The democrats talk about free housing, free healthcare, free food. You know how theyll pay for that? Slavery.
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
No, I’m saying modern day Democrats still believe in slavery, they just disguise it as welfare.
Think about it brother. Huge taxes so the government gets more, you get the healthcare they tell you to get, uniform housing in the name of fairness, food choices limited, meanwhile removing your means of self-defense. They've already brought back segregation. You're a sheep dude. You're fake woke. Live free or die.
Actually, no traitors.
U. S. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase was asked by the feds to render an opinion on charges of treason against President Davis and the Confederate government. His opinion was that the secession states had seceded legally, within the bounds of federal reservation of rights unto itself. As such, he recommended that treason charges not be pursued, with likely failure of any conviction. A court case, with conviction, or not, would establish the legal secession in court, and consequently establish an illegal invasion by the U. S. of a sovereign state under international law at time.
No charges of treason were made, and all Confederate government prisoners were released.
Chief Justice Chase's opinion also affected the status of the secession states future, as all of these states had to "rejoin" the union. The last state rejoined in 1870.
Chase, essentially, deemed secession unconstitutional. He was wrong, of course, but it is what it is.
Chase deemed secession constitutional, not the reverse. The states retained all rights unto themselves, except for federal exceptions spelled out and reserved unto the federal government. Sucession was not mentioned or prohibited. In fact the Commonwealths of Virginia and Kentucky expressly reserved the right to seceed, originally (they voted not to seceed until the feds refused to acknowledge their right, then they did). Texas also retained their right to seceed when they originally joined the union.
Chase himself said, re: Texas' secession attempt, that it was part of "...an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states."
I view the 9th and 10th Amendments as constitutional justification to secede.
The fact you believe that explains why so many of your other posts are nonsensical.
lay off the conspiracy theories.
That man is absolutely right. They want you dependent on the government. They want more of your money, and they want you to be racist. It's divide and conquer. One day you'll wake up and realize you're a pawn...or you won't. Never thought I'd see people WANTING the government to take away their rights. They've got you, brother. Godspeed.
Rollerdude, you are still rolling. Could you describe your long term vision for the world?
I don't think it's Rollerdude. Sure, uscwatson21 is an agitated imbecile, with a seemingly impenetrable force field of ignorance surrounding him, but I don't think they're the same people.
That seriously makes me wonder what sort of people you know, Watson. I mean, I already know what it’s like to fire an M60, or a LAW, or fire off a claymore, or throw a grenade. Been there, done that. Be darned if I know why anyone would seriously want to own any of the above; what are you going to do with it, just look at it? If you took a full auto to a range, you’re gonna burn through a lot of ammo in a short period of time; I use up enough just staying somewhat proficient with what I have. I suppose you don’t think I should be able to own any of the civilian M14 derivatives either, just because it began as a military weapon, but the fact is that one with an 18 inch barrel makes a very good deer and hog rifle with appropriate ammunition (not military FMJ), and I guess you have a problem with the shotgun I keep for home defense, since it’s semi-auto and will hold 7 in the tube plus 1 in the chamber, and you think I “shouldn’t" need that, even if having to deal with 3 or 4 armed home invaders has become an all-too-common scenario in recent years. Incidentally, any idea why some people think anything with a bayonet lug on it should be banned? If anyone’s ever committed a mass murder with a battle rifle with bayonet attached, I have to admit, I’ve never heard of it; is there something about having a bayonet on it that makes it kill more people faster or deader, or is it just a matter of looks?
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the nose.
Goodnight junior.
And welcome to ignore.
And this right here is the problem with parts of society. When faced with facts he doesn't agree with he just chooses to ignore them.
Not a good way to go through life children.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit I see. The point was about killing mass amounts of people and not some dispute between neighbors but thanks for playing.
Innocent people are killed all the time from people choosing to drink and then drive. Should we all be made to get rid of our cars? You make some really dumb arguments!
This proves you don't know crap about the civil war! Democrats were the party of slavery, not conservatives!
God, you just gave me a woody describing that type of Utopia! If it meant getting rid of people like you and Watson sign me up!
The people in government will try to say new laws are needed to eliminate certain types of weapons. The last I checked, those who want to do something are going to find a way to accomplish their task. The problem is we who are discussing this rationally can not think in term of the common criminal because they are irrational. The irrational criminals don’t suffer because of some rational though that lessens penalties for committed crimes.
Look at the states with mass murderers. They are typically states who have greatly relaxed or don’t follow through with the death penalty. Convicted murderers are eligible for parole in some instances. Murderers don’t deserve the right to breathe much less fresh air. Life is about opportunities and experiences. Murderers deny that and should have to forgo their right to live once convicted. The issue is not new legislation. The issue is why legislation that has been passed is not being enforced when it's use would do the same things as new legislation.
Look at the states with mass murderers. They are typically states who have greatly relaxed or don’t follow through with the death penalty. Convicted murderers are eligible for parole in some instances. Murderers don’t deserve the right to breathe much less fresh air. Life is about opportunities and experiences. Murderers deny that and should have to forgo their right to live once convicted. The issue is not new legislation. The issue is why legislation that has been passed is not being enforced when it's use would do the same things as new legislation.
The irony here is almost overwhelming. The stunning lack of self awareness sure seems like rollerdude too.
Democrats were conservatives. At the time Republicans were liberal. That shifted throughout the end of the 19th century into the 20th century on the back of immigration and labor policies.
HOW THE DEMOCRATS BECAME LIBERALS AND HOW THE REPUBLICANS BECAME CONSERVATIVES - The Complete Pilgrim - Religious Travel Sites
Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was America’s staunch defender of conservatism, and the Republican Party was the upstart champion of liberalism. And then, one day, they switched. Seriously. For the first half of the 19th century, the American political process revolved around the...
- Status
