PC Fascists To Remove Lee and Jackson from War College Memorials

[JakeStarkey]

You a veteran? More bullshit.

Doesn't fit your limited mind set, huh? Yup, 12 years, infantry airborne, some of it spent as Arctic Light Infantry at Fort Wainwright before the units received the snow mobiles. So we used cross country skis and ahkios to move ourselves and our equipment around. We love the Sugar Bears who brought us everything we need by chopper to the wilderness. Ask Wicked Jester about those days.

Did you see Santa Claus?

North Pole was about twenty miles down the road near the entrance to Eielson Air Force Bace.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You a veteran? More bullshit.

Doesn't fit your limited mind set, huh? Yup, 12 years, infantry airborne, some of it spent as Arctic Light Infantry at Fort Wainwright before the units received the snow mobiles. So we used cross country skis and ahkios to move ourselves and our equipment around. We loved the Sugar Bears who brought us everything we need by chopper to the wilderness. Ask Wicked Jester about those days.

roflmao

Yup, you are a wannabee patriot.

 

[Meathead]

Doesn't fit your limited mind set, huh? Yup, 12 years, infantry airborne, some of it spent as Arctic Light Infantry at Fort Wainwright before the units received the snow mobiles. So we used cross country skis and ahkios to move ourselves and our equipment around. We love the Sugar Bears who brought us everything we need by chopper to the wilderness. Ask Wicked Jester about those days.

Did you see Santa Claus?

North Pole was about twenty miles down the road near the entrance to Eielson Air Force Bace.

You are patently full of shit.

Disingenuous at best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Air_Base

 

[martybegan]

The Confederates were in violation of the Constitution.

They committed what is clearly outlined in the Constitution as treason.

There is no gray area here.

The confederates betrayed the United States of America.

And they got off pretty good. Americans were far to lenient on them.

Just like the Colonists betrayed the British Crown, the difference is the Colonists won.

In thier mind when their States voted themselves out of the Union, they were no longer citizens of the US, they resigned thier commissions and went back to thier States and served thier states.

They were under no oath to the US when they fought against the US, unlike Arnold, who had an oath to the Continental Army when he turned against it.

I don't know what point you are trying to make here..

"In their mind"?

They betrayed this country.

They lost.

And STILL they were treated with compassion.

That was a mistake, in my opinion.

Intent is a major part of any law in the US, be it consitutional or trial law. Thier intent was not treason to the US, it was to leave the US. The Civil War settled the question on unilateral seccession, until that point it was NOT settled.

 

[Ringel05]

Looks like the secession debate is as strong as ever and I doubt will ever end. Madison, the "The Father of the Constitution", opposed the right to secede while championing the right to revolution. In an 1833 letter to Danial Webster he wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. "
Essentially he acknowledged the right to "secede" (revolt) if the conditions warrant it.
James Buchanan in his final State of the Union address to congress in 1860 stated:
"The South, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
But he added this:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. [emphasis added] If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Good luck making arguments for the whimsical whims of secession, I have yet to find any legal or constitutional position, barring revolution against a tyrannical federal government, that allows for shallow, popular secession to take place.

 

[NoNukes]

Arnold swore loyalty to his fellow revolutionaries and the people of the South NEVER considered the US as their nation. Each was loyal to their state and swore to that.

You hateful moron

Unlike you

I am a loyal patriotic American. I do not disrespect my flag and do not support my country honoring men who took up arms against my country

No, you are simply supportive of friends of terrorists like Bill Ayers who has killed Americans with bombs, you ******* traitorous moron.

You are lying again. Who was Ayers convicted of killing.

 

[Sallow]

Just like the Colonists betrayed the British Crown, the difference is the Colonists won.

In thier mind when their States voted themselves out of the Union, they were no longer citizens of the US, they resigned thier commissions and went back to thier States and served thier states.

They were under no oath to the US when they fought against the US, unlike Arnold, who had an oath to the Continental Army when he turned against it.

I don't know what point you are trying to make here..

"In their mind"?

They betrayed this country.

They lost.

And STILL they were treated with compassion.

That was a mistake, in my opinion.

Intent is a major part of any law in the US, be it consitutional or trial law. Thier intent was not treason to the US, it was to leave the US. The Civil War settled the question on unilateral seccession, until that point it was NOT settled.

They were attempting to take a major part of United States Territory. And they fired upon Americans.

They, by the way, weren't intending to pay for it or get it through congress via legislation.

For ALL intents and purposes, they were COMMITTING TREASON. As outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

They fired upon United States Military. And they started a war Against the United States.

It's black and white.

 

[paperview]

Looks like the secession debate is as strong as ever and I doubt will ever end. Madison, the "The Father of the Constitution", opposed the right to secede while championing the right to revolution. In an 1833 letter to Danial Webster he wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. "
Essentially he acknowledged the right to "secede" (revolt) if the conditions warrant it.
James Buchanan in his final State of the Union address to congress in 1860 stated:
"The South, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
But he added this:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. [emphasis added] If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Good luck making arguments for the whimsical whims of secession, I have yet to find any legal or constitutional position, barring revolution against a tyrannical federal government, that allows for shallow, popular secession to take place.

Oh, a state does have a right to secede.

It just has to go out the same way it came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.

 

[Ringel05]

Looks like the secession debate is as strong as ever and I doubt will ever end. Madison, the "The Father of the Constitution", opposed the right to secede while championing the right to revolution. In an 1833 letter to Danial Webster he wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. "
Essentially he acknowledged the right to "secede" (revolt) if the conditions warrant it.
James Buchanan in his final State of the Union address to congress in 1860 stated:
"The South, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
But he added this:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. [emphasis added] If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Good luck making arguments for the whimsical whims of secession, I have yet to find any legal or constitutional position, barring revolution against a tyrannical federal government, that allows for shallow, popular secession to take place.

Oh, a state does have a right to secede.

It just has to go out the same way it came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.

Which will never happen so that's a moot point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Did you see Santa Claus?

North Pole was about twenty miles down the road near the entrance to Eielson Air Force Bace.

You are patently full of shit.

Disingenuous at best:
Thule Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jake the Fake Starkey is one of the worst liars here; he is not worth the bother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you see Santa Claus?

North Pole was about twenty miles down the road near the entrance to Eielson Air Force Bace.

You are patently full of shit.

Disingenuous at best:
Thule Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will make you, just like I do JimCrowie, look like a stupid shit every time.

North Pole, Alaska, is a small community near the entrance road to Eielson AFB.

Check the map, son.

City of North Pole, Alaska

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just like the Colonists betrayed the British Crown, the difference is the Colonists won.

In thier mind when their States voted themselves out of the Union, they were no longer citizens of the US, they resigned thier commissions and went back to thier States and served thier states.

They were under no oath to the US when they fought against the US, unlike Arnold, who had an oath to the Continental Army when he turned against it.

I don't know what point you are trying to make here..

"In their mind"?

They betrayed this country.

They lost.

And STILL they were treated with compassion.

That was a mistake, in my opinion.

Intent is a major part of any law in the US, be it consitutional or trial law. Thier intent was not treason to the US, it was to leave the US. The Civil War settled the question on unilateral seccession, until that point it was NOT settled.

And I fear it may soon become 'unsettled' as leftists try to leave the Union once the TPM takes over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake the Fake Starkey is one of the worst liars here; he is not worth the bother.

Answered above, wannabee weenie patriot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And I fear it may soon become 'unsettled' as leftists try to leave the Union once the TPM takes over.

The TPM will not survive next year's elections except as a far right reactionary's nightmare wet dream. Your time has come and gone. The TPM congressional disaster over ACA and shutdown in October and the budget passed yesterday has put an end to your power.

 

[paperview]

North Pole was about twenty miles down the road near the entrance to Eielson Air Force Bace.

You are patently full of shit.

Disingenuous at best:
Thule Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will make you look like a stupid shit every time.

North Pole, Alaska, is a small community near the entrance road to Eielson AFB.

Check the map, son.

City of North Pole, Alaska

Boom!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Unlike you

I am a loyal patriotic American. I do not disrespect my flag and do not support my country honoring men who took up arms against my country

No, you are simply supportive of friends of terrorists like Bill Ayers who has killed Americans with bombs, you ******* traitorous moron.

You are lying again. Who was Ayers convicted of killing.

You deny he was a part of an organization of incompetent terrorists who bombed US government buildings and accidently killed several of their OWN members?

That is still terrorism, that is still criminal murder as he was part of the organization whose actions resulted in the deaths of American citizens, even if they were themselves terrorists at the time.

The charges were dropped due to technicalities, and unlike George Zimmerman, that does not clear Ayers of guilt or later execution of justice.

That is so typical of leftwing fascist hypocrisy, harass an innocent man cleared by a jury like GZ, and yet embrace an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers and ignore those that befriend him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know what point you are trying to make here..

"In their mind"?

They betrayed this country.

They lost.

And STILL they were treated with compassion.

That was a mistake, in my opinion.

Intent is a major part of any law in the US, be it consitutional or trial law. Thier intent was not treason to the US, it was to leave the US. The Civil War settled the question on unilateral seccession, until that point it was NOT settled.

They were attempting to take a major part of United States Territory. And they fired upon Americans.

They, by the way, weren't intending to pay for it or get it through congress via legislation.

For ALL intents and purposes, they were COMMITTING TREASON. As outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

They fired upon United States Military. And they started a war Against the United States.

It's black and white.

So did Mexican in the Mexican American War, idiot. That the South considered itself to no longer be part of the union totally destroys any charge of treason, dumbass.

The South much like the Albanians in Kosovo, considered themselves as having been driven out by a hostile government, and no longer part of the US. I wonder where the UN would come down if the South or any other part of the US tried to secede again after all we have done to support Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Eretria and other break way states around the world. To do all that and yet still insist that the South had no right is leftwing fascist hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[martybegan]

Looks like the secession debate is as strong as ever and I doubt will ever end. Madison, the "The Father of the Constitution", opposed the right to secede while championing the right to revolution. In an 1833 letter to Danial Webster he wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. "
Essentially he acknowledged the right to "secede" (revolt) if the conditions warrant it.
James Buchanan in his final State of the Union address to congress in 1860 stated:
"The South, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
But he added this:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. [emphasis added] If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Good luck making arguments for the whimsical whims of secession, I have yet to find any legal or constitutional position, barring revolution against a tyrannical federal government, that allows for shallow, popular secession to take place.

Oh, a state does have a right to secede.

It just has to go out the same way it came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.

It does have another option, fight it out, and win. The winning is the important part.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are patently full of shit.

Disingenuous at best:
Thule Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will make you look like a stupid shit every time.

North Pole, Alaska, is a small community near the entrance road to Eielson AFB.

Check the map, son.

City of North Pole, Alaska

Boom!

No, no 'boom' as Starkey is lying and has no regret about making people who stick up for him look like fools when his lies come to light.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South had the legal right to leave as it came in. Ratification and approval by Congress.

Instead, the South began the war of southern aggression and the Old South states were executed by the North.