Does this sound like civil war?

Estrid said:

For those who may think this is true, it is not.
1. "Says" is present tense. The 3/5 compromise has been dedad for
153 years.

Click to expand...

But the copy of the Constitution at the National Archives still has it written. "Has" is also present tense.

2. It never did say that a black person is other than equal to
others.
3. Slaves were counted at 3/5 of their percent of the population
for appropriation purposes.

Click to expand...

Whereas most people were counted a 1 for appropriation purposes.

4. The bias, if one wishes to call it that, was anti slavery

Click to expand...

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're arguing against an anti-slavery bias... Which is why I'm not.

RDKirk said:

Since everyone, including the OP is already 'way off topic, I'll invited you to check Wikipedia and YouTube for "ABLE ARCHER 83."

I was working on the Strategic Air Combat Operations Staff of the Strategic Air Command (in the Underground Command Post) at the time. While we presumed American diplomats were trying to calm the Soviets down, we OTOH were preparing for nuclear war as furiously as we could...in case the diplomats failed. That was four days of sheer terror for us. I was praying constantly, "Jesus, please stop us!"

Click to expand...

A fascinating story. I was thinking specifically of Operation Chrome Dome back in the 60s... Where the US kept a number of nuclear-armed B-52s in the air 24/7 in the event of a surprise attack.

IIRC, there were five recorded crashes over the eight years the program was operating... In one of which (near Goldsboro, NC), it was discovered that of the four safety mechanisms which keep each bomb from detonating, three of them failed.

The problem with MAD is that it has three shaky assumptions behind it:

1: that only one person in each country has access (not necessarily "authorization") to launch a nuke.
2: that person is sane and rational.
3: that nobody screws up.

Aldebaran said:

Our federal government is even labeling our own Constitution as being "harmful". National Archives Slaps 'Harmful Content' Warning On Constitution

Click to expand...

I’m surprised you don’t think the Constitution is harmful to the unborn. One of the legal foundations on which decriminalized abortion rests, is that the Constitution never states, or even implies, that the unborn are persons with 14th Amendment rights. It’s also invalid to claim original intent. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, a fetus wasn’t even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn’t usually occur till the 3rd or 4th month.

At least 15 states (and DC) have laws which protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion, at least up to various points in pregnancy. No matter what SCOTUS does, the only way to prohibit elective abortion nationwide is with a Constitutional amendment.

TLK Valentine said:

But the copy of the Constitution at the National Archives still has it written. "Has" is also present tense.



Whereas most people were counted a 1 for appropriation purposes.



I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're arguing against an anti-slavery bias... Which is why I'm not.

Click to expand...

Whether or not the author of such silly nonsense recognizes it as such
is immaterial.
Discussion over.

Aldebaran said:

Rather than the United States issuing sanctions against other countries for sponsoring terrorism, or oppressing their people, we now have parts of this country issuing sanctions against other parts of the country.

"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler announced on Friday that Portland City Council will vote on an emergency resolution on Wednesday with the intent to ban city business and employee travel related to the state of Texas."
Portland City Council to vote on ending trade and travel with Texas in response to abortion restrictions

"The infamous U.S. sanction strategy in foreign policy now is now being used to ‘deal with’ internal issues…

The controversial Texas law, that bans abortions as early as six weeks is now in effect. It was signed into law back in May by Gov. Greg Abbott. It was widely criticized not only by women’s rights advocates, abortion activists and abortion providers, but also by other states’ officials.

The Portland City Council is going to consider to adopt an emergency resolution next week that will be aimed to ban goods and services from Texas, because of the new abortion law there."
Economic War Comes Home: Portland Urges Imposition Of Sanctions Against Texas - Srnola News

Click to expand...

No this doesn’t sound anything like a war.

Nothing will bring about the emerging China hegemony quite as quickly as a hot civil war in the USA.

Estrid said:

Whether or not the author of such silly nonsense recognizes it as such
is immaterial.
Discussion over.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is "silly nonsense"? Discussion over, indeed.

Pommer said:

Nothing will bring about the emerging China hegemony quite as quickly as a hot civil war in the USA.

Click to expand...

You guys are making yourselves so weak as it is

Your "woke" is too funny, being you are collectively sound asleep,
oblivious.

A nation on Neros, fiddling.

Aldebaran said:

Medical knowledge has made progress since the late 18th century.

Click to expand...

Then amend the Constitution to reflect that.

Aldebaran said:

Yes. The attempt to pass a law banning business and travel based on location in another part of the same country.

Click to expand...

You realize that your interpretation of the law as a sign they want a civil war isn’t actually evidence to anyone else, right? I could imagine someone else saying that since Roe v Wade is the law of the land, it’s Texas that’s declaring civil war on the US. That would be just as hyperbolic and silly as what you’re saying.

Rational people would want something a bit more specific if they’re going to conclude that Portland is declaring civil war on Texas…

Aldebaran said:

Can you quote me where I said that the law is a sign that they "want" a civil war?

Click to expand...

“And yet it's those on the LEFT, in Portland, who are not only clamoring for it, but getting it started.”

“clamoring” seems like “want” to me…

Aldebaran said:

Laws are being made (and Constitutionally upheld) to reflect that. Texas is leading the way.

Click to expand...

Don’t celebrate quite yet. The decision only applies to Texas. And SCOTUS just ruled that the law could take effect until the constitutionality is determined later. (Keep in mind that 4 justices—including CJ Roberts—voted against it. 1 more nay vote, and it’s dead.) The fact remains that even if Roe is overturned, elective abortion will still be legal in at least 15 or more states. Nationwide prohibition requires a Constitutional amendment.

TLK Valentine said:

The problem with MAD is that it has three shaky assumptions behind it:

1: that only one person in each country has access (not necessarily "authorization") to launch a nuke.
2: that person is sane and rational.
3: that nobody screws up.

Click to expand...

4) Also, no bears.

How One Black Bear Almost Set Off World War III During the Cold War

As highly as we like to think of our military leadership, the launch code for World War III was “00000000” for 15 years. We shouldn’t be surprised that a bear was nearly able to start that war by itself.

Aldebaran said:

Isn't the SCOTUS the ultimate judge of what is constitutional?

Click to expand...

Of course. But SCOTUS didn't rule on the Texas law's constitutionality. This ruling was procedural. Planned Parenthood, the plaintiff, was asking for an emergency stay. But no one from PP, neither a clinic employee, nor a physician had yet been sued, or suffered any legal consequences for performing an elective abortion. If a plaintiff can't show he's suffered any material harm, then he has no standing to file a suit. So, by 5-4, SCOTUS refused the emergency stay. You may infer some conclusions from this, but the justices did not rule on the merits. I suspect the court wants to see how the law plays out while the normal channels are followed. The case will heard by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. And I'm sure whoever loses will appeal to SCOTUS. If 4 justices agree to hear the case, then they will likely rule on the constitutionality.

At least one Republican Senator thinks the law will go down. But who knows?

Texas abortion law could still be ‘destroyed’ by Supreme Court, Cassidy says

jayem said:

If a plaintiff can't show he's suffered any material harm, then he has no standing to file a suit.

Click to expand...

Unless you sue someone for facilitating an abortion in Texas of course.