Best explanation yet for why the Confederate statues are falling.

[Slash]

If the U.S. leaves any of the military installations they have throughout the world, do they get to take the buildings with them?

Depends, did the government cede that property to the US? If So, then that land belongs to the US.

 

[Conservative65]

Fort Sumter was in SC and SC wasn't part of the U.S.

The difference is Cuba seems smart enough to know not to do that.

Yes and South Carolina Ceded that property that Fort Sumter was built on to the US Government. It no longer belonged to the state.

In fact all those forts, bases, banks, mints, etc were ceded land to the US Federal Government. The states relenquished their rights to that property.

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory....

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded."


You are literally arguing that you can't cede land to prove the legality of secession.


See how well that gets you "Well I know I sold you this house 20 years ago, but looking at the real estate value it really jumped more than I thought it would. Sorry I am going to have to back out of that agreement and say it's mine again".

Are you saying no agreement can be changed? If so, slavery would still exist under the original Constitution and all those voting would be white males over 21 that owned property.

 

[Conservative65]

If the U.S. leaves any of the military installations they have throughout the world, do they get to take the buildings with them?

Depends, did the government cede that property to the US? If So, then that land belongs to the US.

I didn't say land, retard. I said the buildings on it.

 

[Slash]

Are you saying no agreement can be changed? If so, slavery would still exist under the original Constitution and all those voting would be white males over 21 that owned property.

Oh absolutely you can change agreements. You can buy your home back. If Russia decides the sale of Alaska was a bad idea, and their new government wants it back they can work with the US to get it back. If they choose a bombing campaign to take it back from us though, that is war.

 

[Slash]

I didn't say land, retard. I said the buildings on it.

Yes. If a government owns the land, the buildings on it are theirs.


You are literally saying that you can't cede land away, to prove that you can secede. You do realize how bad that is right? Not just Retard, but FULL BLOWN Retard.

It's like you going to the police for a guy stealing 20 bucks from you that you stole from him an hour earlier. It's that dumb. And the sad thing is I don't even think you realize how dumb your premise is that you are trying to defend.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying no agreement can be changed? If so, slavery would still exist under the original Constitution and all those voting would be white males over 21 that owned property.

Oh absolutely you can change agreements. You can buy your home back. If Russia decides the sale of Alaska was a bad idea, and their new government wants it back they can work with the US to get it back. If they choose a bombing campaign to take it back from us though, that is war.

When SC left the union and was no longer part of something under which they made the agreement, the agreement was no longer valid.

Why do you oppose people leaving something they no longer want to be a part of? Have you ever changed jobs? Have you ever moved? Bought a car? Divorced?

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say land, retard. I said the buildings on it.

Yes. If a government owns the land, the buildings on it are theirs.


You are literally saying that you can't cede land away, to prove that you can secede. You do realize how bad that is right? Not just Retard, but FULL BLOWN Retard.

It's like you going to the police for a guy stealing 20 bucks from you that you stole from him an hour earlier. It's that dumb. And the sad thing is I don't even think you realize how dumb your premise is that you are trying to defend.

That's not what I'm saying. It's what you claim I'm saying. That makes you the retard a FULL BLOWN RETARD.

 

[Slash]

When SC left the union and was no longer part of something under which they made the agreement, the agreement was no longer valid.

Why do you oppose people leaving something they no longer want to be a part of? Have you ever changed jobs? Have you ever moved? Bought a car? Divorced?

Yes it was. Just because Russia's government changed and they became the Soviet Union, doesn't mean that any land deals like selling Alaska to the US were no longer valid. You are just making stuff up.

I've moved. It doesn't mean I can say "hey now that I've moved to florida, selling you my convertible last year was a bad idea. I'm taking it back today".

 

[Slash]

That's not what I'm saying. It's what you claim I'm saying. That makes you the retard a FULL BLOWN RETARD.

Yes it is exactly what you are saying

SC relenquished all ownership of a piece of land to the US Government
SC wanted that piece of US Federal land back
SC bombed that land for 24 hours when the US gov't wouldn't sell it.

You are literally arguing that secession is legal because secession of land isn't legal.

 

[Conservative65]

When SC left the union and was no longer part of something under which they made the agreement, the agreement was no longer valid.

Why do you oppose people leaving something they no longer want to be a part of? Have you ever changed jobs? Have you ever moved? Bought a car? Divorced?

Yes it was. Just because Russia's government changed and they became the Soviet Union, doesn't mean that any land deals like selling Alaska to the US were no longer valid. You are just making stuff up.

I've moved. It doesn't mean I can say "hey now that I've moved to florida, selling you my convertible last year was a bad idea. I'm taking it back today".

If you change jobs but have agreed while on the old one to do certain things you were supposed to do as part of it, are you obligated to do them after leaving?

 

[Conservative65]

That's not what I'm saying. It's what you claim I'm saying. That makes you the retard a FULL BLOWN RETARD.

Yes it is exactly what you are saying

SC relenquished all ownership of a piece of land to the US Government
SC wanted that piece of US Federal land back
SC bombed that land for 24 hours when the US gov't wouldn't sell it.

You are literally arguing that secession is legal because secession of land isn't legal.

Sorry, boy, but you don't get to dictate what I say. You're a good little Liberal that thinks he knows more about someone that the someone does. Your boy former President would be proud of you.

 

[Slash]

If you change jobs but have agreed while on the old one to do certain things you were supposed to do as part of it, are you obligated to do them after leaving?

What does labor law have to do with this?

If you are working at a job and sell your car to your boss and change jobs, you can not go back and tell your boss that since you no longer work for him you get your car back now.

 

[Slash]

Sorry, boy, but you don't get to dictate what I say. You're a good little Liberal that thinks he knows more about someone that the someone does. Your boy former President would be proud of you.

Actually I am conservative. But you are down to name calling a lot I see since you can't defend your stance.

Just because you look back and decided that your ceding all right, title and claim of property to someone else was a bad idea, doesn't mean you can take it back if they don't want to give it back.

You are literally saying secession is legal by proving secession isn't legal here. And you don't even realize it do you? You think you are really making a valid point don't you?

 

[Conservative65]

If you change jobs but have agreed while on the old one to do certain things you were supposed to do as part of it, are you obligated to do them after leaving?

What does labor law have to do with this?

If you are working at a job and sell your car to your boss and change jobs, you can not go back and tell your boss that since you no longer work for him you get your car back now.

You're arguing that if you make an agreement to something that agreement has to be honored even if you leave. Do you not apply the principles you claim to believe to other things? If you aren't willing to honor an agreement you made while working somewhere, don't argue that an agreement is valid when the southern states chose to leave. It makes you look foolish and hypocritical.

I didn't think you apply things consistently when it involved you being expected to do what you expect the southern states to have done. You can move on. You've been outed as a piece of shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Sorry, boy, but you don't get to dictate what I say. You're a good little Liberal that thinks he knows more about someone that the someone does. Your boy former President would be proud of you.

Actually I am conservative. But you are down to name calling a lot I see since you can't defend your stance.

Just because you look back and decided that your ceding all right, title and claim of property to someone else was a bad idea, doesn't mean you can take it back if they don't want to give it back.

You are literally saying secession is legal by proving secession isn't legal here. And you don't even realize it do you? You think you are really making a valid point don't you?

You're anything but that.

Are you going to honor the things you promised to do at your last job? If not, STFU liar.

 

[Slash]

\

You're arguing that if you make an agreement to something that agreement has to be honored even if you leave. Do you not apply the principles you claim to believe to other things? If you aren't willing to honor an agreement you made while working somewhere, don't argue that an agreement is valid when the southern states chose to leave. It makes you look foolish and hypocritical.

I didn't think you apply things consistently when it involved you being expected to do what you expect the southern states to have done. You can move on. You've been outed as a piece of shit.

EXACTLY THAT. If you buy a house and move, you STILL HAVE THAT MORTGAGE. If you sell a car to someone and get married or move to another country or whatever THAT CAR IS STILL NOT YOURS.

You can't give something away, decide it was a bad choice and decide it belongs to you again. They gave up all claim and rights to that land.

You are arguing secession is legal because secession isn't legal

You are arguing that binding legal documents aren't legally binding.

None of it matters anyways since it was a rebellion and not a secession, but those are your arguments.

 

[Slash]

You're anything but that.

Are you going to honor the things you promised to do at your last job? If not, STFU liar.

What does this have to do with a legal document handing over property. I guess yes. If at my job I sold a car, that car is still considered sold when I leave the job. If at my job as a realtor I sold a house, that house doesn't automatically go back up on the market if I quit 50 years later.

 

[Slash]

When Russia joined the Soviet Union that didn't immediately make Alaska part of the Soviet Union too. Yes Russia "left it's job" as you call it. Doesn't mean that regime's deal was no longer valid.

 

[paperview]

When Russia joined the Soviet Union that didn't immediately make Alaska part of the Soviet Union too. Yes Russia "left it's job" as you call it. Doesn't mean that regime's deal was no longer valid.

You're killing it here, man.

Thumbs up.

Thing, too is -- there were literally hundreds of federal properties, property belonging to ALL of the citizens of the US (including the US mint) the south seized and stole and called their own, starting in December of 1860, many even before states seceded.

It's really whack some people think you can just take ownership of federal property, forts, munitions and gold bars -- cuz, I say so.

 

[Slash]

Where else can you sign a cession of land, and then 30 years later when deciding that was a bad move just take it back even if the legal owner you gave up all rights and claim to that land to, no longer wanted to give it back?

Those installations were a cession of land to the USA Federal Government. No different than when Russia ceded Alaska, when France ceded the Louisiana purchase, when Mexico ceded Cali, NM, Utah, AZ and Nevada. Are you saying that all they have to do is change their government and those are no longer valid and the US has no say in that change?

You need two parties to agree to cede land, but somehow now you don't?

You are literally arguing that cession isn't real. Meaning secession can't exist if you can't have cession in the first place. I've never ever heard this defense, mostly because in order to defend it you have to destroy the argument you are trying to defend. It's like trying to argue that selling things doesn't exist and using purchasing things from other people as the proof. You can't have 1 without the other.