These people are animals

[Angry ginger]

13 hours ago, Kivalo said:

Dude, where did I come off as argumentative? This is a forum and people talk (type) and I was simply conversing. WTF

On the bold....I've read the document several times and I don't ever recall seeing the word mentioned. Would you clarify this for me?

thats because it's not in the constitution.  scholars can argue both the right to and inability to succeed based on interpretations till the end of time but it's not specified in the document

[Kivalo]

13 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

thats because it's not in the constitution.  scholars can argue both the right to and inability to succeed based on interpretations till the end of time but it's not specified in the document

True that! 

 

[jtssrx]

15 hours ago, Kivalo said:

Dude, where did I come off as argumentative? This is a forum and people talk (type) and I was simply conversing. WTF

On the bold....I've read the document several times and I don't ever recall seeing the word mentioned. Would you clarify this for me?

Secession: It's constitutional

Posted By Walter Williams On 11/27/2012 @ 8:14 pm In Commentary,Opinion | No Comments

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

There’s more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

[Angry ginger]

bunch of opinion not fact-  again succession is not addressed within the document itself.  interpretation can be pushed to whatever direction fits your agenda.  

[Kivalo]

16 hours ago, jtssrx said:

Im not debating you on why the war was fought. Thats all yiu people want to do is agrue. My point is regardless of the reason they should have been able to leave. It’s irrelevant if they wanted to leave over slavery or unfair taxes secession is part of the constitution 

 

16 hours ago, Kivalo said:

Dude, where did I come off as argumentative? This is a forum and people talk (type) and I was simply conversing. WTF

On the bold....I've read the document several times and I don't ever recall seeing the word mentioned. Would you clarify this for me?

 

1 hour ago, jtssrx said:

Secession: It's constitutional

Posted By Walter Williams On 11/27/2012 @ 8:14 pm In Commentary,Opinion | No Comments

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is.....

You've not shown me where its part of the constitution. You've provided an opinion piece about why secession should be legal. 

[Angry ginger]

13 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

 

 

You've not shown me where its part of the constitution. You've provided an opinion piece about why secession should be legal. 

 the fucking document also says everyone can have an M16 according to guys like him,  it's plain as day you just can't see it.  'merica

 

 

 

[Ez ryder]

if any state is going to try it will be Texas first . I 100% support a states right to say fuck off America we don't need or want you . all this as long as it is a 80% or more in favor vote from said states population

Edited December 6, 2017 by Ez ryder

[ActionfigureJoe]

22 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

if any state is going to try it will be Texas first . I 100% support a states right to say fuck off America we don't need or want you . all this as long as it is a 80% or more in favor vote from said states population

The rest of the world is beginning to think the same. America fuck off. It would serve the world well of America did break apart and have it's trillion dollar intrusive military break apart too. 

[Ez ryder]

yeah until we pull our bases out of all there country's and let them fund there own security .

I am 100% for it fuck em all let them pay there own way. and fuck the UN all together   

[SSFB]

23 hours ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

I kind of doubt the civil war was against slavery. Reason being that the only way slavery could’ve ended in this country is by accident. Whites didn’t give a shit about blacks. By and large they still don’t. 

People have always fought wars for different reasons. Radical Republicans wanted an end to slavery, I supposed some soldiers did too but I doubt many signed up for that. Some of them signed up to defend the Union, some of them signed up to serve their country, some of them signed up for the paycheck, etc.

10 hours ago, Angry ginger said:

thats because it's not in the constitution.  scholars can argue both the right to and inability to succeed based on interpretations till the end of time but it's not specified in the document

You're right, it's part of the Declaration of Independence though.....but that document has no legal standing. 

[ActionfigureJoe]

1 minute ago, SSFB said:

People have always fought wars for different reasons. Radical Republicans wanted an end to slavery, I supposed some soldiers did too but I doubt many signed up for that. Some of them signed up to defend the Union, some of them signed up to serve their country, some of them signed up for the paycheck, etc.

You're right, it's part of the Declaration of Independence though.....but that document has no legal standing. 

In the final analysis most soldiers are simply fighting for the guy standing next to them. That's how we're wired as human beings. Pick a war. Any war. Pick a side. Any side. It's all the same. War is just a fucked up place where men are damaged. Rarely is it a necessity. 

[SSFB]

1 minute ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

In the final analysis most soldiers are simply fighting for the guy standing next to them. That's how we're wired as human beings. Pick a war. Any war. Pick a side. Any side. It's all the same. War is just a fucked up place where men are damaged. Rarely is it a necessity. 

Absolutely. 

[DriftBusta]

Only here can a thread about a girl getting turned into kabob meat by savage muslims turn into a thread about secession in 2 pages.   

[Jimmy Snacks]

If this thread was on TBP it would take only 3 posts before it turned into a bunch of backslapping telling each other how awesome we are thread.

[Angry ginger]

7 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

If this thread was on TBP it would take only 3 posts before it turned into a bunch of backslapping telling each other how awesome we are thread.

Awesome post man

[jtssrx]

16 hours ago, Kivalo said:

 

 

You've not shown me where its part of the constitution. You've provided an opinion piece about why secession should be legal. 

The tenth Amendment allows secession. Research the federalist papers and see why the word “expressly” was used in the Tenth.

 

The best part of your argument “it’s not in the constitution” is you’ve bought hook line and sinker into this notion that the federal government is this ultimate power. If it’s not in the constitution then tge states gave no right to do. This is why the many didn’t want a federal government. This is why the federal government is out of control. The very thing you started arguing we the peopke allowed to happen and now your arguing in favor of the federal government. 

 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/06/02/the-tenth-amendment-and-expressly-delegated-power/

 

 

[Kivalo]

15 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

The tenth Amendment allows secession. Research the federalist papers and see why the word “expressly” was used in the Tenth.

 

The best part of your argument “it’s not in the constitution” is you’ve bought hook line and sinker into this notion that the federal government is this ultimate power. If it’s not in the constitution then tge states gave no right to do. This is why the many didn’t want a federal government. This is why the federal government is out of control. The very thing you started arguing we the peopke allowed to happen and now your arguing in favor of the federal government. 

 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/06/02/the-tenth-amendment-and-expressly-delegated-power/

 

 

Sweet christ!  First off, you flat out said it is in the constitution. You actually typed those words. The fact of the matter is secession is NOT in the constitution. Its legality is an opinion or maybe even legal fiction.

Secondly, you have made a massive leap about my beliefs. In no way shape or form do I believe the federal government is the ultimate power.

Thirdly, Im not arguing in favor of anything. I am simply stating secession is not addressed in the constitution because....ITS NOT. Thats not an indication that I believe the federal government is the ultimate power, its just a simple fact. You know what else isn't in the constitution? Seperation of Church and State. By your logic, stating that fact means I am in favor of allowing a state religion. Ridiculous.

Fourthly, You need to actually read some history books and then reread them. (The Federalist, as its officially known, is a great read if you're into history.) I get the feeling you read just enough to support whatever half-baked notion you're trying push. The Federalist Papers were written to persuade NYer's to adopt the constitution, they are propaganda. They also argue against "political faction" but here we are with a two party system.

 

[jtssrx]

1 hour ago, Kivalo said:

Sweet christ!  First off, you flat out said it is in the constitution. You actually typed those words. The fact of the matter is secession is NOT in the constitution. Its legality is an opinion or maybe even legal fiction.

Secondly, you have made a massive leap about my beliefs. In no way shape or form do I believe the federal government is the ultimate power.

Thirdly, Im not arguing in favor of anything. I am simply stating secession is not addressed in the constitution because....ITS NOT. Thats not an indication that I believe the federal government is the ultimate power, its just a simple fact. You know what else isn't in the constitution? Seperation of Church and State. By your logic, stating that fact means I am in favor of allowing a state religion. Ridiculous.

Fourthly, You need to actually read some history books and then reread them. (The Federalist, as its officially known, is a great read if you're into history.) I get the feeling you read just enough to support whatever half-baked notion you're trying push. The Federalist Papers were written to persuade NYer's to adopt the constitution, they are propaganda. They also argue against "political faction" but here we are with a two party system.

 

You are correct I said it was in the constitution, I am incorrect. My interpretation after reading things over the years is that it was. My apologies. 

[Angry ginger]

smh

[DriftBusta]

12 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

If this thread was on TBP it would take only 3 posts before it turned into a bunch of backslapping telling each other how awesome we are thread.

That maybe true.....cuz being awesome is awesome.   Ok my bad, back to lamb kabobs.  Or the civil war.  Oh fuck it.  

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

That maybe true.....cuz being awesome is awesome.   Ok my bad, back to lamb kabobs.  Or the civil war.  Oh fuck it.  

CULTURAL APPROPRIATION AND WHITE GUILT DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ActionfigureJoe]

1 hour ago, DriftBusta said:

That maybe true.....cuz being awesome is awesome.   Ok my bad, back to lamb kabobs.  Or the civil war.  Oh fuck it.  

Or making a huge issue out of a cold case murder of 15 years ago  possibly involving a pedo of American decent. But somehow it becomes a relevant issue related to Muslims because of a venomous Republican cunt with an Adam’s apple and her tweet. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by ActionfigureJoe

[Mileage Psycho]

On 12/4/2017 at 7:03 AM, ActionfigureJoe said:

Here's the animal suspected of abducting her. Hmmm....could be someone from here. A cold case from 15 years ago  

 

 

He doesn't look like a Shia or a Sunni.... a convert?

[DriftBusta]

3 hours ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

Or making a huge issue out of a cold case murder of 15 years ago  possibly involving a pedo of American decent. But somehow it becomes a relevant issue related to Muslims because of a venomous Republican cunt with an Adam’s apple and her tweet. 

I have no idea what you’re talking about and don’t even care.   

[Dave]

3 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

I have no idea what you’re talking about and don’t even care.   

X2