Failed to understand " The grandest of these ideals is an American promise that everyone belongs"

Who's going off on tangents and who actually holds laughable notions, JTT?

Quote:

Who's going off on tangents and who actually holds laughable notions, JTT?

Pointing out how bad things are in China doesn't change the facts, Ori. The US is the greatest terrorist group on the planet, the largest set of war criminals, the stingiest country when it comes to foreign aid.

In short, it acts in a manner that is the opposite of the bullshit propaganda.

Quote:

Who's going off on tangents and who actually holds laughable notions, JTT?

Pointing out how bad things are in China doesn't change the facts, Ori.
The US is the greatest terrorist group on the planet, the largest set
of war criminals, the stingiest country when it comes to foreign aid.

In short, it acts in a manner that is the opposite of the bullshit propaganda.

Yes it doesn't change the facts, but it does have changed
the confidence level, JTT. The dictator in some other country killed 43 million people;
USA, according to you, killed 3 million people around the world.
Yet you call USA as the greatest terrorist group.


Your arithmetics and your methodology of evaluation are improbable, or, very weird, JTT.

Oristar, how much can anyone expect
of any pariah who is demonstrably in so foul and delusional a state of mental health as JTT ??

Most of us have him on Ignore, in recognition
of his mental disabilities.

David

USA, according to you, killed 3 million people around the world.

The dictator in some other country killed 43 million people;

Quote:

USA, according to you, killed 3 million people around the world.

I don't know where you got that figure, Ori. It's much much higher than that.

Quote:

The dictator in some other country killed 43 million people;

That's too imprecise in the wording to address, Ori.

Quote:

The dictator in some other country killed 43 million people;

That's too imprecise in the wording to address, Ori.

Should I have said "some 80 millions" as some scholars indicated?

Quote:

Should I have said "some 80 millions" as some scholars indicated?

"The dictator", "in some other country" are examples of imprecise, Ori.

Now that's much better, Ori.

But that still doesn't absolve the US from their century plus of murder and mayhem, rape, torture, use of WMDs, chemical weapons, theft on a grand scale, ... .

You see, if you murder your wife and 5 kids, one can't get off by pointing out that they committed just one murder.

USA is by no means the greatest terrorist group on this planet.

It is the worst sentence I've ever read by you, JTT. "you...one...they" looks inconsistent and broken. What are you talking about, JTT?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

It seems that New York State complementarily [???]
and finally admitted the indissoluble and sacred nature of the United States,

Who said that? When?
Did someone say that the US was sacred?
David

The ideas put forward by The Decleration of Independence are sacred, Dave. Thus a nation so conceived and dedicated obtains in some ways the nature of sacredness.

Of course I would like to hear your argument that such a nation is not sacred in any ways.

You have been wisely admonished to "accustom yourselves to think and speak of the Union as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."
-Andrew Jackson's second inaugural address

But of equal, and, indeed, of incalculable, importance is the union of these States, and the sacred duty of all to contribute to its preservation by a liberal support of the General Government in the exercise of its just powers.

Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved; without union they never can be maintained.

Divided into twenty-four, or even a smaller number, of separate communities, we shall see our internal trade burdened with numberless restraints and exactions; communication between distant points and sections obstructed or cut off; our sons made soldiers to deluge with blood the fields they now till in peace; the mass of our people borne down and impoverished by taxes to support armies and navies, and military leaders at the head of their victorious legions becoming our lawgivers and judges. The loss of liberty, of all good government, of peace, plenty, and happiness, must inevitably follow a dissolution of the Union. In supporting it, therefore, we support all that is dear to the freeman and the philanthropist.

Thank u, Oristar.
That shows that someone DID say that (as I asked).
However, the expression of his opinion had NO effect
upon the state of the states of the union. None of the states
had any more duty to DO anything whether Jackson said that, or not.
He had no authority to change anything in the relationships of the states.
Jackson had as much right to HIS opinion, as u do to yours.


David

Thank u, Oristar.
That shows that someone DID say that (as I asked).
However, the expression of his opinion had NO effect
upon the state of the states of the union. None of the states
had any more duty to DO anything whether Jackson said that, or not.
He had no authority to change anything in the relationships of the states.
Jackson had as much right to HIS opinion, as u do to yours.


David

Yes, it was Jackson's opinion and it could not represent yours. Jackson's support rate, however, had won him the presidency to lead the United States. So it was not his opinion alone, rather, it also spelled out the true voice of the vast majority of the people.

Still, it is probable that you may argue it had no authority
to change anything in the relationships of the States,
because it is not the law or part of the law. Is it what you want to tell us, Dave?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thank u, Oristar.
That shows that someone DID say that (as I asked).
However, the expression of his opinion had NO effect
upon the state of the states of the union. None of the states
had any more duty to DO anything whether Jackson said that, or not.
He had no authority to change anything in the relationships of the states.
Jackson had as much right to HIS opinion, as u do to yours.


David

oristarA wrote:

Yes, it was Jackson's opinion and it could not represent yours. Jackson's support rate, however, had won him the presidency to lead the United States. So it was not his opinion alone, rather, it also spelled out the true voice of the vast majority of the people.

Maybe, but not necessarily.
If the voters found out that his political competitor
beat his wife, or wanted to raise taxes, then thay might have voted for Jackson.
David

oristarA wrote:

Still, it is probable that you may argue it had no authority
to change anything in the relationships of the States,
because it is not the law or part of the law. Is it what you want to tell us, Dave?

Yes; that 'd probably require a Constitutional amendment, as per its Article 5.
For that to happen, 2/3 of each of the 2 houses of Congress must approve the change
and 3/4 of the legislatures of the 5O States must ratify the change,
or it will fail, and be of no effect, cast down in ignominy.


David

oristarA wrote:

Still, it is probable that you may argue it had no authority
to change anything in the relationships of the States,
because it is not the law or part of the law. Is it what you want to tell us, Dave?

Yes; that 'd probably require a Constitutional amendment, as per its Article 5.
For that to happen, 2/3 of each of the 2 houses of Congress must approve the change
and 3/4 of the legislatures of the 5O States must ratify the change,
or it will fail, and be of no effect, cast down in ignominy.


David

Yes. And by the same token, the South's secession from the United States following the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln was unconstitutional, Dave. Because most of states disproved their withdrawl.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.