Are liberals trying to secede from the Union?

coachdb18pointfive

Loves Spam
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
168
The civil war never was about slavery, which is why Lincoln waited until 1863 to write his Emancipation Proclamation. If the war had been about slavery,, it would have been his first act after taking the oath.

So, what's the evidence they're trying to secede?

1) Liberals are now saying the Constitution is an old and outdated document. They simply don't support it.

2) They have an ongoing campaign to repeal the Bill of Right (especially the 2nd Amendment)

3) They hate borders, and want to have open borders with no immigration policy whatsoever.

4) They openly flaunt existing federal laws by erecting 'sanctuary cities'

5) They have tried for nearly two years now to reverse the 2016 election, and have installed a 'deep state' cover for an ongoing coup d'état, complete with a 'special prosecutor' who has no charges to bring, but is working feverishly to find SOMETHING.

This is a very short list of what documents the desire for civil war and secession by Democrats, bent on establishing a new and separate 'Hell on Earth' liberal version of America
 
Liberals have occupied and run all of America's biggest cities for well over 50 years, and they are the source of about 90 percent of America's crime problems, they form the largest outflows of homelessness and desperation from unemployment and illiteracy, they are the destination of huge sums to prop them up from mismanagement and corruption, and they are the destination of most of the entitlement funds taken from hardworking taxpayers.
 
Liberals have occupied and run all of America's biggest cities for well over 50 years, and they are the source of about 90 percent of America's crime problems, they form the largest outflows of homelessness and desperation from unemployment and illiteracy, they are the destination of huge sums to prop them up from mismanagement and corruption, and they are the destination of most of the entitlement funds taken from hardworking taxpayers.

What does that have to do with onion seeds?
 
The civil war never was about slavery, which is why Lincoln waited until 1863 to write his Emancipation Proclamation. If the war had been about slavery,, it would have been his first act after taking the oath.

So, what's the evidence they're trying to secede?

1) Liberals are now saying the Constitution is an old and outdated document. They simply don't support it.

2) They have an ongoing campaign to repeal the Bill of Right (especially the 2nd Amendment)

3) They hate borders, and want to have open borders with no immigration policy whatsoever.

4) They openly flaunt existing federal laws by erecting 'sanctuary cities'

5) They have tried for nearly two years now to reverse the 2016 election, and have installed a 'deep state' cover for an ongoing coup d'état, complete with a 'special prosecutor' who has no charges to bring, but is working feverishly to find SOMETHING.

This is a very short list of what documents the desire for civil war and secession by Democrats, bent on establishing a new and separate 'Hell on Earth' liberal version of America

Please learn anything about US history.

"The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/
 
The civil war never was about slavery, which is why Lincoln waited until 1863 to write his Emancipation Proclamation. If the war had been about slavery,, it would have been his first act after taking the oath.

So, what's the evidence they're trying to secede?

1) Liberals are now saying the Constitution is an old and outdated document. They simply don't support it.

2) They have an ongoing campaign to repeal the Bill of Right (especially the 2nd Amendment)

3) They hate borders, and want to have open borders with no immigration policy whatsoever.

4) They openly flaunt existing federal laws by erecting 'sanctuary cities'

5) They have tried for nearly two years now to reverse the 2016 election, and have installed a 'deep state' cover for an ongoing coup d'état, complete with a 'special prosecutor' who has no charges to bring, but is working feverishly to find SOMETHING.

This is a very short list of what documents the desire for civil war and secession by Democrats, bent on establishing a new and separate 'Hell on Earth' liberal version of America

While you are on point, you have your history wrong. The war was about the slavery datingback to the Missouri compromise. The Emancipation was released after the battle of Antietam (Sept 1862) because he wanted to release it after a Union victory. They didn't have a victory up to that point, in fact Antietam was considered by most to be a draw. He need the perception of a victory to release it so that the Copperheads (Dems) who opposed the war wouldn't gain strength and that the enrolling of troops would continue.
 
Please learn anything about US history.

"The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/

Abraham Lincoln said:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.

From Lincoln's first inaugural address....
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
 
Last edited:
As far as I know there are no pending amendments to the Constitution being voted on.
 
A liberal invoking 'femshaming'? careful, they'll revoke your lib membership for shit like that (it's a 'microaggression', you know!)!

How the hell is the word "meek" femshaming, you foolish one?

It's Friday, go out and fly one of your planes, or something in that hot ass Carolina weather.

You have become a troll and a pest. A joke.
 
Just trying to toss out the Johnny Reb Greycoats that lost their attempt to overthrow the US 160some years ago.
 
How the hell is the word "meek" femshaming, you foolish one?

It's Friday, go out and fly one of your planes, or something in that hot ass Carolina weather.

You have become a troll and a pest. A joke.

I was a bit confused by this one, too. So I checked out the etymology of the word meek for anything gendered. Nope. And l'm not personally aware of meek being used to disparage women.

The closest I could find to a gendered use was using meek as a euphemism for labia. On Urban Dictionary.

/nerd
 
Just trying to toss out the Johnny Reb Greycoats that lost their attempt to overthrow the US 160some years ago.

Hasn't death 'tossed out' most of those who fought those 160some years ago? So what is YOUR reason for seceding NOW?
 
QUOTE=coachdb18pointfive:

The civil war never was about slavery, which is why Lincoln waited until 1863 to write his Emancipation Proclamation. If the war had been about slavery, it would have been his first act after taking the oath.

0a) Cite, quote or some proof to verify this claim?

So, what's the evidence they're trying to secede?

1) Liberals are now saying the Constitution is an old and outdated document. They simply don't support it.

1a)Cite, quote or some proof to verify this claim?
2) They have an ongoing campaign to repeal the Bill of Right (especially the 2nd Amendment)
2a) Cite, quote or some proof to verify this claim?
3) They hate borders, and want to have open borders with no immigration policy whatsoever.
3a) Cite, quote or some proof to verify this claim?

4) They openly flaunt existing federal laws by erecting 'sanctuary cities
'

4a)Cite, quote or some proof to verify this claim?

5) They have tried for nearly two years now to reverse the 2016 election, and have installed a 'deep state' cover for an ongoing coup d'état, complete with a 'special prosecutor' who has no charges to bring, but is working feverishly to find SOMETHING.
5a) Cite, quote or some proof to verify this claim?

This is a very short list of what documents the desire for civil war and secession by Democrats, bent on establishing a new and separate 'Hell on Earth' liberal version of America

With out a cite, quote or proof of verification for these claims, it leaves your post in the realm of opinion. After reading most of your short, bitter, uninformed, extremely bias ramblings here on this board, I would put my trust in the veracity of your opinion about the time I am handed a three dollar bill. If you wish to bolster the credibility of your posts I suggest you include a few truthful facts to verify them.

Ta



Comshaw
 
I was a bit confused by this one, too. So I checked out the etymology of the word meek for anything gendered. Nope. And l'm not personally aware of meek being used to disparage women.

The closest I could find to a gendered use was using meek as a euphemism for labia. On Urban Dictionary.

/nerd

Do you contest that it was intended disparagingly? And who do we associate with being 'meek'? Women... it was one of your infamous 'microaggressions'... you REALLY need to undergo sensitivity training, before you melt down a few snowflakes...
 
Do you contest that it was intended disparagingly? And who do we associate with being 'meek'? Women... it was one of your infamous 'microaggressions'... you REALLY need to undergo sensitivity training, before you melt down a few snowflakes...

Only someone who doesn't know women at all would ever consider them meek.
 
Back
Top