will somehow be magically enforced. The fatal flaw in all such talk is the acceptance of the idea that the federal government itself, through its “supreme” court, should be the sole decision maker in matters of constitutionality. Lincoln’s war created this type of regime, which the Jeffersonians had long warned would lead to the tyranny of an unlimited state. To oppose this position, however, is to oppose Lincoln and the whole idea of a centralized, bureaucratic, imperialistic regime. One cannot be a highly-paid neocon talk radio host if one chooses to do that."

.

It would not leave power in the hands of those in Congress.

Listen to the video or read the summaries about this mechanism from the Constitution we don't have to invent. IT IS ALREADY THERE WAITING FOR US TO UTILIZE!

It would be enforced by the States, you dolt!

Stop getting stuck on stupid for a change.

The information is out there lazy ass.

Go and Google it.

And don't come back until you can return with some information that will raise the level of the discussion instead of making things harder to understand and dumber than it is.

If you CAN.

 

[Mojo2]

Don't leave, make it better. Only the lazy, the under educated or the left wing dirty tricksters would advocate seceding from the Union at this point in American history. I bet most of the secessionists are also against the agenda of the Tea Party. That would put them in the dirty trickster category or the 10% low I.Q.

Finally!

Someone with good sense and American sensibilities!

 

[hortysir]

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right" Vice President, CSA, "Cornerstone Speech"

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

Slavery was really an effect, not a cause of the civil war. While as I pointed out to House boiling the war down to one factor is ridiculous, the big three are state rights, economics and slavery and you cannot separate those, they are intertwined. I said for that reason that slavery was a "big" reason, it was. So was State rights, as House said.

Again, you cannot separate them, but if you want to order them, you really need to go to disease, symptom and solution. You could argue the proximate cause of the war was slavery. However, that was a symptom, the South did not want slavery for slavery sake, they needed it. Why? The North was industrializing, the South was agricultural. The North for that reason was drawing population far faster to fill the factories. Not needing slaves, they found it reprehensible. So the reason the south wanted slavery was economics, that was the cause, slavery was the symptom and therefore economics and not slavery drove the war.

Clearly State Rights tied into that as well, but that was not the cause either. As the North and South changed economically and culturally because the North was drawing population and immigrants faster and the North became more powerful, the South resisted being forced to follow the path and the direction of the North. Hence, the solution to that was "State Rights." Again, they did not want State Rights for it's own sake, they wanted State rights to protect their economy. They needed slaves to support their economy. Therefore, the primary reason for the war was clearly economics. State Rights and Slavery are inseparable from that. But they were not the goals in themselves.

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

I intentionally left my previous reply short and quip-ish.
I really didn't want to delve into yet another N-v-S debate.

But your post fails to recognize the big money power grab of ol' Abe.
The money, growth, and future of this nation was planted in the soil of the South.
Lincoln's only concern was "preserving the Union"....or ruling as much real estate as he could

 

[bripat9643]

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right" Vice President, CSA, "Cornerstone Speech"

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

Slavery was really an effect, not a cause of the civil war. While as I pointed out to House boiling the war down to one factor is ridiculous, the big three are state rights, economics and slavery and you cannot separate those, they are intertwined. I said for that reason that slavery was a "big" reason, it was. So was State rights, as House said.

Again, you cannot separate them, but if you want to order them, you really need to go to disease, symptom and solution. You could argue the proximate cause of the war was slavery. However, that was a symptom, the South did not want slavery for slavery sake, they needed it. Why? The North was industrializing, the South was agricultural. The North for that reason was drawing population far faster to fill the factories. Not needing slaves, they found it reprehensible. So the reason the south wanted slavery was economics, that was the cause, slavery was the symptom and therefore economics and not slavery drove the war.

Clearly State Rights tied into that as well, but that was not the cause either. As the North and South changed economically and culturally because the North was drawing population and immigrants faster and the North became more powerful, the South resisted being forced to follow the path and the direction of the North. Hence, the solution to that was "State Rights." Again, they did not want State Rights for it's own sake, they wanted State rights to protect their economy. They needed slaves to support their economy. Therefore, the primary reason for the war was clearly economics. State Rights and Slavery are inseparable from that. But they were not the goals in themselves.

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery. .

That's like saying the victim caused her rape because of the slutty dress she wore. It doesn't matter why they seceded. The Constitution doesn't authorized the federal government to use force against a state because it secedes.

End of story.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

Actually the real reason is that they saw what happened when Haiti freed its slaves. All the whites on the island were slaughtered. Southerners were afraid the same thing would happen if they freed their slaves. They were riding the tiger and they couldn't get off.

 

[Mojo2]

Am I being clear enough for you?

So women are inferior, illogical, substandard creatures.

Clear as a bell.

Out of curiosity, do they register as human to you at all?

Don't be silly.

And don't get your PC panties in a bunch.

Recognizing their tendencies and characteristics is like recognizing their genitalia.

A matter of observation.

Not necessarily inferior except when it comes to the chore at hand.

For example, women have a more difficult time of peeing while standing.

So, you are the kind of poster who'd call that inferior.

I merely say they aren't best suited to perform this task.

Same with acting, behaving or, in other words, thinking...in a rational manner.

Although not ALL women are wired to be "emotions-first" thinkers or irrational.

Some women are hard wired to be MORE rational than men. And SOME Liberals are terrific logical thinkers.

However, we must recognize they are the exceptions to the rule of thumb.

Would you impose a negative value judgement on men because we can't have babies?

No. You must recognize we aren't built that way.

And keep your value judgments under control. (If you can. Liberals have a tough time with this sort of task...generally speaking.)

Now stop pretending to be all surprised and stuff.

You know what I'm saying is supported by empirical evidence and is generally speaking, true.

EDIT: I'm reminded of a female who seems to be a law enforcement officer who posts online video reviews of handguns and knives and equipment of interest to law enforcement officers and female LEO's in particular.

She is a TERRIFIC example of an exception to the rule.

Her videos display her ability to think rationally and to control her emotions yet remain feminine and also pleasing in her manner.

However, she is a standout BECAUSE she is an exception to the rule.

She is the kind of woman who could easily be thought of as being superior in her rational thinking ability. Superior, possibly, to many male LEO's.

Here's one of her vids. You be the judge.

 

[Mojo2]

How the fuck can you praise someone who approves of the Patriot Act and who denounced Edward Snowden,

.

You remind me of the character played by Eddie Murphy in the film, The Distinguished Gentleman." He dated the most beautiful, sexy, sweet, nice women around but rejected them if they had less than perfect looking feet.


?

re: Mark Levin (“The Grate One”) and Those “Liberty Amendments”

You’re absolutely right, Laurence, the federal government no longer pays any attention whatsoever to constitutional limits on its powers, and only a fool or a deceiver thinks or says new amendments will somehow be magically enforced. The fatal flaw in all such talk is the acceptance of the idea that the federal government itself, through its “supreme” court, should be the sole decision maker in matters of constitutionality. Lincoln’s war created this type of regime, which the Jeffersonians had long warned would lead to the tyranny of an unlimited state. To oppose this position, however, is to oppose Lincoln and the whole idea of a centralized, bureaucratic, imperialistic regime. One cannot be a highly-paid neocon talk radio host if one chooses to do that."

.

I found this and thought of this post of yours. Please tell me if it doesn't answer your question.

 

[House]

For example, women have a more difficult time of peeing while standing.

So, you are the kind of poster who'd call that inferior.

I merely say they aren't best suited to perform this task.

So you equate rational thinking with upright pissing.

Quite the logical flow. I guess it goes with your urine habits.

Would you impose a negative value judgement on men because we can't have babies?

Detracting value based on perceived capabilities seems to be your shtick, I'd hate to step on your toes.

(If you can. Liberals have a tough time with this sort of task...generally speaking.)

I love how liberals all claim I'm a conservative and conservatives all claim I'm a liberal.

Pro-Tip: Just because somebody calls you out on your stupidity doesn't mean you know anything about them.

Now stop pretending to be all surprised and stuff.

Likewise.

 

[Mojo2]

For example, women have a more difficult time of peeing while standing.

So, you are the kind of poster who'd call that inferior.

I merely say they aren't best suited to perform this task.

So you equate rational thinking with upright pissing.

Quite the logical flow. I guess it goes with your urine habits.

Would you impose a negative value judgement on men because we can't have babies?

Detracting value based on perceived capabilities seems to be your shtick, I'd hate to step on your toes.

(If you can. Liberals have a tough time with this sort of task...generally speaking.)

I love how liberals all claim I'm a conservative and conservatives all claim I'm a liberal.

Pro-Tip: Just because somebody calls you out on your stupidity doesn't mean you know anything about them.

Now stop pretending to be all surprised and stuff.

Likewise.

From what you have demonstrated here, you add nothing to our understanding of important issues.

*Yawn*

Now, stop derailing this fine thread.

Here. Become educated about something that matters.

 

[Wildman]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

succeed..? succession..? succeeded..?

 

[House]

Here. Become educated about something that matters.

Keep your affair with your patriot act supporting traitor private, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

History shows that bripat's wrong in his interp.

The South reaped what the whirlwind she had sown.

And the slaves did not rise up and wipe out the whites.

Choices have consequences, period.

 

[kaz]

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

Actually the real reason is that they saw what happened when Haiti freed its slaves. All the whites on the island were slaughtered. Southerners were afraid the same thing would happen if they freed their slaves. They were riding the tiger and they couldn't get off.

There certainly is some support that was a fear, but to call that the "real reason" is overstating it. The slave population in Haiti as a percent of the population was a lot higher. As I've pointed out there are a lot of intertwined reasons, but clearly the root issue that prevented resolution was economics. However, to present that as "the" reason isn't sufficient either. Most whites in the South were poor too and they are the ones who fought the war. Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason."

25% of white families had at least one slave.

Whites overwhelmingly believed in slavery in the south, in part because it protected the employment opportunities they whites did have. Of course, they were not willing to share.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Clearly they were not motivated by protecting plantation owners. No one reason is supportable as "the" reason."

25% of white families had at least one slave.

Whites overwhelmingly believed in slavery in the south, in part because it protected the employment opportunities they whites did have. Of course, they were not willing to share.

Slaves were expensive so I doubt the percentage. Only rich folks could afford them.

The sad fact of the matter is that like most social change, it didn't happen until technology made it possible. The north was in the industrial revolution where factories were the norm. There were no automated farming equipment, it took man hours. That's why even those in the north who opposed slavery on a philosophical level, had them if they needed them, like Washington and Jefferson.

Men like John Adams, who was a lawyer, could survive fine without a slave. So the whole mess would have solved itself instead of going through a horrifically bloody war waged with old battlefield tactics with modern technology. It was one meat grinder after another.

If the south had broken away without incident, they would have come back for economic opportunity. Same with women's sufferage. Technology and economics shapes man more than the moral high ground.