Im not sure what mass shootings have to do with this?
Do you think just because you disagree with me on this that I am on "the other team" and that I am a democrat?
A vision for the future
- Thread starter Brushy Bill
- Start date
Do you think just because you disagree with me on this that I am on "the other team" and that I am a democrat?
Nope. I just think of you as a traitor for advocating the separation of the Union.
This is definitely the best solution, however it's impractical because the leftist will simply ruin one state and shift their focus to another. See Texas, Colorado and Florida as examples. Also, there are fundamental national issues such as abortion that would have to be ironed out when there really is no middle ground to be had.
PS - just let MWV be, his gamma male rage is rearing it's ugly head today.
Seriously dude, did someone touch you in the wrong place? Have you been abused? You sound like a jilted 15-year-old girl.
After your first quote above, you have no "reasoning." You are bat-**** crazy.
Most posters on here don't respond to your cray cray.
How did/do you feel about the VIetnam War, Gulf War, Afghanistan (longest war in US history, still ongoing), Korean War? You were against all of them right?
All were wars (some "police action" to protect American interests)......all had Congressional approval to perform military actions......what's your point?
It's like a varsity vs. junior varsity scrimmage.......you really don't feel like it's a fair game.
So, let's recap the thread.
OP - we should go our separate ways and build nations that suit our cultural and political l preferences.
Cam - that would be preferable that the alternative.
everyone else - screw you traitors. Our feelings won't allow us to agree with you so we'll advocate authoritarianism to enforce our political and cultural preferences on you.
Me - [eyeroll]
And yet somehow I'm the authoritarian, literal Nazi. [laughing]
OP - we should go our separate ways and build nations that suit our cultural and political l preferences.
Cam - that would be preferable that the alternative.
everyone else - screw you traitors. Our feelings won't allow us to agree with you so we'll advocate authoritarianism to enforce our political and cultural preferences on you.
Me - [eyeroll]
And yet somehow I'm the authoritarian, literal Nazi. [laughing]
Im pretty sure that congress is supposed to declare war for us to go to war, I guess I could be wrong. So are you saying, hey can approve a military action and the military can just continue that action forever? Is that what was meant in the constitution you hold so dear?
Are you in elementary school?
1. There were no "War Powers Act" prior to the Vietnam War. Thus, the president (acting as commander in chief) could pretty much send military anywhere
2. After the Vietnam War, the War Powers Act still gives the president 60 days to do what he wants, but must withdraw after if they do not give him permission
3. ALL received Congressional approval to send military personnel
Good grief.
So do you stand by the words of the constitution or the ideas of it? You believe that an approval of military action 20 years ago is approval for the US to still be in Afghanistan?
Why was Congress ever given the authority to declare war when the president could just go to war without approval? Was it just a suggestion that he consult with congress?
What a **** show. And you guys still defend this piece of ****. What a disgrace.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ves-at-european-borders/ar-AAHB5fW?li=BBnb7Kz
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ves-at-european-borders/ar-AAHB5fW?li=BBnb7Kz
this conversation has nothing to do with Trump, I think he should be impeached and imprisoned for War Crimes and the same for at least the last 2 presidents and probably many more before that
He's all about the bully pulpit. He's got the diplomatic skills of a herpes virus.
Then maybe the government and liberals, especially activist judges, should start acting like it is.
There's no middle ground if you view any compromise as a loss. That's a bad way to run anything. If you think separating into 2 or 3 or 50 different units will solve that problem, I think you are sadly mistaken. Another issue will come along where roughly half can't see the value that the other half do. Now you're splitting that state into a smaller one. If you choose to give no ground on issues, find an uninhabited island and move in. You won't have to compromise on anything.
It's a difference in the interpretation of the document. Some are originalists and others are not. The fact that Ginsburg and Scalia were best friends should tell you that they don't view a difference of perspective as a need to be enemies. I suspect that if others on both extremes just decided to let differences of opinion be differences of opinion, we'd be fine. Actually, I think we are fine. I don't see us as nearing some huge culture war. I see small minorities on both extremes acting like no one can disagree with them. The large majority of the country is just fine knowing that their neighbor might have a difference of opinion with them.
Some issues can handle compromise. Some issues cannot. There is no middle ground on abortion. The middle ground is tiny on gun control and immigration.
The dividing line is a secular society and a "Christian" society. I obviously would prefer the later.
How are liberals acting like the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land? TYIA
There is a middle ground on abortion - don't get one. Stop nosing around in other people's private lives.
If secular and Christian can't coexist, you're going to have to figure out how I'm still married. Tolerance is what it takes by both parties. I have no issues with my wife going to church. Sometimes I go too. She has no issues with me not going to church. Actually, my in-laws are in the same exact situation, and they've been married for 40 years.
Protecting unborn humans from murder is not "nosing around in other people's private lives". END OF STORY. Now as far as you and your wife, macro does not equate to micro samples.
You are free to try to sway others to your opinion on abortion, and they are free to try to sway you to theirs. We allow the majority view to dictate law. Currently, the law that covers murder does not include abortion. You disagree. You are free to try to change that through the political process. That's the beauty of the founders' idea.
I think macro does work. It has worked for a long time. In your plan where to the Jews and the Muslims fit into this? They are not Christian, but they are not secular? Would Catholics and Baptists have to coexist in one of your nations or not? What about hard shell and soft shell Baptists? Like I was pointing out before, you are going to have to break this out into 300 million states if you keep going.
1. Brushy says you can't touch guns. They are Constitutionally protected.
2. Brushy says dissolve the Union and divide up the nation.
2. Brushy says dissolve the Union and divide up the nation.
You can't have it both ways. You can't use the Constitution to protect what you like and the piss on it when you get mad and want to dissolve the Union.
Who's mad. I'm trying to give the most people the most liberty. Like I said, if you guys want to make it a zero sum game I'm fine with Trump crushing the left into oblivion.
Why is it that this subject makes you so angry?
Why is it that this subject makes you so angry?
If it was a better for all parties involved than the current status quo is it still wrong? And would you still be against it?
As Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies,“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”