NYT Opinion: Red & Blue States becoming different countries

Here is Lincoln in 1859:

“Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if constitutionally we elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.”

 

You need to brush up on your American history. The so-called Civil War as less a civil war and more of a war (on Lincoln’s part) to prevent independence.

 

So are you willing to shoot your fellow Americans or not? Man up and let us know

 

Correct, for Lincoln, the war was not instigated to prevent slavery, but rather to oppose treason, which was his term for independence. He was the King George of his time.

 

Me: “I’d rather go my own way.”

You: “If you do that I’m going to have to come after you. Are you willing to shoot me then ?”

 

plenty of people out there fetishize about it daily.

 

Only one side does. We know why

 

The antithesis of the modern GOP. Letting people go their own way. The most hilariously ironic thing I've seen posted here in a long time. Have a star.

 

You’re the one saying we can’t leave or you’re bringing the tanks.

 

Where did I say that? Quote me

 

Implied …

“So are you willing to shoot your fellow Americans or not? Man up and let us know.”

 

Yawn. Now you're boring me with fabricated strawmen. Have another star as I see myself out

 

I’m just trying to understand why I’d have to shoot you if you weren’t coming after me.

 

I’ll make some comments based on the two examples you cite.
As far a school prayer I don’t see anywhere that a majority Pubs are calling for mandatory school prayer. Most that they don’t want it to be banned or eliminated.

Since you weren’t specific about “opposed to choice” i’m assuming you mean abortion? In that regard as we both know it’s not a choice made in a bubble and both sides have arguments for or against it. If another human life wasn’t involved it would be different.
The left doesn’t believe that life begins at conception, some on the right does.

In a perfect world there would be no need for it at all, I certainly think some pub legislators have gone way too far with the laws at this time. And they will pay the price in the elections, so be it.

 

Plenty on both sides have exposed it man.

 

NYTimes: it's okay to enter our country if you've decided to leave yours, it's okay to riot and ransack businesses if you're protesting the "correct" lie, it's a mere trifle if you steal less than $1,000, it's okay to force parents to allow their under-age children to make life altering medical decisions about their bodies. You're right, NYTimes likes anarchy and will enjoy it until the anarchists slit their throats. Then, of course, everyone will pine for law and order.

I suppose the GOP is just ahead of its time.

 

Where did I say I was coming after you? You just keep making up stuff I said.

 

I really only see one side fantasizing about violent civil war. Lots of talk about guns, etc