Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?

[bripat9643]

The land IS within their borders. It doesn't make it their land. Is anyone else to blame you don't understand the meaning of the word, "cede?"

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Secession was an illegal act. The states are not countries; they are part of a country, bound to it by a document that is the supreme law of the land.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

You're wrong. The states commit to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the United States government, law, and Constitution when they choose to become a US state.

That is, until they decide to secede.

They don't have the right to secede any more than your county has the right to secede from your state.

 

[bripat9643]

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

Stealing from the Federal government is not within the rights of a state, a territory, or a foreign nation.

IF the federal government refuses to leave property it is trespassing on, it's not stealing. They forfeit the right to any property they leave in the territory of another nation. Many foreign nations have taken ownership of military equipment the U.S. military left behind when it vacated the premises. We left tons of it in Iraq, and we are going to leave tons of it in Afghanistan.

Once again, your claims about what is legally allowed only serves to prove that you're a numskull.

It's not trespassing because a seceding state is in a state of rebellion.

Wrong. Its seceding.

 

[bripat9643]

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

Stealing from the Federal government is not within the rights of a state, a territory, or a foreign nation.

IF the federal government refuses to leave property it is trespassing on, it's not stealing. They forfeit the right to any property they leave in the territory of another nation. Many foreign nations have taken ownership of military equipment the U.S. military left behind when it vacated the premises. We left tons of it in Iraq, and we are going to leave tons of it in Afghanistan.

Once again, your claims about what is legally allowed only serves to prove that you're a numskull.

Hey birdbrain, property purchased by all of the taxpayers of the US, is owned by all of the people of the US.

They can continue to own the property, but if the host country tells them to get the hell out, they have to go. They have no more rights than any other property owner.

 

[paperview]

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

 

[Political Junky]

Secession was an illegal act. The states are not countries; they are part of a country, bound to it by a document that is the supreme law of the land.

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

You're wrong. The states commit to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the United States government, law, and Constitution when they choose to become a US state.

That is, until they decide to secede.

Rick Perry sure has stopped talking about Texas' right to secede, hasn't he?

 

[bripat9643]

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

yeah, we know Lincoln invaded Virginia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Southerners. The fact that you're proud of that says all we need to know about you.

 

[paperview]

The Perpetual Union can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

 

[bripat9643]

Was it illegal? Where is that written? Prior to the Civil War, the states viewed themselves as countries. Hence the term "United States." "State" is another word for country, in case you are too ignorant to understand that.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the states and its citizens subject to the Constitution and to federal law.

That's only true so long as a state remains in the union. The minute it secedes, the Constitution is null and void. There is no clause in the Constitution that says a state can't secede.

You FAIL, once again.

You're wrong. The states commit to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the United States government, law, and Constitution when they choose to become a US state.

That is, until they decide to secede.

Rick Perry sure has stopped talking about Texas' right to secede, hasn't he?

So what? He's a politician. Enough said.

 

[Dad2three]

You are irreversibly retarded. No one doubted there are racist blacks who kill whites due to their racism.

You were given an example of where racist whites killed blacks because you doubted that ever occurred over mere words.

Too bad you don't possess the character required to simply admit you were wrong and move on.

1. The original claim implied that such incidents were common. So far there has only been one example posted. Whereas, I posted multiple examples of black atrocities committed against whites.
2. The second implication of the claim was that it was something unique to whites. That obviously isn't the case.

Why should anyone be concerned about a unique occurrence of white on black crime?

Lynch Law By Ida B. Wells

I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

BTW, ass breath, no one ever claimed there were never any lynchings in the South.

You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

I can't believe you said that when the most famous lynching of all was Emmett Till.

It wasn't listed in the post I was responding to, numskull.

Nah, you just skipped THAT one, lol

HOW ABOUT BEING HONEST AND GOING BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL POSIT, VERSUS YOUR LATER? LOL


bripat the dishonest one wrote in post #220:

"I doubt any black was lynched simply for talking to a white woman.

Libturd morons like you have a hysterical understanding of what the South was like during segregation."

Are today s Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War Page 22 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

lol

 

[paperview]

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

yeah, we know Lincoln invaded Virginia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Southerners. The fact that you're proud of that says all we need to know about you.

The fact you defend people who went to war to keep black human beings in bondage as farm animals tells us all we need to know about you.

 

[bripat9643]

The Perpetual Union can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

Nevertheless a few years after that document was signed the "perpetual union" was dissolved and a new one put in its place.

So much for your "perpetual union."

Where do the Articles of Confederation say anything about it being dissolved?

 

[Political Junky]

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

yeah, we know Lincoln invaded Virginia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Southerners. The fact that you're proud of that says all we need to know about you.

But the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, right?

 

[bripat9643]

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

yeah, we know Lincoln invaded Virginia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Southerners. The fact that you're proud of that says all we need to know about you.

The fact you defend people who went to war to keep black human beings in bondage as farm animals tells us all we need to know about you.

I see your back to accusing me of supporting slavery. That's what sleazy boot-licking Lincoln worshippers do when all your arguments have been blown to smithereens. Have you ever considered the fact that Lincoln wanted to enshrine slavery permanently into the Constitution? In other words, "keep black human beings in bondage as farm animals." What does the fact that you worship such a man tell us about you?

Here is your hero speaking on his attitude towards the black man:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

It means it's their territory. Learn the difference between "property" and "territory."

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

No comparison.

You are making a circular argument based on the absolutely false premise that secession is legal.

 

[paperview]

The Perpetual Union can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

Nevertheless a few years after that document was signed the "perpetual union" was dissolved and a new one put in its place.

So much for your "perpetual union."

...

Yes, we formed a More Perfect Union.


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

 

[bripat9643]

The Perpetual Union can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

Nevertheless a few years after that document was signed the "perpetual union" was dissolved and a new one put in its place.

So much for your "perpetual union."

...

Yes, we formed a More Perfect Union.


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

Nevertheless, the "perpetual union" obviously wasn't perpetual.

 

[paperview]

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

Hey numbskull, what happened when the South did it?

They had their asses handed to them but good.


Boom. Bye bye idiocy

yeah, we know Lincoln invaded Virginia and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Southerners. The fact that you're proud of that says all we need to know about you.

The fact you defend people who went to war to keep black human beings in bondage as farm animals tells us all we need to know about you.

I see your back to accusing me of supporting slavery.
...

You defend people who went to war to keep black human beings in bondage as farm animals and the right to preserve, protect and and expand . slavery.

There's no getting around that.

 

[bripat9643]

You moron ... the "territory" is the land. SC ceded that to the federal government. The "property" is the fort. How fucking deranged are you? The fort was, and remains, federal property. It was paid for by the federal government and built on federal land. You are amazingly retarded.

When the confederacy opened fire on the fort, they attacked the United States of America. The federal government was within its Constitutional authority to defend itself, even if SC wanted to disavow the U.S. Constitution.

This idiot seems to think if Kentucky had decided to secede, they could've just taken over Fort Knox and all kept for itself all the gold inside.

If the federal government refused to pack up its stuff and go, then Kentucky would be perfectly within its rights.

And Florida could just take over NASA too, and North Carolina could just take over Fort Bliss, and if New Mexico wanted to take over the Los Alamos National Laboratory, they could do it too.

Yes they could. What do you think happened in the former Soviet Union when it broke up? Does Russia still station troops in its bases in the Baltic countries?

You're a numskull.

No comparison.

You are making a circular argument based on the absolutely false premise that secession is legal.

And you're making a circular argument based on the false premise that it's illegal. It if was illegal, then Lincoln made war on American citizens when he invaded the South. He stole their property, burned their cities, raped their women and murdered them.

According to the Constitution he should have been tried as a criminal and hung.

 

[paperview]

The Perpetual Union can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.

Nevertheless a few years after that document was signed the "perpetual union" was dissolved and a new one put in its place.

So much for your "perpetual union."

...

Yes, we formed a More Perfect Union.


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

Nevertheless, the "perpetual union" obviously wasn't perpetual.

Maybe someone hasn't told you, but...the South lost and we remain a Perpetual Union.