前任3观后感范文第1篇
1.当爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证两个人是否相爱的唯一方法就是分开。分开以后，如果难受，如果思念，那就是真爱。而真爱一定会让两个人再次相遇。
2.两个人散了是因为一个以为不会走，一个以为会挽留。
3.你们都在等对方先放手。
4.紫霞离开至尊宝后，至尊宝才能真正成长为孙悟空。
5.结果我走了没有回头你也没有挽留。
6.再深的感情也抵挡不住缘分的交错。
7.借吵架的壳，撒思念的娇。
8.我的使命就是陪伴，她的使命就是让我成长。成长不一定会得到什么，一定会失去什么!
9.我们都想要新的开始，新的生活，却忘记了她身边也会有新的人出现。
10.人生每个不同的阶段，会有不同的人停留。总有一些人来，总会有一些人离开。
11.年少时的恋爱叫合情合拍，长大后的恋爱叫合并合作。
12.不是每个人都能叫前任，而前任并非只是某个人，它是每一个走过的人在你心里留下的痕迹。
13.你是零沟通，我是全交代
14.有些人注定是让你成长的。
15.总会出现一个温柔的人让你变得温暖，然后默默离开。
16.那种不怕受伤的支持，我做不到了。
17.再深的感情也抵挡不住缘分的交错。
18. 我需要他陪我来证明他爱我 我需要他在我身上花心思来证明他爱我。
19.也许现实中所有的阴差阳错 都是命中注定 。
20.在她的身上 看到了原来的我自己,但是我再也回不去原来。
21.人与人之间的疏远，就是从感觉到自己不再被对方需要开始的。
23.也许现实中所有的阴差阳错 都是命中注定 。
24.“你们都在等” “等什么” “等对方先放手”
25.再见不负遇见
26.林佳：你不要我了怎么办，孟云：那我像至尊宝一样去最繁华的街道喊一百遍林佳我爱你，孟云：那你不要我了怎么办，林佳：那我吃芒果，吃到死为止!
前任3观后感范文第2篇
1.再深的感情，都抵不过缘分的交错。
2.我倔强，可是我胆小;我高傲，可是我害怕我的自尊。我害怕万一你不喜欢我了，我们是不是连朋友都做不了...
3.我只是喜欢被你喜欢的感觉!而不是喜欢你。
4.常常我们吵架的时候明明是想证明自己有多爱对方，却忍不住宣泄情绪，最后却只是证明了自己受伤害。
5.在爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证是否相爱最好的方法，就是分开，如果你感到痛苦，感到思念，就是真爱。真爱一定会让两人再次相遇。
6.他不帅不高，却对我说，我的女朋友一定会很幸福，就答应了，于是草率的开始必定有一个草率的结局。
7.她担心我前任的数量，我担心她前任的质量。
8.谈恋爱，要么走心，要吗走肾。
9.周岁是从妈妈身体里出来的时间，虚岁是从爸爸身体出来的时间。
10.人家都说结婚不一定是自己最爱的人，我不相信，现在我终于输了。我喜欢一个人喜欢了十四年，我不知道他是不是喜欢我，万一不喜欢我，那做朋友就很尴尬。我这人胆小又高傲自尊心也很强，但同时也让我自信了十四年，我觉得他是爱我的，今天我只想知道这个答案。。。“爱过”
11.其实很多情侣吵架，都是为了证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而说出来的话却往往变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么，原本想证明的是爱却变成证明被伤害。
12.爸妈一代的人觉得东西坏了可以修，我们这一代人觉得东西坏了一定要换。
13.有时候老天让你等，是为了让你等对的人 ，但对的人不一定是你最爱的，有些人注定有缘无份，虽然惋惜痛心，但奈何有些答案总归是爱过，现在只想珍惜眼前人。
14.再深的感情，都抵不过缘分的交错。
剧情简介：电影讲述了孟云(韩庚 饰)和夏璐(姚星彤 饰)在一场别开生面的婚礼上激情邂逅，之后相知、相处、相爱。但之后，接连 出现的“前任”们成了两人情感中的最大考验，尽管有挚友余飞(郑恺 饰)在旁帮忙支招、有罗茜(王丽坤 饰)在身后默默支持，但他们不知能否抵抗得住“前任”们的冲击呢?
篇二：前任2备胎反击战、前任攻略经典台词
1. 我们那个年代的人认为坏了的东西是可以修好的，但现在的人觉得坏了就直接扔掉!一
段感情能不能走到头，是看你有修修补补不弃的心，还是有救的不去新的来的念头。
2.再深的感情也敌不过缘分地交错。
3.这酒什么功效?——壮阳!
4.有人说，你结婚的那个人，一定不是你最爱的我变心，我不信了十几年，可是我输了。
5.女：有房么?有车么?男：你有日本人的技术吗?
6.你搞定了你前女友的现老公的初恋
7.我在等，等一个答案!
8.我跟你说啊，两个人是否能够在一起，职业匹配度很重要，我有一对朋友，女的是画家， 男的是插画家!
9. 男人就好比钥匙，女人就好比锁，一把什么锁都能开的钥匙叫什么?叫万能钥匙。
10.恋爱嘛无非两种，要么走心，要么走肾。
11.以前之所以那么纠结。是因为我们并没有真的在一起过。
12. 伊泽说：”我们是一夜情”?
余飞说：”把情删了”!
伊泽说：”我们是性爱伴侣啊”?
余飞说：”把爱删了”。
13.上次我们不是挺有feel，上次你给我感觉一般。
14.人品爆发是所产生地能量是难以想象的，我一攒就攒了七年，这一次算是大爆发了吧!
15. 你强烈的刺激了男人的尊严，他一定会疯狂的出击，想尽办法把你引到床上。
16. 在错误的时间把自己放到了错误的床上，这样的感情最多只能维系一晚，一夜变千人注定当备胎。
17. 一见钟情太肤浅，日久生情才是真。
18. 一根葱，三分钟。
19. 三分天注定，七分靠打拼，剩下九十分都得靠外表。
20. 有能力不找对象的叫单身贵族，你这种叫单身狗。
21. 在男人看来，女朋友就像是充电器，款式单一，一旦插上就无法移动;备胎就像是充电宝，款式多样即插即用方便携带而且随意更换，充电器一个就够，充电宝绝不嫌多。你现在知道男人为什么喜欢叫女人宝宝了吗?
22. 爱过才知情重，醉过方知酒浓!
23. 你自己不尝试，怎么知道不喜欢。
24. 我们总会觉得会有下一任，所以现任才会变成前任
25. 伤痕是男子汉的勋章，伤痛是弱女子的成长，当事情从谁爱谁变成爱谁谁的时候问题就简单多了。
26. 如果是因为你不懂事太幼稚而分的手，你得说是对方没有一点情趣...
27. 你要我拿什么去超越你们的十四年?
28. 但是，一把什么钥匙都能捅开的锁，你说这是什么锁?
...换锁...
29. 有人说，人活着就是为了比：女人比漂亮，男人比成功，恋爱比认真，婚姻比牺牲，比来比去，就是为了分出个输赢，赢的人得到安全感，输的人失去自信心，我们用情感拉近关系，却用比较制造距离!
30. 我只是喜欢你被你喜欢的感觉，而不是喜欢你。
31. 我要的是你的真心，你的全部，我不希望你心里有任何其他人的位置，藏得再深也不行。
32. 其实很多情侣吵架，都是为了证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而说出来的话却往往
变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么!原本想证明的是爱，却变成证明被伤害! 有些人，因为太相信在一起，最后分手了。
33.上完床之后你错误的把自己放在了女朋友的位置上，但在男人看来你只是跟他上过床的女人，上过床和恋人是两种完全不同的关系。
34.男人从一开始的听话、早睡、喝热水，到后来在忙、开会、无所谓，这就是男女轻易上床之后造成的心理错位。正因为有这样的错位你才会一错再错，你以一个女友的身份发那些短信，从根本上剥夺了他的决定权，是不是恋人不重要，重要的在于谁决定。
35.不是每个人都能叫前任，而前任也并非只是某个人，它是每一个走过的人在你心里留下的痕迹。
36.如果是因为你有了第三者而分的手，你得说成是对方不够懂你!
37.说分手原因尤为重要!
38.她在害怕我前任的数量，而我开始担心她前任的质量。
39.男人，你可以说他长相一般、身材一般、头脑一般、事业一般，但是活儿!不能一般!
40.一夜变前任，注定当备胎。
篇三：前任攻略经典语录
孟云(韩庚)：摩登的大都市总是那么吸引人，因为它充满了各种可能，并不是说这里比家乡更好，而是在这里站住脚，是自己价值的一种体现。
孟云(韩庚)：城市越大平均结婚年龄越晚，背井离乡打工青年更是遥遥无期，也不知道这是一种进步，还是一种无奈。
余飞：哥，在想什么呢?
孟云(韩庚)：我在想这人为什么要分周岁和虚岁呢。
余飞：为了纪念。
孟云(韩庚)：纪念什么啊?
余飞：周岁，是你从你妈身体里出来的时间，虚岁，是你从你爸身体里出来的时间。
余飞：把手伸出窗外，当车速达到二十迈的时候，就有A的感觉，当达到四十迈的时候，就有B的感觉，当达到六十迈的时候，就有C的感觉。
孟云(韩庚)：什么ABC?
余飞：罩杯。
孟云(韩庚)：靠，无聊。
孟云(韩庚)：办一场体面的婚礼越来越贵，好在婚庆公司越来越人性化了。每个桌子都有专门的注释，好让结婚双方敬酒打圈的时候，明白人物关系。我很好奇，小洁把我归到哪一类关系上了呢?于是我翻开桌上的号牌，我发誓这个婚礼终生难忘。(号牌是前男友桌)
好胸怀，重口味，点个赞。
小洁：当代是自由恋爱，也是自由选择的时代。
马世宇：人生的轨迹会因为任何一个人儿改变。
小洁&马世宇：要不是遇到了你们，我怎么会认识她(他)。
小洁：能让我们的前女友。
马世宇：和前男友。
小洁&马世宇：来见证我们的婚礼，那我们的爱情是多么的无所畏惧。
小洁：没爱过几个人渣，哪会真心爱上他。
马世宇：还有她。
小洁&马世宇：感谢你们为我们做了通往幸福的引路者和垫脚石，谢谢。
妈妈说人生苦短，不经意就留下遗憾，遇到美丽的风景就要好好看，遇到爱情就需要勇敢。
孟云(韩庚)：和往常一样，激情嘛，来的快去的也快。生活，享受的就是一个过程。其他的嘛，不重要。
孟云(韩庚)：搞定一个男人很简单，一 把他喂饱;二 和他睡觉。这一瞬间，我被搞定了。
夏露：饿吗?
孟云(韩庚)：饿。
夏露：吃什么?
孟云(韩庚)：吃你。
夏露：吃你妹。
孟云(韩庚)：就吃你妹。
罗茜(王丽坤)：其实房子跟女人一样，没有丑女人只有懒女人，稍微用心照顾一点儿，总会漂亮 很多的。
孟云(韩庚)：我们为了梦想，梦想，你知道是什么吗?我知道，你大小是个经历，你说你每天朝九晚五，上班下班，过得很安逸嘛!但是，你作为一个男人，你这一辈子没经历过大起大落你说，没经历过风雨，你怎么拍着胸脯说，我是个男人。
余飞：你搞定了你前女友的现老公的初恋，你好变态啊。
孟云(韩庚)：谁不是谁的谁，你可能是谁的谁，谁也可能是你谁的谁。人际关系，莫过于此。
余飞：你说泡妞吧无非两种情况，要么走心，要么走肾。
余飞：知己，就是时刻准备着发生肉体接触的不良男女关系。
孟云(韩庚)：女友好对付，闺蜜不好对付。你费了半天劲，还不如闺蜜的一句话。 余飞：这么说来，闺蜜就是小丈母娘啊。
孟云(韩庚)：交友经验，一定要讨好女友的闺蜜，取悦闺蜜，就叫做搞好媒体关系。
余飞：我现在跟一女孩儿特来电，我特想跟她上床，而且她也特想跟我上床，而且我们都知道，总有一天我们要上床，但是我们不知道的是我们哪一天上床，多有劲，这就是最美好的时光。
孟云(韩庚)：其实我和夏露都知道，这个生日，因为各自前任的出现，变了点味道。她在害怕我前任的数量，而我开始担心她前任的质量。前任这股能量，已经开始慢慢侵蚀我们之间的信任。
孟云(韩庚)：很多情侣吵架，其实想证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而，说出来的话却往往变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么，原本想证明的是爱，却变成了证明被伤害。
孟云(韩庚)：她做出了选择，很快，罗茜答应了赵明的求婚，并且邀请大家去他们的订婚仪式。我知道罗茜犹豫的是什么，我也知道她要的答案是什么，只是再深的感情，也抵挡不住缘分的交错。罗茜的家我以后不会再去了，一想到罗茜慧聪自己生命中渐渐淡去，心中确实有一种撕裂的痛。
罗茜(王丽坤)在订婚时候的经典台词对白
罗茜(王丽坤)：我，罗茜，今年三十二岁，今天，我终于把自己嫁出去了。虽然我不是小女孩儿，可是我也幻想过，我结婚那一天是什么样的场景，我会穿什么样的婚纱，最重要的是，那个穿着礼服迎接我的男人究竟是谁。有人说，你结婚的那个人，一定不是你最爱的，
我不信，我不信了十几年，可是，我输了。赵明，谢谢你对我的好，我愿意嫁给你，但是，我最爱的人不是你。那个人，我们从认识到现在，十四年，这十四年里，我爱了你十四年，你不可能不知道，我恨我自己，我恨我，为什么跟你是同学，为什么那么早认识你，我恨，我恨我为什么那么了解你，而且不能自拔。我倔强，可是我胆小，我高傲，可是我害怕我的自尊，我害怕，万一你不喜欢我，我们，是不是连朋友都做不了了。我这么一害怕，就是十四年，同时，我又自信，我认为你是爱我的。你是属于我的，这一自信，又是十四年。今天，一切都结束了。你，有了你爱的人，我，也要嫁人了。可是，我就是想要一个答案，我就是想问一句，我就是想问一句，我就是想问一句。
孟云：爱过。
夏露：孟云，我要的是你的真心你的全部，我不希望你心里有任何其他人的位置，藏得再深也不行，我要你马上跟她说，以后再也不跟她联系了。你说呀，你说呀。
孟云(韩庚)：我不想骗你，谁都可以，她我做不到。
孟云(韩庚)：那天老赵跟我说，他们那代人觉得东西坏了是可以修的，而对于我们来说，东西坏了就应该换，这就是老赵眼中的我们这一辈人，我们总会觉得有下一任，所以现任才会变成前任，直到这个时候我才明白，不是每一个人都能叫前任，而前任也并非只是某一个人，它是每一个走过的人在你心里留下的痕迹。夏露也选择成为我的前任，她说，做我的前任比现任轻松，她还说，在爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证是否相爱最好的方法就是分开。分开后如果痛苦，如果思念，那就是真爱，真爱一定会让两人再次相遇。
前任3观后感范文第3篇
1.再深的感情，都抵不过缘分的交错。
2.我倔强，可是我胆小;我高傲，可是我害怕我的自尊。我害怕万一你不喜欢我了，我们是不是连朋友都做不了...
3.我只是喜欢被你喜欢的感觉!而不是喜欢你。
4.常常我们吵架的时候明明是想证明自己有多爱对方，却忍不住宣泄情绪，最后却只是证明了自己受伤害。
5.在爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证是否相爱最好的方法，就是分开，如果你感到痛苦，感到思念，就是真爱。真爱一定会让两人再次相遇。
6.他不帅不高，却对我说，我的女朋友一定会很幸福，就答应了，于是草率的开始必定有一个草率的结局。
7.她担心我前任的数量，我担心她前任的质量。
8.谈恋爱，要么走心，要吗走肾。
9.周岁是从妈妈身体里出来的时间，虚岁是从爸爸身体出来的时间。
10.人家都说结婚不一定是自己最爱的人，我不相信，现在我终于输了。我喜欢一个人喜欢了十四年，我不知道他是不是喜欢我，万一不喜欢我，那做朋友就很尴尬。我这人胆小又高傲自尊心也很强，但同时也让我自信了十四年，我觉得他是爱我的，今天我只想知道这个答案。。。“爱过”
11.其实很多情侣吵架，都是为了证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而说出来的话却往往变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么，原本想证明的是爱却变成证明被伤害。
12.爸妈一代的人觉得东西坏了可以修，我们这一代人觉得东西坏了一定要换。
13.有时候老天让你等，是为了让你等对的人 ，但对的人不一定是你最爱的，有些人注定有缘无份，虽然惋惜痛心，但奈何有些答案总归是爱过，现在只想珍惜眼前人。
14.再深的感情，都抵不过缘分的交错。
剧情简介：电影讲述了孟云(韩庚 饰)和夏璐(姚星彤 饰)在一场别开生面的婚礼上激情邂逅，之后相知、相处、相爱。但之后，接连 出现的“前任”们成了两人情感中的最大考验，尽管有挚友余飞(郑恺 饰)在旁帮忙支招、有罗茜(王丽坤 饰)在身后默默支持，但他们不知能否抵抗得住“前任”们的冲击呢?
篇二：前任2备胎反击战、前任攻略经典台词
1. 我们那个年代的人认为坏了的东西是可以修好的，但现在的人觉得坏了就直接扔掉!一
段感情能不能走到头，是看你有修修补补不弃的心，还是有救的不去新的来的念头。
2.再深的感情也敌不过缘分地交错。
3.这酒什么功效?——壮阳!
4.有人说，你结婚的那个人，一定不是你最爱的我变心，我不信了十几年，可是我输了。
5.女：有房么?有车么?男：你有日本人的技术吗?
6.你搞定了你前女友的现老公的初恋
7.我在等，等一个答案!
8.我跟你说啊，两个人是否能够在一起，职业匹配度很重要，我有一对朋友，女的是画家， 男的是插画家!
9. 男人就好比钥匙，女人就好比锁，一把什么锁都能开的钥匙叫什么?叫万能钥匙。
10.恋爱嘛无非两种，要么走心，要么走肾。
11.以前之所以那么纠结。是因为我们并没有真的在一起过。
12. 伊泽说：”我们是一夜情”?
余飞说：”把情删了”!
伊泽说：”我们是性爱伴侣啊”?
余飞说：”把爱删了”。
13.上次我们不是挺有feel，上次你给我感觉一般。
14.人品爆发是所产生地能量是难以想象的，我一攒就攒了七年，这一次算是大爆发了吧!
15. 你强烈的刺激了男人的尊严，他一定会疯狂的出击，想尽办法把你引到床上。
16. 在错误的时间把自己放到了错误的床上，这样的感情最多只能维系一晚，一夜变千人注定当备胎。
17. 一见钟情太肤浅，日久生情才是真。
18. 一根葱，三分钟。
19. 三分天注定，七分靠打拼，剩下九十分都得靠外表。
20. 有能力不找对象的叫单身贵族，你这种叫单身狗。
21. 在男人看来，女朋友就像是充电器，款式单一，一旦插上就无法移动;备胎就像是充电宝，款式多样即插即用方便携带而且随意更换，充电器一个就够，充电宝绝不嫌多。你现在知道男人为什么喜欢叫女人宝宝了吗?
22. 爱过才知情重，醉过方知酒浓!
23. 你自己不尝试，怎么知道不喜欢。
24. 我们总会觉得会有下一任，所以现任才会变成前任
25. 伤痕是男子汉的勋章，伤痛是弱女子的成长，当事情从谁爱谁变成爱谁谁的时候问题就简单多了。
26. 如果是因为你不懂事太幼稚而分的手，你得说是对方没有一点情趣...
27. 你要我拿什么去超越你们的十四年?
28. 但是，一把什么钥匙都能捅开的锁，你说这是什么锁?
...换锁...
29. 有人说，人活着就是为了比：女人比漂亮，男人比成功，恋爱比认真，婚姻比牺牲，比来比去，就是为了分出个输赢，赢的人得到安全感，输的人失去自信心，我们用情感拉近关系，却用比较制造距离!
30. 我只是喜欢你被你喜欢的感觉，而不是喜欢你。
31. 我要的是你的真心，你的全部，我不希望你心里有任何其他人的位置，藏得再深也不行。
32. 其实很多情侣吵架，都是为了证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而说出来的话却往往
变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么!原本想证明的是爱，却变成证明被伤害! 有些人，因为太相信在一起，最后分手了。
33.上完床之后你错误的把自己放在了女朋友的位置上，但在男人看来你只是跟他上过床的女人，上过床和恋人是两种完全不同的关系。
34.男人从一开始的听话、早睡、喝热水，到后来在忙、开会、无所谓，这就是男女轻易上床之后造成的心理错位。正因为有这样的错位你才会一错再错，你以一个女友的身份发那些短信，从根本上剥夺了他的决定权，是不是恋人不重要，重要的在于谁决定。
35.不是每个人都能叫前任，而前任也并非只是某个人，它是每一个走过的人在你心里留下的痕迹。
36.如果是因为你有了第三者而分的手，你得说成是对方不够懂你!
37.说分手原因尤为重要!
38.她在害怕我前任的数量，而我开始担心她前任的质量。
39.男人，你可以说他长相一般、身材一般、头脑一般、事业一般，但是活儿!不能一般!
40.一夜变前任，注定当备胎。
篇三：前任攻略经典语录
孟云(韩庚)：摩登的大都市总是那么吸引人，因为它充满了各种可能，并不是说这里比家乡更好，而是在这里站住脚，是自己价值的一种体现。
孟云(韩庚)：城市越大平均结婚年龄越晚，背井离乡打工青年更是遥遥无期，也不知道这是一种进步，还是一种无奈。
余飞：哥，在想什么呢?
孟云(韩庚)：我在想这人为什么要分周岁和虚岁呢。
余飞：为了纪念。
孟云(韩庚)：纪念什么啊?
余飞：周岁，是你从你妈身体里出来的时间，虚岁，是你从你爸身体里出来的时间。
余飞：把手伸出窗外，当车速达到二十迈的时候，就有A的感觉，当达到四十迈的时候，就有B的感觉，当达到六十迈的时候，就有C的感觉。
孟云(韩庚)：什么ABC?
余飞：罩杯。
孟云(韩庚)：靠，无聊。
孟云(韩庚)：办一场体面的婚礼越来越贵，好在婚庆公司越来越人性化了。每个桌子都有专门的注释，好让结婚双方敬酒打圈的时候，明白人物关系。我很好奇，小洁把我归到哪一类关系上了呢?于是我翻开桌上的号牌，我发誓这个婚礼终生难忘。(号牌是前男友桌)
好胸怀，重口味，点个赞。
小洁：当代是自由恋爱，也是自由选择的时代。
马世宇：人生的轨迹会因为任何一个人儿改变。
小洁&马世宇：要不是遇到了你们，我怎么会认识她(他)。
小洁：能让我们的前女友。
马世宇：和前男友。
小洁&马世宇：来见证我们的婚礼，那我们的爱情是多么的无所畏惧。
小洁：没爱过几个人渣，哪会真心爱上他。
马世宇：还有她。
小洁&马世宇：感谢你们为我们做了通往幸福的引路者和垫脚石，谢谢。
妈妈说人生苦短，不经意就留下遗憾，遇到美丽的风景就要好好看，遇到爱情就需要勇敢。
孟云(韩庚)：和往常一样，激情嘛，来的快去的也快。生活，享受的就是一个过程。其他的嘛，不重要。
孟云(韩庚)：搞定一个男人很简单，一 把他喂饱;二 和他睡觉。这一瞬间，我被搞定了。
夏露：饿吗?
孟云(韩庚)：饿。
夏露：吃什么?
孟云(韩庚)：吃你。
夏露：吃你妹。
孟云(韩庚)：就吃你妹。
罗茜(王丽坤)：其实房子跟女人一样，没有丑女人只有懒女人，稍微用心照顾一点儿，总会漂亮 很多的。
孟云(韩庚)：我们为了梦想，梦想，你知道是什么吗?我知道，你大小是个经历，你说你每天朝九晚五，上班下班，过得很安逸嘛!但是，你作为一个男人，你这一辈子没经历过大起大落你说，没经历过风雨，你怎么拍着胸脯说，我是个男人。
余飞：你搞定了你前女友的现老公的初恋，你好变态啊。
孟云(韩庚)：谁不是谁的谁，你可能是谁的谁，谁也可能是你谁的谁。人际关系，莫过于此。
余飞：你说泡妞吧无非两种情况，要么走心，要么走肾。
余飞：知己，就是时刻准备着发生肉体接触的不良男女关系。
孟云(韩庚)：女友好对付，闺蜜不好对付。你费了半天劲，还不如闺蜜的一句话。 余飞：这么说来，闺蜜就是小丈母娘啊。
孟云(韩庚)：交友经验，一定要讨好女友的闺蜜，取悦闺蜜，就叫做搞好媒体关系。
余飞：我现在跟一女孩儿特来电，我特想跟她上床，而且她也特想跟我上床，而且我们都知道，总有一天我们要上床，但是我们不知道的是我们哪一天上床，多有劲，这就是最美好的时光。
孟云(韩庚)：其实我和夏露都知道，这个生日，因为各自前任的出现，变了点味道。她在害怕我前任的数量，而我开始担心她前任的质量。前任这股能量，已经开始慢慢侵蚀我们之间的信任。
孟云(韩庚)：很多情侣吵架，其实想证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而，说出来的话却往往变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么，原本想证明的是爱，却变成了证明被伤害。
孟云(韩庚)：她做出了选择，很快，罗茜答应了赵明的求婚，并且邀请大家去他们的订婚仪式。我知道罗茜犹豫的是什么，我也知道她要的答案是什么，只是再深的感情，也抵挡不住缘分的交错。罗茜的家我以后不会再去了，一想到罗茜慧聪自己生命中渐渐淡去，心中确实有一种撕裂的痛。
罗茜(王丽坤)在订婚时候的经典台词对白
罗茜(王丽坤)：我，罗茜，今年三十二岁，今天，我终于把自己嫁出去了。虽然我不是小女孩儿，可是我也幻想过，我结婚那一天是什么样的场景，我会穿什么样的婚纱，最重要的是，那个穿着礼服迎接我的男人究竟是谁。有人说，你结婚的那个人，一定不是你最爱的，
我不信，我不信了十几年，可是，我输了。赵明，谢谢你对我的好，我愿意嫁给你，但是，我最爱的人不是你。那个人，我们从认识到现在，十四年，这十四年里，我爱了你十四年，你不可能不知道，我恨我自己，我恨我，为什么跟你是同学，为什么那么早认识你，我恨，我恨我为什么那么了解你，而且不能自拔。我倔强，可是我胆小，我高傲，可是我害怕我的自尊，我害怕，万一你不喜欢我，我们，是不是连朋友都做不了了。我这么一害怕，就是十四年，同时，我又自信，我认为你是爱我的。你是属于我的，这一自信，又是十四年。今天，一切都结束了。你，有了你爱的人，我，也要嫁人了。可是，我就是想要一个答案，我就是想问一句，我就是想问一句，我就是想问一句。
孟云：爱过。
夏露：孟云，我要的是你的真心你的全部，我不希望你心里有任何其他人的位置，藏得再深也不行，我要你马上跟她说，以后再也不跟她联系了。你说呀，你说呀。
孟云(韩庚)：我不想骗你，谁都可以，她我做不到。
孟云(韩庚)：那天老赵跟我说，他们那代人觉得东西坏了是可以修的，而对于我们来说，东西坏了就应该换，这就是老赵眼中的我们这一辈人，我们总会觉得有下一任，所以现任才会变成前任，直到这个时候我才明白，不是每一个人都能叫前任，而前任也并非只是某一个人，它是每一个走过的人在你心里留下的痕迹。夏露也选择成为我的前任，她说，做我的前任比现任轻松，她还说，在爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证是否相爱最好的方法就是分开。分开后如果痛苦，如果思念，那就是真爱，真爱一定会让两人再次相遇。
前任3观后感范文第4篇
我跟你认识了14年，这14年里我爱了你14年，你不可能不知道，我恨我自己，我恨我为什么和你是同学，为什么这么早认识你，我恨我为什么这么了解你，而且不能自拔，我倔强，可是我胆小，我高傲，可是我害怕我的自尊，我害怕万一你不喜欢我，我们是不是连朋友都做不了我这一怕就是14年……
有人说，你结婚的那个人，一定不是你最爱的我变心，我不信了十几年，可是我输了我倔强可是我胆小，我高傲可是我害怕我的自尊，我害怕万一你不喜欢我，我们是不是连朋友都做不了了?我这一害怕就是十四年
我要的是你的真心，你的全部，我不希望你心里有任何其他人的位置，藏得再深也不行
我虽然不是小女孩，可是我也幻想过，我结婚那天什么样的场景?我会穿什么样的婚纱?最重要的是那个穿着礼服迎接我的男人会是谁
我知道罗茜犹豫的是什么，也知道她在等的答案是什么，只是再深的感情也抵挡不住缘分的交错
我们这一代人，东西坏了是要修的;你们这一代人，东西坏了是要换的。我们总会觉得有下一任，所以现任才会变成前任
在爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证是否相爱最好的方法就是分开，分开后如果痛苦，如果思念，那就是真爱，真爱一定会让俩人再次相遇
不是每个人都能叫前任，而前任也并非只是某个人，它是每一个人走过的人在你心里留下的痕迹
说分手原因尤为重要...
如果是因为你任性而分的手，你就必须说是他不心疼你，不宠你...
如果是因为你有了第三者而分的手，你得说成是对方不够懂你...
如果是因为你不懂事太幼稚而分的手，你得说是对方没有一点情趣...
如果是因为你受不了对方黏你而分手，你就得说成是对方不够成熟...
男人就好比钥匙，女人就好比锁，一把什么锁都能开的钥匙叫什么?叫万能钥匙。但是，一把什么钥匙都能捅开的锁，你说这是什么锁?换锁
为什么会有实岁、虚岁之分?
实岁是你从你妈身体里出来的年龄，虚岁是你从你爸身体里出来的年龄。
前任3观后感范文第5篇
2.我倔强，可是我胆小;我高傲，可是我害怕我的自尊。我害怕万一你不喜欢我了，我们是不是连朋友都做不了...
3.我只是喜欢被你喜欢的感觉!而不是喜欢你。
4.常常我们吵架的时候明明是想证明自己有多爱对方，却忍不住宣泄情绪，最后却只是证明了自己受伤害。
5.在爱情走到迷茫的时候，要验证是否相爱最好的方法，就是分开，如果你感到痛苦，感到思念，就是真爱。真爱一定会让两人再次相遇。
6.他不帅不高，却对我说，我的女朋友一定会很幸福，就答应了，于是草率的开始必定有一个草率的结局。
7.她担心我前任的数量，我担心她前任的质量。
8.谈恋爱，要么走心，要吗走肾。
9.周岁是从妈妈身体里出来的时间，虚岁是从爸爸身体出来的时间。
10.人家都说结婚不一定是自己最爱的人，我不相信，现在我终于输了。我喜欢一个人喜欢了十四年，我不知道他是不是喜欢我，万一不喜欢我，那做朋友就很尴尬。我这人胆小又高傲自尊心也很强，但同时也让我自信了十四年，我觉得他是爱我的，今天我只想知道这个答案。。。“爱过”
11.其实很多情侣吵架，都是为了证明自己更在乎对方，更爱对方，然而说出来的话却往往变成了宣泄不满，对方越不想听什么，越说什么，原本想证明的是爱却变成证明被伤害。
12.爸妈一代的人觉得东西坏了可以修，我们这一代人觉得东西坏了一定要换。
13.有时候老天让你等，是为了让你等对的人 ，但对的人不一定是你最爱的，有些人注定有缘无份，虽然惋惜痛心，但奈何有些答案总归是爱过，现在只想珍惜眼前人。
14.再深的感情，都抵不过缘分的交错。
前任3观后感范文第6篇
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
【中文译文】：
永久联邦与总统权力
亚伯拉罕-林肯
第一次就职演讲
星期一,1861年3月4日
我今天正式宣誓时，并没有保留意见，也无意以任何苛刻的标准来解释宪法和法律，尽管我不想具体指明国会通过的哪些法案是适合施行的•但我确实要建议，所有的人，不论处于官方还是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被废止的法令，这比泰然自若地认为其中某个法案是违背宪法的而去触犯它，要稳当得多。
自从第一任总统根据我国宪法就职以来已经72年了。在此期间，有15位十分杰出的公民相继主持了政府的行政部门。他们在许多艰难险阻中履行职责，大致说来都很成功。然而，虽有这样的先例，我现在开始担任这个按宪法规定任期只有短暂4年的同一职务时，却处在巨大而特殊的困难之下。联邦的分裂，在此以前只是一种威胁，现在却已成为可怕的行动。
从一般法律和宪法角度来考虑，我认为由各州组成的联邦是永久性的。在合国政府的根本法中，永久性即使没有明确规定，也是不盲而喻的。我们有把握说，从来没有哪个正规政府在自己的组织法中列入一项要结束自己执政的条款。继续执行我国宪法明文规定的条款，联邦就将永远存在，毁灭联邦是办不到的，除非采取宪法本身未予规定的某种行动。再者：假如合众国不是名副其实的政府，而只是具有契约性质的各州的联盟，那么，作为一种契约，这个联盟能够毫无争议地由纬约各方中的少数加以取消吗?缔约的一方可以违约——也可以说毁约——但是，合法地废止契约难道不需要缔约各方全都同意吗?从这些一般原则在下推，我们认为，从法律上来说，联邦是永久性的这一主张已经为联邦本身的历史所证实。联邦的历史比宪法长久得多。事实上，它在1774年就根据《联合条款》组成了。 1776年，《独立宣言》使它臻子成熟并持续下来。1778年《邦联条款》使联邦愈趋成熟，当时的13个州都信誓旦旦地明确保证联邦应该永存，最后，1787年制定宪法时所宣市的日标之一就是“建设更完善的联邦”。
但是，如果联邦竟能由一个州或几个州按照法律加以取消的话，那么联邦就不如制宪前完善了，因为它丧失了永久性这个重要因素。
根据这些观点，任何一个州都不能只凭自己的动仪就能合法地脱离联邦;凡为此目的而作出的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的，任何一个州或几个州反对合众国当局的暴力行动都应根据憎况视为叛乱或革命。因此，我认为，根据宪法和法律，联邦是不容分裂的;我将按宪法本身明确授予我的权限，就自己能力所及，使联邦法律得以在各州忠实执行。我认为这仅仅是我份内的职责，我将以可行的方法去完成，除非我的合法主人——美国人民，不给予我必要的手段，或以权威的方式作出相反的指示，我相信大家下会把这看作是一种威胁，而只看作是联邦已宣布过的目标：它将按照宪法保卫和维护它自身。
以自然条件而言，我们是不能分开的，我们无法把各个地区彼此挪开，也无法在彼此之间筑起一堵无法逾越的墙垣。夫妻可以离婚，不再见面，互不接触，但是我们国家的各个地区就不可能那样做。它们仍得面对面地相处，它们之间还得有或者友好或者敌对的交往。那么，分开之后的交往是否可能比分开之前更有好处，更令人满意呢?外人之间订立条约难道还比朋友之间制定法律容易吗?外人之间执行条约难道还比朋友之间执行法律忠实吗?假定你们进行战争•你们不可能永远打下去;在双方损失惨重，任何一方都得不到好处之后，你们就会停止战斗，那时你们还会遇到诸如交往条件之类的老问题。
总统的一切权力来自人民，但人民没有授权给他为各州的分离规定条件。如果人民有此意愿，那他们可以这样做，而作为总统来说，则不可能这样做。他的责任是管理交给他的这一届政府，井将它完整地移交给他的继任者。
为什么我们不能对人民所具有的最高的公正抱有坚韧的信念呢?世界上还有比这更好或一样好的希望吗?在我何日前的分歧中，难道双方都缺乏相信自己正确的信心吗?如果万国全能的主宰以其永恒的真理和正义支持你北方这一边，或者支持你南方这一边，那么，那种真理和那种正义必将通过美国人民这个伟大法庭的裁决而取得胜利。