Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How ironic when absolutely the opposite is the case.
Says you. Yet when I challenge you to show me where in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions secession is even MENTIONED, let alone supported....
......you can't.
When I challenge you to show us where in Madison's letters or writings supported the 'right to secede'...
......you can't.
When I challenge you show us where in the NY ratification document the 'right to secede' is retained....
......you can't.
When I challenge you to show us where in Ogden v. Gibbon the sovereignty of states is affirmed....
......you can't.
All you can do is give us excuses why you can't. I've read the documents. I've read the rulings. I already know why you can't: because you made up the quotes. They simply don't exist in the documents you claim they do.
You can't back up your claims. All you can do is lie about these docs and pray to god that we've never read them.
These documents don't say what you claim they say. Madison's letters, for example, don't amount to a hill of beans.
You're the one who claimed to cite Madison. Repeatedly. He's your source. You offered him up as the 'Father of the Constitution'. Its only when I called you on your bullshit and demonstrated he'd taken the exact opposite position does he suddenly go from 'Father of the Constitution' to 'nothing'.
Your argument is so useless that you'll even ignore your own sources to cling to your little rhetorical turd. Which speaks volumes.
I've posted the language from the NY and VA ratification documents where the states reserve the right to secede.
You've never cited the NY ratification document. All you've given us are excuses why you won't. Watch, I'll make you do it again. You're going to demonstrate exactly what I'm describing....and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop it. Here's the ratification document:
New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Show us. Show us where the right to secession is retained.
Chicken shit excuses in 5......4.......3......2 .....and go. That's your cue. Dance for me, monkey.
I'm not going to address your post point by point. Everything you posted is either a lie or a non sequitur. It's too stupid to bother wasting time refuting. You're dishonest and incapable of committing logic, which is why debating you is a waste of time.
And shocker - chickenshit excuses! Exactly as predicted. Same as always.
This is why you fail: your argument only works if we haven't read the documents. And I've read them. Which is why you must run every time I challenge you to back your claims up about them with actual quotes.
Keep running.
We've already debated these issues ad nauseum, and you either lied or were too stupid to get the point.
No, you haven't. You've given us excuses why you can't, ad nauseum.
Exactly as I told you you'd do. See, you're kinda fucked. We both know you can't back your bullshit up. We both know that you're making this up as you go along. So I'm in a no-lose scenario here. All I have to do is challenge you to back up your claims about those docs and watch your argument implode. And its so easy.
Watch, I'll do it again:
New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Show us where the right to secede is retained in the NY ratification document. And you're forced to run. As the doc makes zero mention of it.
For crying out loud, you're actively ignoring your our sources. With Madison going from the 'Father of the Constitution' to 'nothing' the moment he disagrees with you. You're like the avatar of Confirmation Bias.
Says you. Yet when I challenge you to show me where in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions secession is even MENTIONED, let alone supported....
......you can't.
When I challenge you to show us where in Madison's letters or writings supported the 'right to secede'...
......you can't.
When I challenge you show us where in the NY ratification document the 'right to secede' is retained....
......you can't.
When I challenge you to show us where in Ogden v. Gibbon the sovereignty of states is affirmed....
......you can't.
All you can do is give us excuses why you can't. I've read the documents. I've read the rulings. I already know why you can't: because you made up the quotes. They simply don't exist in the documents you claim they do.
You can't back up your claims. All you can do is lie about these docs and pray to god that we've never read them.
You're the one who claimed to cite Madison. Repeatedly. He's your source. You offered him up as the 'Father of the Constitution'. Its only when I called you on your bullshit and demonstrated he'd taken the exact opposite position does he suddenly go from 'Father of the Constitution' to 'nothing'.
Your argument is so useless that you'll even ignore your own sources to cling to your little rhetorical turd. Which speaks volumes.
You've never cited the NY ratification document. All you've given us are excuses why you won't. Watch, I'll make you do it again. You're going to demonstrate exactly what I'm describing....and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop it. Here's the ratification document:
New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Show us. Show us where the right to secession is retained.
Chicken shit excuses in 5......4.......3......2 .....and go. That's your cue. Dance for me, monkey.
I'm not going to address your post point by point. Everything you posted is either a lie or a non sequitur. It's too stupid to bother wasting time refuting. You're dishonest and incapable of committing logic, which is why debating you is a waste of time.
And shocker - chickenshit excuses! Exactly as predicted. Same as always.
This is why you fail: your argument only works if we haven't read the documents. And I've read them. Which is why you must run every time I challenge you to back your claims up about them with actual quotes.
Keep running.
We've already debated these issues ad nauseum, and you either lied or were too stupid to get the point.
No, you haven't. You've given us excuses why you can't, ad nauseum.
Exactly as I told you you'd do. See, you're kinda fucked. We both know you can't back your bullshit up. We both know that you're making this up as you go along. So I'm in a no-lose scenario here. All I have to do is challenge you to back up your claims about those docs and watch your argument implode. And its so easy.
Watch, I'll do it again:
New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Show us where the right to secede is retained in the NY ratification document. And you're forced to run. As the doc makes zero mention of it.
For crying out loud, you're actively ignoring your our sources. With Madison going from the 'Father of the Constitution' to 'nothing' the moment he disagrees with you. You're like the avatar of Confirmation Bias.
As I've already stated, we've discussed all this already, and like now you have either lied about it or you didn't get the point because you aren't able to commit logic. There's no point in rehashing the whole thing again.
I'm not going to address your post point by point. Everything you posted is either a lie or a non sequitur. It's too stupid to bother wasting time refuting. You're dishonest and incapable of committing logic, which is why debating you is a waste of time.
And shocker - chickenshit excuses! Exactly as predicted. Same as always.
This is why you fail: your argument only works if we haven't read the documents. And I've read them. Which is why you must run every time I challenge you to back your claims up about them with actual quotes.
Keep running.
We've already debated these issues ad nauseum, and you either lied or were too stupid to get the point.
No, you haven't. You've given us excuses why you can't, ad nauseum.
Exactly as I told you you'd do. See, you're kinda fucked. We both know you can't back your bullshit up. We both know that you're making this up as you go along. So I'm in a no-lose scenario here. All I have to do is challenge you to back up your claims about those docs and watch your argument implode. And its so easy.
Watch, I'll do it again:
New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Show us where the right to secede is retained in the NY ratification document. And you're forced to run. As the doc makes zero mention of it.
For crying out loud, you're actively ignoring your our sources. With Madison going from the 'Father of the Constitution' to 'nothing' the moment he disagrees with you. You're like the avatar of Confirmation Bias.
As I've already stated, we've discussed all this already, and like now you have either lied about it or you didn't get the point because you aren't able to commit logic. There's no point in rehashing the whole thing again.
You've already stated your excuses why you can't back up your bullshit, sure.
But anyone following this link to the actual NY ratification document can find quite quickly WHY you're giving us excuses: it doesn't say what you claimed it does.
New York s Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Nope. Nothing on secession.
But hey....you citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic isn't exactly a new thing for you, Mr. Confirmation Bias.
Public policy constitutes public Use; why do only the least wealthy who can least afford legal counsel under our form of Capitalism, usually end up getting "the shaft". Eminent Domain must apply.The white chimps that enslaved Blacks deserved to be tortured then killed. Nat Turner is one of my heroes. Yes the land given to Blacks as part of the 40 acres and a mule deal were indeed turned over to whites. Youre a fucking idiot on top of being a feral chimp if you dont know that.Thats what they deserved and a whole lot more. Stop whining. They took the land back from Black people and gave it to the feral white apes that previously enslaved them.I wouldnt tell the Jews to get over the holocaust. They actually suffered. I'm telling you as a feral white POS to get over the fact you cant have a slave.
Yeah, Southerners didn't suffer. Killing 850,000 of them isn't suffering. Murdering, pillaging and raping their women isn't suffering. Burning their cities to the ground isn't suffering.
Tell us, you fucking Nazi, why should anyone give a shit when despicable pieces of shit like you whine that you aren't being treated the way you think you deserve? Why should anyone care whether this numskull Freddie Gray got himself killed?
I dont expect you to care nor am I concerned with if you do or not. Youre just another feral racist chimp.
Your belief that people deserved to be killed only shows what a despicable piece of shit you are. No land was taken from black people, you witless baboon. No land was taken from white people after the war either. That's a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - the part of the Constitution you don't give a crap about.
Wrong, asshole:
Forty acres and a mule refers to a concept in the United States for agrarian reform for former enslaved African American farmers, following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed they had a moral right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freedpeople widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. But, Federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for African Americans. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.
We get the fact that you hate all white people and want to murder and torture them. No one cares about your petty resentments. All you do by posting these psychotic rants is embarrass yourself and embarrass other blacks.
Public policy constitutes public Use; why do only the least wealthy who can least afford legal counsel under our form of Capitalism, usually end up getting "the shaft". Eminent Domain must apply.The white chimps that enslaved Blacks deserved to be tortured then killed. Nat Turner is one of my heroes. Yes the land given to Blacks as part of the 40 acres and a mule deal were indeed turned over to whites. Youre a fucking idiot on top of being a feral chimp if you dont know that.Thats what they deserved and a whole lot more. Stop whining. They took the land back from Black people and gave it to the feral white apes that previously enslaved them.Yeah, Southerners didn't suffer. Killing 850,000 of them isn't suffering. Murdering, pillaging and raping their women isn't suffering. Burning their cities to the ground isn't suffering.
Tell us, you fucking Nazi, why should anyone give a shit when despicable pieces of shit like you whine that you aren't being treated the way you think you deserve? Why should anyone care whether this numskull Freddie Gray got himself killed?
I dont expect you to care nor am I concerned with if you do or not. Youre just another feral racist chimp.
Your belief that people deserved to be killed only shows what a despicable piece of shit you are. No land was taken from black people, you witless baboon. No land was taken from white people after the war either. That's a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - the part of the Constitution you don't give a crap about.
Wrong, asshole:
Forty acres and a mule refers to a concept in the United States for agrarian reform for former enslaved African American farmers, following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed they had a moral right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freedpeople widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. But, Federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for African Americans. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.
We get the fact that you hate all white people and want to murder and torture them. No one cares about your petty resentments. All you do by posting these psychotic rants is embarrass yourself and embarrass other blacks.
Yes, it does.Public policy constitutes public Use; why do only the least wealthy who can least afford legal counsel under our form of Capitalism, usually end up getting "the shaft". Eminent Domain must apply.The white chimps that enslaved Blacks deserved to be tortured then killed. Nat Turner is one of my heroes. Yes the land given to Blacks as part of the 40 acres and a mule deal were indeed turned over to whites. Youre a fucking idiot on top of being a feral chimp if you dont know that.Thats what they deserved and a whole lot more. Stop whining. They took the land back from Black people and gave it to the feral white apes that previously enslaved them.
I dont expect you to care nor am I concerned with if you do or not. Youre just another feral racist chimp.
Your belief that people deserved to be killed only shows what a despicable piece of shit you are. No land was taken from black people, you witless baboon. No land was taken from white people after the war either. That's a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - the part of the Constitution you don't give a crap about.
Wrong, asshole:
Forty acres and a mule refers to a concept in the United States for agrarian reform for former enslaved African American farmers, following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed they had a moral right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freedpeople widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. But, Federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for African Americans. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.
We get the fact that you hate all white people and want to murder and torture them. No one cares about your petty resentments. All you do by posting these psychotic rants is embarrass yourself and embarrass other blacks.
Eminent domain doesn't allow government to expropriate land so it can give the land to someone else.
You are a fucking inbred idiot.Public policy constitutes public Use; why do only the least wealthy who can least afford legal counsel under our form of Capitalism, usually end up getting "the shaft". Eminent Domain must apply.The white chimps that enslaved Blacks deserved to be tortured then killed. Nat Turner is one of my heroes. Yes the land given to Blacks as part of the 40 acres and a mule deal were indeed turned over to whites. Youre a fucking idiot on top of being a feral chimp if you dont know that.Thats what they deserved and a whole lot more. Stop whining. They took the land back from Black people and gave it to the feral white apes that previously enslaved them.
I dont expect you to care nor am I concerned with if you do or not. Youre just another feral racist chimp.
Your belief that people deserved to be killed only shows what a despicable piece of shit you are. No land was taken from black people, you witless baboon. No land was taken from white people after the war either. That's a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - the part of the Constitution you don't give a crap about.
Wrong, asshole:
Forty acres and a mule refers to a concept in the United States for agrarian reform for former enslaved African American farmers, following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed they had a moral right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freedpeople widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. But, Federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for African Americans. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.
We get the fact that you hate all white people and want to murder and torture them. No one cares about your petty resentments. All you do by posting these psychotic rants is embarrass yourself and embarrass other blacks.
Eminent domain doesn't allow government to expropriate land so it can give the land to someone else.
Yes, it does.Public policy constitutes public Use; why do only the least wealthy who can least afford legal counsel under our form of Capitalism, usually end up getting "the shaft". Eminent Domain must apply.The white chimps that enslaved Blacks deserved to be tortured then killed. Nat Turner is one of my heroes. Yes the land given to Blacks as part of the 40 acres and a mule deal were indeed turned over to whites. Youre a fucking idiot on top of being a feral chimp if you dont know that.Your belief that people deserved to be killed only shows what a despicable piece of shit you are. No land was taken from black people, you witless baboon. No land was taken from white people after the war either. That's a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - the part of the Constitution you don't give a crap about.
Wrong, asshole:
Forty acres and a mule refers to a concept in the United States for agrarian reform for former enslaved African American farmers, following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed they had a moral right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freedpeople widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. But, Federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for African Americans. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.
We get the fact that you hate all white people and want to murder and torture them. No one cares about your petty resentments. All you do by posting these psychotic rants is embarrass yourself and embarrass other blacks.
Eminent domain doesn't allow government to expropriate land so it can give the land to someone else.
yup.Yes, it does.Public policy constitutes public Use; why do only the least wealthy who can least afford legal counsel under our form of Capitalism, usually end up getting "the shaft". Eminent Domain must apply.The white chimps that enslaved Blacks deserved to be tortured then killed. Nat Turner is one of my heroes. Yes the land given to Blacks as part of the 40 acres and a mule deal were indeed turned over to whites. Youre a fucking idiot on top of being a feral chimp if you dont know that.
Wrong, asshole:
Forty acres and a mule refers to a concept in the United States for agrarian reform for former enslaved African American farmers, following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed they had a moral right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freedpeople widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. But, Federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for African Americans. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.
We get the fact that you hate all white people and want to murder and torture them. No one cares about your petty resentments. All you do by posting these psychotic rants is embarrass yourself and embarrass other blacks.
Eminent domain doesn't allow government to expropriate land so it can give the land to someone else.
Nuh Uhn!
