Nikki Haley say only CEOs count in her state

Post Reply New Topic

At best legality of secession would be an issue for the supreme court, not that I trust them to come up with a good decision.

Why not? Because they might rule against secession?

^ That they might rule with their hearts like your boy Barack wants and not with their legal minds like they're supposed to.

you make a bit of compassion sound like a bad thing.

It has it's places but from the SC I expect good judgment based on legal expertise. It's not the place of any president to place or imply an expectation of anything different than rulings based on legal expertise.

I fail to see how secession could be rationalized, legally or emotionally.

I'm sure you can't, seeing as how secession or anything involving states rights goes against the progressive narrative......

a house divided upon itself cannot stand. I can see it from here. America is living on borrowed time. it is like trying to glue together the like sides of two magnets. one side wants to be free from the other side, I say let them go before they really start causing trouble.

There's not going to be any secession.
It's not a question of wanting or not wanting secession but whether or not it's legal or even morally justifiable.

Last edited by Raptor on 20 Oct 2014, 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

it might be better if there were, so the southern states don't dictate public policy to the north, and vice-versa.

This is not 1861 and a north vs. south thing. Rest assured, there would be states outside the south that would be on board if it came to secession, which it won't.

Then you go on and tell auntblabby how secession isn't going to happen. Either you want it to happen, to you don't. Either you think it's legal, or you don't.

It was never a question of whether or not I wanted secession.

I can't speak for the premise of the OP, as this is a domestic issue I don't know enough about. Researching this guy it is interesting that to note he file a lawsuit, to try and prevent someone from serving public office on the basis they are an atheist.

So yes I have no problem which he celebrating his history, but as a paid up civil right activist, it bizarre he doesn't respect or understand the Constitution which afford him rights amongst others.

Okay, that settles it - he's obviously insane.

So it's okay for you to lie about me because you're "venting"?



As a biologist is dismissive of creationists; there are a lot of stupid arguments being made about guns by people who know nothing of them, many of them repeatedly debunked by me, and after addressing them dozens of times from the same people, I'm done patiently explaining. Again, I could be the most dismissive person in the world, but that doesn't make my points about you any less valid, this whole thing is an attempt to distract from a substantive criticism you can't or won't defend against; it's poor arguing, at best.



The only thing selective here is your memory, as I've been out in front on a myriad of civil rights issues over the years, but as that would contradict the narrative you're trying to construct here, you conveniently "forget" about them. This is what I talk about when I say I can't tell if you're being dense or intentionally malicious, since you'd have to be really dense to have missed all of the various causes I've championed over the years, and as much as I don't like to assume malice, it's the more plausible explanation, as you do tend to start flinging poo when cornered.



"Not perfect"? The guy is George W Bush 2.0, now with a bit more melanin in his skin and better public speaking skills, and most crucially, a D after his name. Also, who is he trying to placate with those deportations? Does you think he thinks Republicans will vote for him if he kicks more illegals out? Perhaps you should look a bit closer to home, I doubt your union friends are particularly enthusiastic about a large workforce who's willing to do what they do for a fraction of the cost, and have less than no use for organized labor; that seems the much more likely target audience for that policy.



How do you know it's justified when all the information on that policy is classified? Who'd we kill? Classified. Why'd we kill him? Classified. What is the legal rationale allowing this program? Classified. Note on that last one, that's not sources and methods, that's nothing about the operational details of the program, that's the court decision saying why it's legal for the president to order assassinations, and we're not allowed to see it. Basically, this whole thing is based on Obama saying "trust us, this is legit", and I don't.



Brevity is one thing, emptiness is another.