‘THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SECEDE’: JUSTICE SCALIA

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Don't be a dolt, the reason is, people want to be free of the ever reaching arm of a central Gov't.... Obama represents that better than any, in big ways and small.

People on the right feel the size and scope of washington can not be stopped, ......

it has nothing to do with race.... you guys are so absorbed and fixated on race you can't see the nose in front of your face.

If people were so bothered by "The black man" why do poll after poll show people like obama on a personal level..... how much more personal can you get than race if you "hate Black people"?

Look folks for those that can't figure out what is going on here let Danno clue you in. (I can read these people like the stitches on a fast-ball)

One of the tactics of Saul Alinsky taught was to use attacks which can't be refuted.

How do you prove you don't hate Obama because he is Black.... ya can't,

how do you prove in your heart of hearts you don't long for slavery... but would settle for Jim Crow... ya can't.

Thats why you hear this over and over from the "thought brokers" on the Left and then the Libs at large repeat the same thing.

It's a tactic, the more you people try to "prove you don't hate Black folks" the sillier you look.

Glad to see you got this all figured out, then why don't you tell us why this is happening now? Like big dog said we have had polarizing presidents before, but no seceding. We've have tax cuts, increases, but no tea party. People talk about our national debt ceiling, here is a fact, it's been raised 69 times without incident since 1962, Bush raised it 7 times and Reagan 18 times, yet when Obama tries, they set a new precedent. Bush had his haters, but as bad as he was when did anyone announce this in public: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Publicly Announces His Top Political Priority (Dec 2010). McConnell wants the President out of office? No news there, but, wait, there’s more to it. “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term,” Sen. McConnell told the Heritage Foundation. Of course the Senate Republican Leader doesn’t want the President to be re-elected. But what’s with the public announcement? In July 2010 McConnell acknowledged his single most important political goal: President Obama being a one-term President. Again: In public and on national television. When has this ever happened to any other President?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now see there you go again with the Disingenuous Lib stuff.

When you say Gob'ment grew less, what exactly are you referring to?

Facts. That's what I - unlike you and yours - usually refer to.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Probably including state government in his calculations. State and local governments have particularly suffered under Obama, while the Federal debt continues to grow by record amounts.

Federal government spending - the measure for the size of government - has grown more slowly under this President than under several Presidents past - including The Gipper.

[Danno 1,228]

Glad to see you got this all figured out, then why don't you tell us why this is happening now? Like big dog said we have had polarizing presidents before, but no seceding. We've have tax cuts, increases, but no tea party. People talk about our national debt ceiling, here is a fact, it's been raised 69 times without incident since 1962, Bush raised it 7 times and Reagan 18 times, yet when Obama tries, they set a new precedent. Bush had his haters, but as bad as he was when did anyone announce this in public: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Publicly Announces His Top Political Priority (Dec 2010). McConnell wants the President out of office? No news there, but, wait, there’s more to it. “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term,” Sen. McConnell told the Heritage Foundation. Of course the Senate Republican Leader doesn’t want the President to be re-elected. But what’s with the public announcement? In July 2010 McConnell acknowledged his single most important political goal: President Obama being a one-term President. Again: In public and on national television. When has this ever happened to any other President?

If you see an inconsistency, that is a valid point of debate but to jump to the conclusion it is about race with so little to go on is not just dumb, it is hurtful to our national harmony between races.

People on the Left and Right (including the Bowles commission) have given dire warning about the amount of debt we now are amassing with only growth in sight..... and what it will mean for our future.

We are rapidly becoming insolvent, if it were not for our ability to manipulate the Dollar (as no other country can do) our credit rating would be in even worse shape.

Whats going to happen, and it is happening now is other countries are going to end the monopoly we have held as the "world currency" we are then done.

To compare prior debt ceilings to what we are now facing is telling.

We have to seriously cut the military and our entitlements.

Neither of which can even be discussed.

[TnJ 131]

Just answer the question. Shouldn't be that hard, right? Why does the re-election of Obama same as his election trigger these secession movements? Clearly, it's not because he's polarizing. We've had polarizing Presidents before - one right before Obama who did two terms - and that has never, ever triggered secession movements. Why now? Give us a reason.

Exactly. They won't. Because they're fcuking cowards. And they need to be called out on that. Every last one of them.

I did give a reason as to why it doesn't make sense to rule out one variable simply because it didn't apply to another example. Even if I was to narrow mindedly say it was because he is polarizing, you would simply disagree, and that would be that. That is not my reasoning though, and I would not think the defining characteristics of one polarizing president would apply to another. I wouldn't paint those that disapprove of Obama as racist either, but some people like to make reasons for others. Lately, it seems that one can't disagree on the matter of presidency without the speculation of that one having some shallow ulterior motive at work. I agree, there is something quite disturbing with some of the hatred I've seen and heard, but these people are still a minority among the minority. People hated Bush for all kinds of reasons even if it didn't bring talks of secession. One would only be a fool to think that there was no racist sentiment directed at him as well. After all, one only needs to have their skin color qualify for another to be racist.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you see an inconsistency, that is a valid point of debate but to jump to the conclusion it is about race with so little to go on is not just dumb, it is hurtful to our national harmony between races.

So what drives this secessionist bullshite? What is it? Give it to me.

I did give a reason as to why it doesn't make sense to rule out one variable simply because it didn't apply to another example. Even if I was to narrow mindedly say it was because he is polarizing, you would simply disagree, and that would be that. That is not my reasoning though, and I would not think the defining characteristics of one polarizing president would apply to another. I wouldn't paint those that disapprove of Obama as racist either, but some people like to make reasons for others. Lately, it seems that one can't disagree on the matter of presidency without the speculation of that one having some shallow ulterior motive at work. I agree, there is something quite disturbing with some of the hatred I've seen and heard, but these people are still a minority among the minority. People hated Bush for all kinds of reasons even if it didn't bring talks of secession. One would only be a fool to think that there was no racist sentiment directed at him as well. After all, one only needs to have their skin color qualify for another to be racist.

So you just don't know. Thank you.

[Danno 1,228]

Facts. That's what I - unlike you and yours - usually refer to.

I'm wondering, when you say gob'ment is smaller are you talking about "growth" and are you misleading by adding in the down sizing of State and local Gov't?

Thats the only thing that has shrunk, State and local Gov.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm wondering, when you say gob'ment is smaller are you talking about "growth"

Yes, the federal government has grown less under this President than it has under Presidents in decades past. It's not smaller but it has grown much less than it has historically even though the country continues to grow at a rather rapid clip.

[Danno 1,228]

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Danno

[Danno 1,228]

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.

This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

Abraham Lincoln

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

"shaking off a government" can mean many things. Including anarchy. It's not a specific endorsement for seceding from the Union.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's not what I said. Try to pay attention. What I said was that "polarizing" is obviously not the criteria. Now, race would be the most obvious. But since that ain't it, you tell me what it is.

How about a national debt that's higher than Pakistan's (relative to GDP)?

Wouldn't the states be better off if they were *peaceful* countries, and didn't have to support the military-industrial complex, endless wars, 1000 military bases around the globe, subsidies for big business and a bloated, overpaid, do-nothing government?

[TnJ 131]

So what drives this secessionist bullshite? What is it? Give it to me.

So you just don't know. Thank you.

You're welcome. Nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. Honesty with myself is better than making up reasons for others' thinking.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

How about a national debt that's higher than Pakistan's (relative to GDP)?

Wouldn't the states be better off if they were *peaceful* countries, and didn't have to support the military-industrial complex, endless wars, 1000 military bases around the globe, subsidies for big business and a bloated, overpaid, do-nothing government?

The states aren't supporting the Fed. It's more the other way around in many cases.

We'd all be better off if military expenditures were slashed.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You're welcome. Nothing wrong with admitting uncertainty. Honesty with myself is better than making up reasons for others' thinking.

I dunno. If you are going to be really honest with yourself, you have to look at the vitriol that has been out there the last four years. It's an a level I've not seen in my years of watching politics. I live in a red state and I am here to tell you that there are PLENTY of people who don't like a black man being in the White House. OK, by and large they are the same people who don't like people of other colors; they don't understand the women's movement; they hate gays and they think all young people are shiftless slackers. But the race of the President goes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way in fueling their anger.

I'll not ever forget overhearing three people in a restaurant, four years ago, the day after Obama was elected. "Well, they had to let one of THEM be President eventually" said one of the men. A younger guy, by the way, and looking well dressed and educated.

You tell me what that means.