Secession is the only hope for peace in USA.

[Quantrill]

You won't consider it because you have a closed mind to anything that you don't agree with.

Oh please...you hurt my feelings. not. As I said, when I see something worth considering, I will consider it. I haven't seen anything yet.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I wave the US flag. The war is over and your side lost.

And I don't mind that you wave the US flag. Why do you mind that I wave the Confederate flag? Yes, we lost the military war. You won the military war. So why do you keep bringing the war up and tearing down our flags and monuments?

Quantrill

 

[posthuman]

You cannot have an economy if there is no legal tender to fund it and keep it going so are you suggesting some sort of barter system?

i assumed that in his utopia, what he's calling his supreme court, a panel of 9 dictators-for life, would control their empire's currency, print money and collect taxes, since those 9 supreme rulers have control of all trade between the socially semi-autonomous fiefdoms.

 

[UnderGrace]

i assumed that in his utopia, what he's calling his supreme court, a panel of 9 dictators-for life, would control their empire's currency, print money and collect taxes, since those 9 supreme rulers have control of all trade between the socially semi-autonomous fiefdoms.

Yes, indeed escape to a "utopian theocratic state with no federal supreme court" hopefully away from all those sinners, especially the ones who do not accept that slavery is biblical and not illegal.

 

[posthuman]

Yes, indeed escape to a "utopian theocratic state with no federal supreme court" hopefully away from all those sinners, especially the ones who do not accept that slavery is biblical and not illegal.

presumably there will be a segment of the US population who all wish to be slaves, and when they are seceded into their own semi-autonomous fascist nation-state they will sell themselves to Q's semi-autonomous fascist nation-state? because i was wondering where he was going to get his slaves. or maybe he'll round up every former citizen he calls 'liberal atheist' and enslave them. a transaction which of course the supreme-ruler-court will oversee and inevitably tax since it would be inter-state trade.

 

[Tommy379]

I've voted Republican in every election since I was 18. The only time I voted for a Democrat was against Senator John Warner, who was anti 2nd amendment. The Democrat that year was pro second amendment.

I am liberal. Because I know what a liberal is.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"What doesn't pick my pocket, or break my arm, is of no concern of mine."

 

[Quantrill]

presumably there will be a segment of the US population who all wish to be slaves, and when they are seceded into their own semi-autonomous fascist nation-state they will sell themselves to Q's semi-autonomous fascist nation-state? because i was wondering where he was going to get his slaves. or maybe he'll round up every former citizen he calls 'liberal atheist' and enslave them. a transaction which of course the supreme-ruler-court will oversee and inevitably tax since it would be inter-state trade.

Again, you're arguing with yourself. I have never suggested a slave system. The secession I have suggested is simply less power of the Fed. Govt. and more given back to the States. It involves more freedom for the State. The liberal atheist could live anywhere he wanted. But he would be able to go to a liberal left State and live under it's rule if he chose.

This allows the people of the State to have a more representative government over them. It would take away the anxiety of having a Supreme Court being liberal or conservative.

The United States is not united. It has sown it's own seeds of division and now those divisions have bloomed. Unless some sort of secession is allowed, as i have suggested, those blooms will become fruit, which will be war. There is no bridge for the divisions that have been created.

To act as if this is just going to go away, while you sing patriotic songs, is living in a pipe dream.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Yes, indeed escape to a "utopian theocratic state with no federal supreme court" hopefully away from all those sinners, especially the ones who do not accept that slavery is biblical and not illegal.

Just as posthuman does, so do you. You are arguing with yourself. I never said 'no federal supreme court'. I said you remove much of its authority over the State. I never said anything about one must accept slavery. Where did I say anything about creating a 'theocratic state? Why do you make these false statements?

Why do you fear the States having more freedom to live as they want to live?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I've voted Republican in every election since I was 18. The only time I voted for a Democrat was against Senator John Warner, who was anti 2nd amendment. The Democrat that year was pro second amendment.

I am liberal. Because I know what a liberal is.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"What doesn't pick my pocket, or break my arm, is of no concern of mine."

Oh you do? Tell me what a 'liberal' is?

Quantrill

 

[Tommy379]

Oh you do? Tell me what a 'liberal' is?

Quantrill

Someone who wants to be left alone, and leave others alone.

But oh no. Mr. Quantrill wants to get off on his fantasy of tearing the nation up, with his retarded democrat ideology. Wants to put together an army of sissies, and wage war against the peaceful and loving Republicans.
The democrat Quantrill, wants to pick a fight.

Quantrill is weak sauce.

 

[dcontroversal]

Just throwing this in.....The "HINDERMOST" of the NATIONS, the "LADY" of the KINGDOMS falls <-----and one of the MAIN statements made that is a characteristic found in HER when SHE falls.....

LEADER against LEADER and Violence in the LAND...........

just saying.....

The above nation has Her symbols---> A LADY, WOMAN and the EAGLE

And the tragic truth....watch the news, because we are already in the bolded realm and it is headed toward a war......

 

[Quantrill]

Someone who wants to be left alone, and leave others alone.

But oh no. Mr. Quantrill wants to get off on his fantasy of tearing the nation up, with his retarded democrat ideology. Wants to put together an army of sissies, and wage war against the peaceful and loving Republicans.
The democrat Quantrill, wants to pick a fight.

Quantrill is weak sauce.

I don't know where you got your definition from but a liberal is far from someone who wants to be left alone. You have only to see the agitation they have created around the country.

Try again.

Why do you continue with your lies and false name calling?

Quantrill

 

[Tommy379]

I don't know where you got your definition from but a liberal is far from someone who wants to be left alone. You have only to see the agitation they have created around the country.

Try again.

Why do you continue with your lies and false name calling?

Quantrill

I know what a liberal is.

From reading your post, it's apparent your IQ is below 90. Please don't reproduce, that is genetic. We don't need more stupid people on this earth. I suggest you have a physician make you a eunuch. You're never going to use it anyways.

 

[Quantrill]

I know what a liberal is.

From reading your post, it's apparent your IQ is below 90. Please don't reproduce, that is genetic. We don't need more stupid people on this earth. I suggest you have a physician make you a eunuch. You're never going to use it anyways.

You haven't shown you know? And that is not limited to the definition of 'liberal'.

Quantrill

 

[posthuman]

"liberal" is a polysemous word. literally the root word liber means 'free' or 'independent' ((as in liberty)). per Merriam-Webster it began being commonly used to mean 'generous' in the 14th-15th century and by the 18th century had taken on the meaning of 'not strict or rigorous.' it found its way into politics in the 19th century when the British whig & torie parties described themselves as 'liberal' and 'conservative' largely to represent anti-regulation (('free')) and pro-regulation (('strict')) policies.

Tommy's use of the word seems to me to fit its original and literal meaning, but in American politics its connotations are largely defined by whether its being used by a political proponent or opponent. a 'libertarian' for example still uses it to refer to policies of deregulation and individual freedom, but a republican who self-describes as 'conservative' uses it as a slur sometimes with almost opposite connotation. i often get the sense that when people use this word in a negative sense it's almost completely undefined in meaning, representing generally anything they consider evil.

 

[Quantrill]

In Portland Oregon yesterday a Patriot group had a prayer for the country demonstration. Antifa comes to counter it. Big brawl and fights break out. This is becoming common now. it is just a matter of time before one side brings some guns.

The police have a hands off approach to these things. They are just as politcally motivated as these groups are.

Two sides with nothing in common, except their anger and hatred for each other. Certain politicians fuel this violence with their rhetoric. It will only continue to escalate. There will be no living in peace in this country anymore. They couldn't even have the Supreme Court hearings in peace. Screaming, and hollering and mob rule.

Hopefully there are some like-minded politicians that are thinking the same and considering some form of secession as I have suggested. It is they that need to develop the framework for it to work.

Quantrill

 

[posthuman]

The liberal atheist

Q for example seems to equate the word "liberal" with atheism.
but literally and classically, he's actually describing liberal ideas.

 

[Quantrill]

"liberal" is a polysemous word. literally the root word liber means 'free' or 'independent' ((as in liberty)). per Merriam-Webster it began being commonly used to mean 'generous' in the 14th-15th century and by the 18th century had taken on the meaning of 'not strict or rigorous.' it found its way into politics in the 19th century when the British whig & torie parties described themselves as 'liberal' and 'conservative' largely to represent anti-regulation (('free')) and pro-regulation (('strict')) policies.

Tommy's use of the word seems to me to fit its original and literal meaning, but in American politics its connotations are largely defined by whether its being used by a political proponent or opponent. a 'libertarian' for example still uses it to refer to policies of deregulation and individual freedom, but a republican who self-describes as 'conservative' uses it as a slur sometimes with almost opposite connotation. i often get the sense that when people use this word in a negative sense it's almost completely undefined in meaning, representing generally anything they consider evil.

And I happen to be using it in political sense, which is not hard to see. It not undefined. Is conservative, in the political sense, undefined? Of course when conservatives speak of liberals they do it in a negative sense. They are at odds with one another.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Q for example seems to equate the word "liberal" with atheism.
but literally and classically, he's actually describing liberal ideas.

No he's not. Quantrill is recognizing that liberals, atheists, leftists, are all in bed together. That bed happens to be the democratic party.

Quantrill

 

[posthuman]

No he's not. Quantrill is recognizing that liberals, atheists, leftists, are all in bed together. That bed happens to be the democratic party.

Quantrill

i think you're proving Tommy's accusation that you don't really understand the word. ((or that you're misusing it, in the same way someone might associate 'conservatism' with 'anti-education' or 'pro-ignorance' and 'backwards thinking'))

'liberal' means 'free' -- you're promoting increased social freedoms and individual self-governance, that's "liberal." you're promoting radical change; that's 'extreme left' ((classically political 'left' is pro-change and 'right' is pro-status-quo, but when used by political opponents these words definitions are often completely turned on their heads)). when someone promotes repeal of anti-sodomy laws they are promoting 'liberal' policies because they are promoting the removal of social legal restrictions so that the individual can be more 'free' to self-govern without the interference of law in their personal lives.