Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

New Rule: Time for a National Divorce?


cigarjoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

 

Thread title is somewhat misleading.  While he starts off talking about a "national divorce," he actually is advocating that both sides tone down their disagreements.

Regardless, a "national divorce" into two or three or 50 "nations" would be the end of American Democracy.  Historians generally agree that if the Confederacy had succeeded, it would not have lasted.  Texas would most likely have seceded and S.C. threatened to during the war.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, laffite said:

is it the thread title that is misleading ...

...or is the video title misleading?

Let us not be afraid to ask.

In my opinion - both.  Actually confused by the New Rule: part as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ElCid said:

In my opinion - both.  Actually confused by the New Rule: part as well.

I would not pretend to explain anything to you, but yes it's not exactly a new rule. There was a time when the two sides did not hate each so much. I think he wants to revitalize an old rule, the rule that says i can disagree with you without wishing you to die. It may be a new rule yet since that may have not have ever happened til now, unless you count the Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laffite said:

I would not pretend to explain anything to you, but yes it's not exactly a new rule. There was a time when the two sides did not hate each so much. I think he wants to revitalize an old rule, the rule that says i can disagree with you without wishing you to die. It may be a new rule yet since that may have not have ever happened til now, unless you count the Civil War.

"I would not pretend to explain anything to you,"   Why not?

My interpretation is that using the phrase "New Rule" means that a new rule is replacing an old rule.  A rule is a standard or a regulation that requires compliance.

"New Rule" as used in thread title and video title implies that it IS time for some states to secede from the union.  Of course, Mahr explained in the video that he really does not believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Interesting since West Virginia was created during the Civil War when it "seceded" from Confederate Virginia and was recognized by the Lincoln government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ElCid said:

"I would not pretend to explain anything to you,"   Why not?

Because you know more than I do about politics. It is meant as a compliment.

4 minutes ago, ElCid said:

"New Rule" as used in thread title and video title implies that it IS time for some states to secede from the union.  Of course, Mahr explained in the video that he really does not believe that.

I see the new rule as being stop hating each other. The ideas of seceding from the Union was a lead-in issue.

IMO

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laffite said:

Because you know more than I do about politics. It is meant as a compliment.

I see the new rule as being stop hating each other. The ideas of seceding from the Union was a lead-in issue.

IMO

OK, thank you!  Guess I misinterpreted what you posted.

Maybe it there was a question mark after national divorce, I could see it as a lead-in to another position.

Regardless, let's hope it does not come to that and our "better angels" will emerge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Read where the GOPers in NC are dividing the city of Charlotte between 4 different House districts.  

Yep, I'm sure they're trying to cook  the books as much  as possible. It would be great  if another lawsuit  was filed and they

ended  up in court  again. They  just  sent  a bill to Cooper that  would decrease  the  emergency  powers  of  the governor.

I believe they did  the same  thing  last year. Naturally he will veto it and it will not be overridden. How clueless  can people

get?

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Yep, I'm sure they're trying to cook  the books as much  as possible. It would be great  if another lawsuit  was filed and they

ended  up in court  again. They  just  sent  a bill to Cooper that  would decrease  the  emergency  powers  of  the governor.

I believe they did  the same  thing  last year. Naturally he will veto it and it will not be overridden. How clueless  can people

get?

Plenty

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hamradio said:

I have no problem with divorce, as long as I don't get custody of the deplorables.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arturo said:

Southern California and the area of sounthwestern states adjacent to Mexico can return to their historic homeland.

Maybe give Oregon and Washington state to Canada and Alaska to Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Maybe give Oregon and Washington state to Canada and Alaska to Russia?

No, Canada should have Alaska too.  They have more in common with the Yukon than they do Siberia despite anything Sarah Pallin says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...