I asked what your position was, and you answered.
I don’t see why you see fit to use the word ‘emote’ several times.
Except that you are embarrassed by your own position. If you are, then you have it in your capability to change it, and then come up with any justification you want.
It’s a debating tactic - and not a very clever one.
The irony is between the imputations, the fallacies, the non sequiturs, and their own emoting I’m amused by the glad-handing they’re doing. I’m also amused by the notion that these two arrogate unto themselves the singular clarity that no one else on the planet grasps. The rest of us have apparently been hornswoggled, brainwashed, or are just too much the dullard to get it.
mek1959 suggests that we are “theorists” - let’s put it to the test.
[Noun] Theory
1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
No, that can’t be us since we can’t substantiate (at least to their satisfaction) our understanding of the Constitution.
2. A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
Now that may be closer to their liking since “tentative” implies a temporal quality that they feeeeel exists in our POV.
3. A belief that can guide behavior
There’s one that I’m sure they can hang their collective hats on! After all, doesn’t “belief” fall into the same soft~n~squishy category as faith, trust, and hope?
The problem with absolutists are that they are so....absolute. They’re invariably rigid and compartmentalized in their thinking and incapable of viewing the same thing from a different perspective.
mek1959 - I would suggest that it is you who is the theorist and I the pragmatist. You see the world in terms of how you believe it was meant to be and therefore how events should have progressed and I see it, in all of its foibles and failings how it has developed.
Your answers to the loaded got-ya questions regarding both the “right” to secession and the power to “preserve the Union” have been answered. Neither are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. So what? As MamaTexan so ably put it, “Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?” It is simply ludicrous to suggest that any government would preclude the ability to defend or preserve itself.
Lincoln did what he had to to preserve the union and his actions were affirmed by our courts. The confederates attempted to test their theory on secession and discovered that it contained a few flaws.
Attempting to assign blame for everything you dislike to one side of the dispute without acknowledging the contributions of both parties is simplistic and foolish.
This looks like a good place for mama’s helpful approbation, “blah, blah, blah!”