Where do you stand on State succession?

[bripat9643]

How ironic. Your theory is "ad hoc." You can't have both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in force simultaneously. One replaced the other. However, that is exactly what your "logic" is saying.

No it's not. The Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states. The constitution did not dissolve that union in order to create a new one. It perfected that union. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. You just don't want to accept it.

Saying the "Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states" is another way of saying they are in force even though they are not. If the articles are not in force, then there is no "perpetual union." If they are in force, then they conflict with the Constitution.

We can keeping going round this circular wheel of logic as many times as you want. It's obvious you are immune to logic, so you will never get it.

 

[thanatos144]

How ironic. Your theory is "ad hoc." You can't have both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in force simultaneously. One replaced the other. However, that is exactly what your "logic" is saying.

No it's not. The Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states. The constitution did not dissolve that union in order to create a new one. It perfected that union. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. You just don't want to accept it.

Saying the "Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states" is another way of saying they are in force even though they are not. If the articles are not in force, then there is no "perpetual union." If they are in force, then they conflict with the Constitution.

We can keeping going round this circular wheel of logic as many times as you want. It's obvious you are immune to logic, so you will never get it.

Son your heroes were slavers and traitors deal with it

tapatalk post

 

[bripat9643]

No it's not. The Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states. The constitution did not dissolve that union in order to create a new one. It perfected that union. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. You just don't want to accept it.

Saying the "Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states" is another way of saying they are in force even though they are not. If the articles are not in force, then there is no "perpetual union." If they are in force, then they conflict with the Constitution.

We can keeping going round this circular wheel of logic as many times as you want. It's obvious you are immune to logic, so you will never get it.

Son your heroes were slavers and traitors deal with it

tapatalk post

You're an imbecile.

 

[Contumacious]

see the right desire a fractioning of our country?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

They do not love democracy

Nope.

Neither did the Founding Fathers .

In a democracy rights depend on majorities. Now that the Parasitic Faction is a super majority taxpayers and producers have been reduced to slaves.

.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Saying the "Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states" is another way of saying they are in force even though they are not. If the articles are not in force, then there is no "perpetual union." If they are in force, then they conflict with the Constitution.

We can keeping going round this circular wheel of logic as many times as you want. It's obvious you are immune to logic, so you will never get it.

Son your heroes were slavers and traitors deal with it

tapatalk post

You're an imbecile.

You're insulting imbeciles the world over!

He is actually an ignoranus. (That's not a typo.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only the ignorant, the mentally feeble, and the malignantly motivated defend anarchy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you even in the right THREAD, kid?

 

[BlindBoo]

see the right desire a fractioning of our country?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

They do not love democracy

Nope.

Neither did the Founding Fathers .

In a democracy rights depend on majorities. Now that the Parasitic Faction is a super majority taxpayers and producers have been reduced to slaves.

.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Losing a couple of elections doesn't qualify. Now if President Obama dissolved Congress and declared himself ruler for life, you might have a point, until then........

 

[Uncensored2008]

Truth time:

Davis ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter, not Lincoln.

Jefferson Davis? Of Mississippi?



Leftists - utterly ignorant, totally uneducated, and completely full of shit.

Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard ordered the attack on Sumter, from the Confederate side. Davis had no involvement at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not true. The states all entered into a perpetual union with each other, and ratified a constitution that explicitly gives the federal government power to use military force to suppress insurrections.

There is no such thing as perpetual union. Madison and Jefferson, for their respective sides, both made clear that the union could be dissolved at any time.

"Consent of the governed" is something you leftists simply cannot abide.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really?

Link to a historical source proving the allegations.

.

Not possible, all historical sources state exactly the opposite. Federalist and anti-Federalist alike.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Losing a couple of elections doesn't qualify. Now if President Obama dissolved Congress and declared himself ruler for life, you might have a point, until then........

Someone slipped you an early copy of Obama's State of the Union?

 

[SwimExpert]

Truth time:

Davis ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter, not Lincoln.

Jefferson Davis? Of Mississippi?



Leftists - utterly ignorant, totally uneducated, and completely full of shit.

Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard ordered the attack on Sumter, from the Confederate side. Davis had no involvement at all.

I'm a conservative, pal. You're the one who is ignorant and uneducated.

Davis ordered Beauregard to attack Ft. Sumter.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm a conservative, pal. You're the one who is ignorant and uneducated.

Davis ordered Beauregard to attack Ft. Sumter.

Davis didn't become president of the Confederacy until 15 months AFTER Sumter.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm a conservative, pal. You're the one who is ignorant and uneducated.

Davis ordered Beauregard to attack Ft. Sumter.

Davis didn't become president of the Confederacy until 15 months AFTER Sumter.

Fail.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a conservative, pal. You're the one who is ignorant and uneducated.

Davis ordered Beauregard to attack Ft. Sumter.

Davis didn't become president of the Confederacy until 15 months AFTER Sumter.

Fail.

So "FAIL" means someone proved your claim to be categorically and irrefutably false?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorldWatcher]

Davis didn't become president of the Confederacy until 15 months AFTER Sumter.

Fail.

So "FAIL" means someone proved your claim to be categorically and irrefutably false?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the "Fail" was that Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as President of the confederacy on February 18, 1861 and Ft. Sumter was fired upon by the Confederacy on April 12, 1861. No 15 months later.

History & Culture - Fort Sumter National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)
Inaugural address of President Davis


>>>>

 

[Ellasophia]

You're free to stick your head where the sun don't shine.

And you're still free to go live in any country that will have you. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

I am being forced to do a lot of other things, however. Like I said, you're free to stick your head where the sun don't shine. No one is forcing you to keep it exposed.

Please learn the language of your new country. In this country it's "where the sun doesn't shine." You're welcome bagger.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Where do you stand on State succession?

State succession? Nope. We all helped make this huge shit sandwich so man up and take a bite.

 

[WinterBorn]

Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.

Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.

Won't happen.

So the poll wasn't about a state being successful? lmao j/k