Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[dbackjon]

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.

Wrong again. No, it is NOT in the 10th Amendment, no matter how your treasonous losers like to pretend it was.

[Col Hogan]

[JohnStOnge]

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.

Wrong again. No, it is NOT in the 10th Amendment, no matter how your treasonous losers like to pretend it was.

I think the idea is that the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to force States to remain in the Union. I realize that we abandoned the intent a long time ago. But I think the intent of that Amendment was that the Federal government only had the power to do what the Constitution explicitly says it has the power to do.

Me, I think that if representatives of States ratifying the initial Constitution had been told that doing so meant their States couldn't leave the Union if they decided to do so the Constitution would never have been ratified. I don't think they looked at it as a compulsory association.

[Ivytalk]

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.

Just keep reading and observing!

[GannonFan]

Wrong again. No, it is NOT in the 10th Amendment, no matter how your treasonous losers like to pretend it was.

I think the idea is that the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to force States to remain in the Union. I realize that we abandoned the intent a long time ago. But I think the intent of that Amendment was that the Federal government only had the power to do what the Constitution explicitly says it has the power to do.

Me, I think that if representatives of States ratifying the initial Constitution had been told that doing so meant their States couldn't leave the Union if they decided to do so the Constitution would never have been ratified. I don't think they looked at it as a compulsory association.

Nonsense. This was debated to great extent in the drafting of the Constitution, through it's ratification process, and even when the Bill of Rights was added on just afterwards. People were fully aware of the Elastic Clause in the Constitution - there were numerous essays in the Federalist Papers, among other contemporary publications, devoted to that idea and at no time did anyone really think or argue that the only laws the Federal government could pass were those that were explicitly detailed in the Constitution. This wasn't hidden or unknown at the time of ratifying the Constitution, on the contrary, it dominated the conversation. To argue otherwise is being purposely disingenuous. There was never an out clause in the Constitution that States could use to leave - the Constitution was set up with power coming from the people, not the States, and any discussion of dissolution of the Union always made reference to the fact that it would have to come about in armed insurrection as a result of government falling apart - never was it argued that the Union was a social club where States could come and go as they please.

[Ibanez]

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.

Wrong again. No, it is NOT in the 10th Amendment, no matter how your treasonous losers like to pretend it was.

You should really shut up with the "treasonous" talk. It's hypocritical. Washington was a traitor.

[89Hen]

You should really shut up with the "treasonous" talk.

Libs can't. Once Huff and Kos mention a word like that, the parrots can't help themselves.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the idea is that the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to force States to remain in the Union. I realize that we abandoned the intent a long time ago. But I think the intent of that Amendment was that the Federal government only had the power to do what the Constitution explicitly says it has the power to do.

Me, I think that if representatives of States ratifying the initial Constitution had been told that doing so meant their States couldn't leave the Union if they decided to do so the Constitution would never have been ratified. I don't think they looked at it as a compulsory association.

Nonsense. This was debated to great extent in the drafting of the Constitution, through it's ratification process, and even when the Bill of Rights was added on just afterwards. People were fully aware of the Elastic Clause in the Constitution - there were numerous essays in the Federalist Papers, among other contemporary publications, devoted to that idea and at no time did anyone really think or argue that the only laws the Federal government could pass were those that were explicitly detailed in the Constitution. This wasn't hidden or unknown at the time of ratifying the Constitution, on the contrary, it dominated the conversation. To argue otherwise is being purposely disingenuous. There was never an out clause in the Constitution that States could use to leave - the Constitution was set up with power coming from the people, not the States, and any discussion of dissolution of the Union always made reference to the fact that it would have to come about in armed insurrection as a result of government falling apart - never was it argued that the Union was a social club where States could come and go as they please.

I don't think any of that is true ...except for the fact that there was never an "out" clause in the Constitution...but it's hard to prove a negative.

Oh...and I'm guessing it wasn't argued that the Union was a social club.

But I don't think there was ever any intent to create a situation where States couldn't leave if they wanted to.

[CID1990]

Look, it doesn't matter what the Constitutional justification for secession was-

The justicial branch cannot solve matters like that. At the end of the day, when the sovereignty and economy of independent states is in question, those states can only be dissolved (or retained) through force of arms.

It has long been said that the American question of the right of secession was settled in 1865 by force or arms. I disagree.

It was settled by the political WILL to use force of arms to maintain the union. Today, I am convinced that the force of economics maintains the union. There is no way we would have the political will to fight a shooting war over the departure of, say, California. So if California was to secede (they wont, and cant), the legality of it would be decided after the fact- as was the legality of secession in 1861.

Might makes right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Nonsense. This was debated to great extent in the drafting of the Constitution, through it's ratification process, and even when the Bill of Rights was added on just afterwards. People were fully aware of the Elastic Clause in the Constitution - there were numerous essays in the Federalist Papers, among other contemporary publications, devoted to that idea and at no time did anyone really think or argue that the only laws the Federal government could pass were those that were explicitly detailed in the Constitution. This wasn't hidden or unknown at the time of ratifying the Constitution, on the contrary, it dominated the conversation. To argue otherwise is being purposely disingenuous. There was never an out clause in the Constitution that States could use to leave - the Constitution was set up with power coming from the people, not the States, and any discussion of dissolution of the Union always made reference to the fact that it would have to come about in armed insurrection as a result of government falling apart - never was it argued that the Union was a social club where States could come and go as they please.

I don't think any of that is true ...except for the fact that there was never an "out" clause in the Constitution...but it's hard to prove a negative.

Oh...and I'm guessing it wasn't argued that the Union was a social club.

But I don't think there was ever any intent to create a situation where States couldn't leave if they wanted to.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, I think you've shown plenty of times on this board that you'll believe things in the sheer face of being absolutely incorrect. You said that States wouldn't have signed up if they believed the Federal government could have powers that weren't expressly enumerated and that no one thought there was a vehicle in the Constitution around that. On the contrary, the very nature of the Elastic Clause was debated and argued for a good 10 months during the ratification process and it was very clear that the government could and would take on powers that the Founders couldn't articulate at the time of writing the document as long as it met the necessary and proper definition to carry out the enumerated powers. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Plenty of documentation exists, feel free to read about it.

[GannonFan]

Look, it doesn't matter what the Constitutional justification for secession was-

The justicial branch cannot solve matters like that. At the end of the day, when the sovereignty and economy of independent states is in question, those states can only be dissolved (or retained) through force of arms.

It has long been said that the American question of the right of secession was settled in 1865 by force or arms. I disagree.

It was settled by the political WILL to use force of arms to maintain the union. Today, I am convinced that the force of economics maintains the union. There is no way we would have the political will to fight a shooting war over the departure of, say, California. So if California was to secede (they wont, and cant), the legality of it would be decided after the fact- as was the legality of secession in 1861.

Might makes right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that I can agree with.

[Chizzang]

After all the debates of minutia and hypothetical conundrums... in the end (today)

I refuse to make Lincoln a bad guy
I refuse to feel sorry for the elite wealthy land owners and their status quo
I refuse to care about Dixie or Jeff Davis or hurt feelings 150 years later
I don't feel sorry

and all that Citadelgrad and Citdog accomplish is personal humiliation
associated with something they had NOTHING to do with

Example:
I know a Czech guy who isn't angry at Germany over the Sudatenland and WWII
and 350,000 Czechs died

Imagine that
He got over it somehow

[93henfan]

This isn't a meme, but rather a fact posted during this morning's CBS Sunday Morning:

[CID1990]

After all the debates of minutia and hypothetical conundrums... in the end (today)

I refuse to make Lincoln a bad guy
I refuse to feel sorry for the elite wealthy land owners and their status quo
I refuse to care about Dixie or Jeff Davis or hurt feelings 150 years later
I don't feel sorry

and all that Citadelgrad and Citdog accomplish is personal humiliation
associated with something they had NOTHING to do with

Example:
I know a Czech guy who isn't angry at Germany over the Sudatenland and WWII
and 350,000 Czechs died

Imagine that
He got over it somehow

*Sudetenland


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

This isn't a meme, but rather a fact posted during this morning's CBS Sunday Morning:

Take Hooters out of the equation and "men" come down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

This isn't a meme, but rather a fact posted during this morning's CBS Sunday Morning:

There is one group conspicuously left out of the group of bad tippers. I guess they didn't want to risk a tidal wave of angry emails and tweets.

[Grizalltheway]

This isn't a meme, but rather a fact posted during this morning's CBS Sunday Morning:

There is one group conspicuously left out of the group of bad tippers. I guess they didn't want to risk a tidal wave of angry emails and tweets.

I think they generally fall under Southerners and Democrats.

[93henfan]

This isn't a meme, but rather a fact posted during this morning's CBS Sunday Morning:

There is one group conspicuously left out of the group of bad tippers. I guess they didn't want to risk a tidal wave of angry emails and tweets.

Actually two groups. Negros are a given, but also notice that they said "Baby Boomers" in first graphic. They obviously didn't want flack from millennials in the second graphic.

[kalm]

Women are horrendously bad tippers. Especially professional and older women...towards female servers...who are young and attractive.

[CID1990]

Women are horrendously bad tippers. Especially professional and older women...towards female servers...who are young and attractive.

Ot towards ANY servers.... and most of them were servers at one time themselves

Mistreating wait staff ranks up there with animal cruelty to me

If you mistreat or are rude to wait staff, you are of low character




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Women are horrendously bad tippers. Especially professional and older women...towards female servers...who are young and attractive.

Ot towards ANY servers.... and most of them were servers at one time themselves

Mistreating wait staff ranks up there with animal cruelty to me

If you mistreat or are rude to wait staff, you are of low character




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grizalltheway]

There is one group conspicuously left out of the group of bad tippers. I guess they didn't want to risk a tidal wave of angry emails and tweets.

Actually two groups. Negros are a given, but also notice that they said "Baby Boomers" in first graphic. They obviously didn't want flack from millennials in the second graphic.

That might sting more if it weren't coming from the honorary Joo who started the cheapskate thread.

[93henfan]

Actually two groups. Negros are a given, but also notice that they said "Baby Boomers" in first graphic. They obviously didn't want flack from millennials in the second graphic.

That might sting more if it weren't coming from the honorary Joo who started the cheapskate thread.

I tip generously. I don't cheat poor people; only corporations.

[Ivytalk]

That might sting more if it weren't coming from the honorary Joo who started the cheapskate thread.

I tip generously. I don't cheat poor people; only corporations.

I agree. We tipped about 30% at Sambo's IIRC. 93, CID, and I are all-in on this.

[Chizzang]

Let's start the "Why do we tip anyway.." post again
and see what we can discover about that