Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[Ivytalk]

Snowflakes is more appropriate for those who can't stand the thought of anyone other than white, straight, Christian males in power - so most of the GOP

Snowflake is a term that Conks use to describe Donks and Donks are not allowed to appropriate it. That would hurt the feelings of the Conks who came up with this usage and we can't have a bunch of butt-hurt Conks stumbling around in tears. Misappropriation results in the offending Donk owing the aggrieved Conk a beverage of his/her choice if their paths should ever cross.

That said, there are some pretty sensitive Conks out there and they need a similar but distinctive term of their own. Let's start a list:
- pantywaist
- cream puff
- flower petal

Do you ever get tired of being the guy with the stripe down the middle of his back?

[UNI88]

Snowflake is a term that Conks use to describe Donks and Donks are not allowed to appropriate it. That would hurt the feelings of the Conks who came up with this usage and we can't have a bunch of butt-hurt Conks stumbling around in tears. Misappropriation results in the offending Donk owing the aggrieved Conk a beverage of his/her choice if their paths should ever cross.

That said, there are some pretty sensitive Conks out there and they need a similar but distinctive term of their own. Let's start a list:
- pantywaist
- cream puff
- flower petal

Do you ever get tired of being the guy with the stripe down the middle of his back?

Why did everyone leave? Oh, but of course! Already I have achieved a post of honor, and have been left to defend the fort. Viva la Republique!

[Ivytalk]

Do you ever get tired of being the guy with the stripe down the middle of his back?

Why did everyone leave? Oh, but of course! Already I have achieved a post of honor, and have been left to defend the fort. Viva la Republique!

Macron! I knew it was you!

[CitadelGrad]

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

Yup, you just did that. You actually compared the plight of the Confederacy - a government set up for the exclusive right to hold a racial group in perpetual slavery and servitude - with that of the Jews (and others) - forcibly taken out of their homes and countries and mass exterminated simply because of who they were. I don't blame you (well, I do a little bit), I blame every educational system and grown-up you've been educated by over the course of your life that actually believes equating the Confederacy with the plight of Jews in WWII is a valid comparison. For shame.

Nope.

The vast majority of southerners who died during the war (and after) never owned slaves and did not take up arms until their states were invaded by a foreign power. Even those who owned slaves were in compliance with the laws of the United States. Nevertheless, their home states were invaded.

Lincoln did not invade the South to free the slaves. Even in the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln provided for the continuation of slavery if the states that seceded voluntarily returned to the the Union. If Lincoln found slavery to be so egregious and illegal, why did he not fire or imprison Gen. Grant? He owned slaves. Lee did not.

While Hitler and Lincoln murdered for different reasons, they did murder. Southerners, like the European Jews complied with the laws of their nation and should have received protection under the law but had their rights removed by tyrants who had no regard for the law.

[CitadelGrad]

The South did not take up arms until the U.S. Army garrison in Charleston refused to leave South Carolina, which had already legally seceded. There was no armed insurrection. South Carolina defended its territory against United States occupation force.

Wrong traitor snowflake. There was no legal right to secede. You, however, can renounce your citizenship and GTFO

Of course the states had a right to secede. It's found in the 10th Amendment.

If states did not have a right to secede, why was the Constitution amended to prohibit secession after the war?

I could go into greater detail, as the matter was discussed and rejected at the constitutional convention.

[CitadelGrad]

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

Hmm....
The drama runs deep here

Explain to me (other than lives lost) what else was lost..?
You still live in America
as do your relatives


That's what was lost, ego..? Pride..? Self worth..?
You sound like a Hilary supporter after the election

What was lost? Seriously?

A republic.

[Skjellyfetti]

While Hitler and Lincoln murdered for different reasons, they did murder. Southerners, like the European Jews complied with the laws of their nation and should have received protection under the law but had their rights removed by tyrants who had no regard for the law.

Sticking to his guns.

[Chizzang]

Hmm....
The drama runs deep here

Explain to me (other than lives lost) what else was lost..?
You still live in America
as do your relatives


That's what was lost, ego..? Pride..? Self worth..?
You sound like a Hilary supporter after the election

What was lost? Seriously?

A republic.

You mean this republic:
“Our government is founded upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man”
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens

What a heartbreaking loss for you...
I see how hard that is

[GannonFan]

Wrong traitor snowflake. There was no legal right to secede. You, however, can renounce your citizenship and GTFO

Of course the states had a right to secede. It's found in the 10th Amendment.

If states did not have a right to secede, why was the Constitution amended to prohibit secession after the war?

I could go into greater detail, as the matter was discussed and rejected at the constitutional convention.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I was literally on the floor laughing at the sheer idiocy of your response. Again, you might have a legitimate civil rights case you could win - your education has clearly been inferior and it has clearly had a lasting, negative impact on your ability to function as an adult. I venture to say it could reach class-action status but I don't want to insult too many people here when just you will do.

First of all, on the less idiotic, but still dumb 10th amendment argument. The amendment simply states that the powers not given to the federal government then, be default, remain with the States. But in regards to secession, that makes no sense. Why would the Federal government ever have the power to secede (what would that even mean), and how could that, since it wasn't given to the Federal government, be given to the States? It's nonsensical.

Now for the crazy stuff - you're going to need to provide the adopted Constitutional amendment that "prohibits secession". Go ahead, show me which one does that. Heck, you can even quote whatever fiction book you were given as a history textbook during your obviously wanting educational life. So come on, which amendment is the "no secession allowed" amendment?

[GannonFan]

I disagree with the view on the Morrill Tarriff. First of all, that particular tariff itself would likely not have passed into law had it not actually been for the Southern states actually seceeding and removing their votes from the Senate that had been blocking passage of that bill. Once those Senators left, passage was all but assured. But beyond that, the primary goal, and not even the secondary one, had anything to do with slavery, per se. There was a particularly bad recession in 1857 that prompted the need for more revenues, and in the nineteenth century (and even before if you read the Federalist Papers) the main source of income for the federal government was import and export duties and tariffs. Basically, we needed more money and this was how governments went about getting money back then. And prior to this we were one of the lower tariff countries in the world so it's not like the example wasn't out there on how to raise money. In addition, rather than punishing the South, the tariff was more to promote the North - tariffs always had a motivation to protect domestic industry and obviously this tariff did protect Northern industries and manufacturing. But favoring the North is not the same as attacking slavery and the areas of the economy that used slavery. Heck, there were plenty of things taxed in that tariff that had nothing to do with slavery. Sure there were many in the North that would've been happy to make slavery more difficult to maintain, but there were bigger, more overriding reasons for tariff bills such as this one.

I agree with the Catton sentiment, though. Even if not necessarily spoken out loud all the time or stated as the reason for individuals to join the fight, if slavery didn't exist we wouldn't have had the war, at least not then, and maybe ever. It was the fundamental backdrop to all the sectional disagreements since the founding.

Whatever you say, Perfesser.

I dislike when history is so badly misinterpreted. It hurts my head.

[CitadelGrad]

Of course the states had a right to secede. It's found in the 10th Amendment.

If states did not have a right to secede, why was the Constitution amended to prohibit secession after the war?

I could go into greater detail, as the matter was discussed and rejected at the constitutional convention.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I was literally on the floor laughing at the sheer idiocy of your response. Again, you might have a legitimate civil rights case you could win - your education has clearly been inferior and it has clearly had a lasting, negative impact on your ability to function as an adult. I venture to say it could reach class-action status but I don't want to insult too many people here when just you will do.

First of all, on the less idiotic, but still dumb 10th amendment argument. The amendment simply states that the powers not given to the federal government then, be default, remain with the States. But in regards to secession, that makes no sense. Why would the Federal government ever have the power to secede (what would that even mean), and how could that, since it wasn't given to the Federal government, be given to the States? It's nonsensical.

Now for the crazy stuff - you're going to need to provide the adopted Constitutional amendment that "prohibits secession". Go ahead, show me which one does that. Heck, you can even quote whatever fiction book you were given as a history textbook during your obviously wanting educational life. So come on, which amendment is the "no secession allowed" amendment?

Of course it was amended. You do know that the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, don't you? At least that's what progressives tell me. SCOTUS amended the Constitution in Roe v. Wade by inventing a right to privacy. SCOTUS also amended the Constitution in Texas v. White, when it ruled that secession by individual states was not legal and never had been. In that instance, SCOTUS could have resolved the case without declaring secession was illegal. Therefore, the Constitution was amended.

As for the 10th Amendment, you don't seem to have a clue. Of course the federal government can't secede from itself. That really isn't the question. The question is, does the federal government have the power to prevent states from seceding. It is not an enumerated power reserved to the federal govt., therefore the 10th Amendment permits states to secede.

[CitadelGrad]

While Hitler and Lincoln murdered for different reasons, they did murder. Southerners, like the European Jews complied with the laws of their nation and should have received protection under the law but had their rights removed by tyrants who had no regard for the law.

Sticking to his guns.

Of course I'm sticking to my guns.

What can you refute? Are you saying that the South was not in compliance with the law? Are you saying slavery was illegal? Perhaps you are trying to say being a Jew was illegal and they had what was coming to them.

What exactly is your argument?

[Aho Old Guy]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I was literally on the floor laughing at the sheer idiocy of your response. Again, you might have a legitimate civil rights case you could win - your education has clearly been inferior and it has clearly had a lasting, negative impact on your ability to function as an adult. I venture to say it could reach class-action status but I don't want to insult too many people here when just you will do.

First of all, on the less idiotic, but still dumb 10th amendment argument. The amendment simply states that the powers not given to the federal government then, be default, remain with the States. But in regards to secession, that makes no sense. Why would the Federal government ever have the power to secede (what would that even mean), and how could that, since it wasn't given to the Federal government, be given to the States? It's nonsensical.

Now for the crazy stuff - you're going to need to provide the adopted Constitutional amendment that "prohibits secession". Go ahead, show me which one does that. Heck, you can even quote whatever fiction book you were given as a history textbook during your obviously wanting educational life. So come on, which amendment is the "no secession allowed" amendment?

Of course it was amended. You do know that the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, don't you? At least that's what progressives tell me. SCOTUS amended the Constitution in Roe v. Wade by inventing a right to privacy. SCOTUS also amended the Constitution in Texas v. White, when it ruled that secession by individual states was not legal and never had been. In that instance, SCOTUS could have resolved the case without declaring secession was illegal. Therefore, the Constitution was amended.

As for the 10th Amendment, you don't seem to have a clue. Of course the federal government can't secede from itself. That really isn't the question. The question is, does the federal government have the power to prevent states from seceding. It is not an enumerated power reserved to the federal govt., therefore the 10th Amendment permits states to secede.

Not real keen on the 4th Amendment, huh?

[Ibanez]

Sticking to his guns.

Of course I'm sticking to my guns.

What can you refute? Are you saying that the South was not in compliance with the law? Are you saying slavery was illegal? Perhaps you are trying to say being a Jew was illegal and they had what was coming to them.

What exactly is your argument?

I think it's your asinine comparison of Holocaust Jews to White Southerners he and just about everyone here has an issue with.

Not even Z would make such a bad comparison.

[Chizzang]

It's a fascinating case of "persecution complex"
and completely irrational attachment to things that happened 150 years ago
Nobody gives a sh!t who your great great great uncle was

[GannonFan]

Of course it was amended. You do know that the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, don't you? At least that's what progressives tell me. SCOTUS amended the Constitution in Roe v. Wade by inventing a right to privacy. SCOTUS also amended the Constitution in Texas v. White, when it ruled that secession by individual states was not legal and never had been. In that instance, SCOTUS could have resolved the case without declaring secession was illegal. Therefore, the Constitution was amended.

As for the 10th Amendment, you don't seem to have a clue. Of course the federal government can't secede from itself. That really isn't the question. The question is, does the federal government have the power to prevent states from seceding. It is not an enumerated power reserved to the federal govt., therefore the 10th Amendment permits states to secede.

Not real keen on the 4th Amendment, huh?

Well, technically the Court found that the 14th amendment and it's due process clause is what covered the right to privacy in Roe v Wade, so not sure why you're referencing the 4th unless it was a typo.

[GannonFan]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I was literally on the floor laughing at the sheer idiocy of your response. Again, you might have a legitimate civil rights case you could win - your education has clearly been inferior and it has clearly had a lasting, negative impact on your ability to function as an adult. I venture to say it could reach class-action status but I don't want to insult too many people here when just you will do.

First of all, on the less idiotic, but still dumb 10th amendment argument. The amendment simply states that the powers not given to the federal government then, be default, remain with the States. But in regards to secession, that makes no sense. Why would the Federal government ever have the power to secede (what would that even mean), and how could that, since it wasn't given to the Federal government, be given to the States? It's nonsensical.

Now for the crazy stuff - you're going to need to provide the adopted Constitutional amendment that "prohibits secession". Go ahead, show me which one does that. Heck, you can even quote whatever fiction book you were given as a history textbook during your obviously wanting educational life. So come on, which amendment is the "no secession allowed" amendment?

Of course it was amended. You do know that the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, don't you? At least that's what progressives tell me. SCOTUS amended the Constitution in Roe v. Wade by inventing a right to privacy. SCOTUS also amended the Constitution in Texas v. White, when it ruled that secession by individual states was not legal and never had been. In that instance, SCOTUS could have resolved the case without declaring secession was illegal. Therefore, the Constitution was amended.

As for the 10th Amendment, you don't seem to have a clue. Of course the federal government can't secede from itself. That really isn't the question. The question is, does the federal government have the power to prevent states from seceding. It is not an enumerated power reserved to the federal govt., therefore the 10th Amendment permits states to secede.

So you have no amendment to point to. Your education again comes home to roost. As for the 10th amendment, that's the typical, simplistic reading of it that I would assume you to make. Nevermind the background for the 10th amendment, or even the rationale for it from the Founders, that completely go against the point your making. Seriously, where did you go to school?

[HI54UNI]

[Ibanez]

Not real keen on the 4th Amendment, huh?

Well, technically the Court found that the 14th amendment and it's due process clause is what covered the right to privacy in Roe v Wade, so not sure why you're referencing the 4th unless it was a typo.

Maybe he considers an abortion a lawful seizure?

I dunno...

[Ivytalk]

Of course it was amended. You do know that the Constitution can be amended by the Supreme Court, don't you? At least that's what progressives tell me. SCOTUS amended the Constitution in Roe v. Wade by inventing a right to privacy. SCOTUS also amended the Constitution in Texas v. White, when it ruled that secession by individual states was not legal and never had been. In that instance, SCOTUS could have resolved the case without declaring secession was illegal. Therefore, the Constitution was amended.

As for the 10th Amendment, you don't seem to have a clue. Of course the federal government can't secede from itself. That really isn't the question. The question is, does the federal government have the power to prevent states from seceding. It is not an enumerated power reserved to the federal govt., therefore the 10th Amendment permits states to secede.

So you have no amendment to point to. Your education again comes home to roost. As for the 10th amendment, that's the typical, simplistic reading of it that I would assume you to make. Nevermind the background for the 10th amendment, or even the rationale for it from the Founders, that completely go against the point your making. Seriously, where did you go to school?

Careful, there, GF. You're beginning to sound like Ibanez talking to BDK. Nobody likes a pedant. I remind you that our most knowledgeable foreign policy poster went to the Citadel.

[GannonFan]

So you have no amendment to point to. Your education again comes home to roost. As for the 10th amendment, that's the typical, simplistic reading of it that I would assume you to make. Nevermind the background for the 10th amendment, or even the rationale for it from the Founders, that completely go against the point your making. Seriously, where did you go to school?

Careful, there, GF. You're beginning to sound like Ibanez talking to BDK. Nobody likes a pedant. I remind you that our most knowledgeable foreign policy poster went to the Citadel.

Yes, but that was education gained after leaving school. Kind of like you and Harvard.

[89Hen]

Careful, there, GF. You're beginning to sound like Ibanez talking to BDK. Nobody likes a pedant. I remind you that our most knowledgeable foreign policy poster went to the Citadel.

Yes, but that was education gained after leaving school. Kind of like you and Harvard.

What I learned at Delaware:

- If you go to class you don't have to buy books and if you read books you don't have to go to class.
- Nothing interesting happens before midnight.
- Never wear nice kicks to a fraternity party.
- It's really hard but possible to drink 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes.

That's about it.

[Ibanez]

So you have no amendment to point to. Your education again comes home to roost. As for the 10th amendment, that's the typical, simplistic reading of it that I would assume you to make. Nevermind the background for the 10th amendment, or even the rationale for it from the Founders, that completely go against the point your making. Seriously, where did you go to school?

Careful, there, GF. You're beginning to sound like Ibanez talking to BDK. Nobody likes a pedant. I remind you that our most knowledgeable foreign policy poster went to the Citadel.

One would think precision would be a good quality to have, especially when discussing the laws of our land.

[GannonFan]

Yes, but that was education gained after leaving school. Kind of like you and Harvard.

What I learned at Delaware:

- If you go to class you don't have to buy books and if you read books you don't have to go to class.
- Nothing interesting happens before midnight.
- Never wear nice kicks to a fraternity party.
- It's really hard but possible to drink 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes.

That's about it.

I agree, college wasn't necessarily about learning something in particular (heck, even in engineering) as much as it was learning how to learn. Deep stuff there.

[Chizzang]

What I learned at Delaware:

- If you go to class you don't have to buy books and if you read books you don't have to go to class.
- Nothing interesting happens before midnight.
- Never wear nice kicks to a fraternity party.
- It's really hard but possible to drink 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes.

That's about it.

I agree, college wasn't necessarily about learning something in particular (heck, even in engineering) as much as it was learning how to learn. Deep stuff there.

Learning how to "Think" is by far the most difficult thing for a human...
We do not come by it easily - I was lucky I inherited a good brain

I did not get to choose who I am at birth or who my parents are
I got extremely lucky and have continued to be very lucky