25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession

Post Reply New Topic

I was attempting to make an analogy about access control in general and how it applies to national borders, open vs. controlled.

It's called multi-tasking.


More likely they'll be Mexicans in dog costumes.


Uh huh, and so was the commandant of Auschwitz where it just so happens they gassed children by the boxcar load.

The worst thing America can ever do is break apart.

The worst thing America can ever do is break apart.

Agreed. Because then, we're screwed.

Now, you gotta admit that Auschwitz point you made was weak.

I think you know if Commandant Huss was the kind of father I was referring to, he would never have hurt any children - probably not hurt anyone outside of those threatening his kids.

During his imprisonment before his trial, the Israeli government sent no fewer than six psychologists to examine Eichmann. Not only did these doctors find no trace of mental illness, but they also found no evidence of abnormal personality whatsoever. One doctor remarked that his overall attitude towards other people, especially his family and friends, was "highly desirable", while another remarked that the only unusual trait Eichmann displayed was being more "normal" in his habits and speech than the average person (pp. 25?6)

Eichmann's inability to think for himself was exemplified by his consistent use of "stock phrases and self-invented clichés," demonstrating his unrealistic worldview and crippling lack of communication skills through reliance on "officialese" (Amtssprache) and the euphemistic Sprachregelung that made implementation of Hitler's policies "somehow palatable."

And one expert who Colbert had interviewed had pointed out that people who multitask really don't get much done.

Well I guess I took it literally than, or you missed my analogy about how it makes no sense to me to be paranoid about people from 'outside' a nation is not private property so your analogy doesn't make much sense anyways. Either way seems trying to 'keep them out' just creates a lot of stress for people to deal with as well as paranoia about how terrorists will take over the country or something via bothering to come up through the mexican border.

The worst thing America can ever do is break apart.

So you're saying that the interior of the United States is not worth protecting. That it's only paranoia and racism driving the desire to have some control on who and what enters?

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

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.

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it?break it, so to speak?but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

I don't really think it's weak at all. More like yours is since you think that by being a parent someone automatically places the welfare of all children on a pedestal.


Oh really?
Ever heard of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem
It pretty much explains the seemingly harmess mentality of the peole that as a whole become known as "evil".

Here's a few excepts that stand out as significant to me: Hmmm........

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about blind partisanship.

I could go on and on about this topic in general but I've probably already lost you.

Apparently Has Colbert's "expert" ever actually held held a job?

I don't really think it's weak at all. More like yours is since you think that by being a parent someone automatically places the welfare of all children on a pedestal.


Oh really?
Ever heard of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem
It pretty much explains the seemingly harmess mentality of the peole that as a whole become known as "evil".

Here's a few excepts that stand out as significant to me: Hmmm........

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about blind partisanship.

I could go on and on about this topic in general but I've probably already lost you.

Apparently Has Colbert's "expert" ever actually held held a job?

Your argument that my "putting my child on a pedestal" somehow makes me a potential monster like Adolph Eichmann is also very weak. Putting your own child on said pedestal also elevates the worth of other children.

And where did blind partisanship suddenly come from? Because I stick by my convictions that we ought to be willing to extend humane treatment to people with nothing fleeing from terror and violence? If that's the case, then I will wear the charge of "blind partisanship" as a badge of honor.

And as far as Stephen Colbert is concerned - yes, he does have a job. As the host of the Colbert Report, and the head writer of both that and The Daily Show, I'd say that more than qualifies him as having a job.

It's apparent that you purposely took that out of context. Putting one's own child on a pedestal doesn't necessarily mean one puts all children on a pedestal.

Wait a minute while I put my waders on for this one....................................................
How long do you think it would take me to find all the examples I want of you doing just that? How many times have you been taken to task for your blind support of Obama? Or about your thoughtless support of anything liberal just because it wasn't conservaive or libertarian? You know it definitely hasn't just been me calling you out, either. How many times has Dox wiped up the floor with you over your blind partisan politics?


Oh, so now it's Stephen Colbert.
Before you said it was an "expert"he had interviewed. I don't care what any of them say, multitasking is still a values and often expected attribute in the workplace.

I'd like to see how you try to dig your way out this time......