Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

The gay bung hole wrote,

HOW THE FUCK IS LINCOLN WRONG?........it was a civil war!........fuckin' proven coward dumbass liberal..........

I didn't say Lincoln was right or wrong.

I said Lincoln's opinions did not determine the constitutionality of West Virgina rejoining the Union. Read all of the posts above imbecile.

Looks like you can't read either, fuckin' proven coward dumbass fascist who doesn't know what conservatism really means.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Then plagiarism it is, ExNYer!

BTW, where was the plagiarism?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Old-T, I was just giving TAE a taste of his own medicine. Of course there are some great Texans in Texas. In reality, shooting is too harsh. Perhaps a 500,000 V fence will do the trick (again, just kidding).

Sorry, I should have put the winking-eye in my post; I did take your post the way you intended it. As far as shooting, I do think that would be fine if a little judgement was applied. Maybe a quick skin color test.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I didn't say Lincoln was right or wrong.

I said Lincoln's opinions did not determine the constitutionality of West Virgina rejoining the Union. Read all of the posts above imbecile.

Looks like you can't either, fuckin' proven coward dumbass fascist who doesn't know what conservatism really means.

You should know by now that Choomshall and a few others don't have to apply logic to their posts. They selectively ignore, and selectively misquote--among other lies.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1051898665]
BTW, what part of "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress" was taken out of context?

All of it obviously. Can't you read?

Section IV, Section 3, apples to to a "state". Virginia had declared itself no longer state. It claimed to be part of another county - the Confederacy. So, if that's true, how is it any different than the province of Ontario in Canada? Why should they be able to invoke Article 4, Section 3?

Do you NOT get that? I've written that like 9 times.

Now scurry off and find a legal scholar that thinks you're right.

Better yet, come back with a response that explains why Virginia still WOULD be a state after it seceded. Can you do that? is there a Confederate website that explains that?

Show where Virginia ceased to be a "state"! Show where -- in any other matter -- Lincoln dealt with Virginia as anything other than a state! Produce a document showing where the U.S. Congress declared war on Virginia or the Confederate States of America recognizing either as a separate nation!

It remains "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." The process by which West Virginia was admitted as a separate state was a unconstitutional fraud.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by ChoomCzar;1051898759 [I

Editorial note: Chomshall still gets his own name wrong 5 times out of six but I have been asked to play along with his delusion.[/I]]YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE WORST LIBERAL CRIME....HYPOCRISY!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


The false liberal sense of moral superiority goes, "I voted for the negro, I am good because I voted for the negro, look how good I am!"

Racial politics is about voting for people based upon their race rather than the content of their character......it's non-racist and patriotic to oppose Bath House Barry......

I do not recall you standing in line behind me as I voted? Did I say who I voted for? No. I can tell you very emphaticly I did not vote for Obama based upon his being black, and I did not vote for Romney based upon his being white.

Since your stupid commenthas been shown to be yet another Marshall lie, along with your false claim that I am a liberal at all (Marshall lie #2), let us return to the claim that is based upon what the posters wrote--not what idiocy is running around in your distorted head. Austinescorts and Wacky Waco have repeatedly made racist comments, so I can safely conclude they are indeed racist. In your case I stongly suspect you are, but all I know for sure is you are an lieing moronic troll. I can't prove the racist part.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

I don't think Texas as an independent country would have to worry about illegal immigrants. I don't think anyone would want to leave a third world country to live in another third world country. But I do agree that the U.S. should shoot dead every Texan trying to illegally immigrate into the U.S. Was that racist? I don't know but your rant sure sounded racist.

Playing the race card isn't going to work here, and I have no control over your misperceptions of what I write.

It used to be that the chief function of Texas state law enforcement was to protect the border with Mexico because of the constant and never-ending criminal banditry which eminated from there.

Today the drug cartels and other criminal gangs in league with the Mexican government are a greater menace to the United States than "al-Qaeda" or any other such crap from the Middle East.

I have worked with many hard-working Mexican nationals in this country -- all women -- who work very hard as domestic workers, factory workers, hotel staff, etc., and I have nothing but admiration for them.

But the men I've encountered from Mexico are completely the opposite and are worse than useless --- they are to a "man" criminal and dishonest.

Maybe this is why most of the US companies with factories in Mexico hire only women.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I do not have to defend ANYTHING about Lincoln.



And your history is beyond twisted. John Wilkes Booth did not care about the North or Northerners or what Lincoln did to them. He was sociopath who thought he was some kind of glorified knight avenging the South's honor. And he was too cowardly to actually join the Confederate Army and any actual fighting during the war, I might add. He did actually like to confront people who could shoot back at him. He preferred to sneak up behind them and shoot them in the back of the head.

Now that's the most wacked thing I've ever heard.

There's absolutely nothing to indicate Wilks was a "sociopath," and that you would make such an absurd exaggeration reflects a deep bias against the South.

Booth yelled, "death to the tyrants" because he and millions of others deeply resented that Lincoln had made himself a dictator by throwing in jail anyone who criticized him or challenge him in court.

Booth, like everyone else in Maryland, was against Lincoln for particular reasons pertaining to Maryland. When Lincoln saw the Maryland legislature was going to vote against him he illegally dissolved it, declared marshall law there, occupied it with Federal troops, and imprisoned anyone who spoke out against his tryannical actions.

Booth was a bold and dedicated patriot who had the courage to do what most others feared - to risk sacrifcing his very life to strike a blow at the one person who singularly had brought more suffering to America than any other living being, as well as having destroyed its way of government in the false name of "saving the republic."

At least Wilks had the use of his hands so he could use a pistol to shoot Lincoln. Many conscientious objectors like the Quakers had their hands tied to their prison bars so tightly and for days that they lost the use of their hands and were never able to make a living again. So much for "Lincoln Unites Us All....."

Oh and another thing....

I like it that Lincoln's "cause" was so sacred that he left it open for anyone with $300 could save their lives from his grissly combat by paying $300 in lieu of being drafted. Without that way out for the rich of the north there would have been such an outcry from the wealthy against the war that they surely would have killed Lincoln long before Wilks had his chance.

That war was fought by the north only by a few zealous volunteers and colossal hoards of poor young people who couldn't buy their way out to save themselves from death or amputation.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Show where Virginia ceased to be a "state"!

So, in other words, you cannot explain, or reference anything that tries to explain, why Virginia is still a state AFTER it secedes. I take it you've got nothing. Did you run out of Confederate sympathizer websites?

And, realizing you've got nothing, you then try to shift the burden back to me by demanding that I show where Virgina ceased to be a state.

Very well, you asked for it. Here it is. In fact, I'll give you the Ordinances of Secession for ALL the Confederate states:

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

I particularly enjoyed the part of the Virginia Ordinance of Secession that says:

"...whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State."

How about you? Did you enjoy that part? Kind of settles the issue about whether or not Article IV, Section 3 applies if the Constitution is repealed, abrogated and dissolved, along with Virginia's ties to the USA. Right?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Show where -- in any other matter -- Lincoln dealt with Virginia as anything other than a state! Produce a document showing where the U.S. Congress declared war on Virginia or the Confederate States of America recognizing either as a separate nation!

It remains "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." The process by which West Virginia was admitted as a separate state was a unconstitutional fraud.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Show where -- in any other matter -- Lincoln dealt with Virginia as anything other than a state!

How about when he invaded them? Presidents can't do that to real states.

And how Lincoln "dealt with" Virginia or what he "thought about" Virgina does NOT determine constitutionality. (Although you keep trying) A Supreme Court ruling saying WVa rejoining the US was unconstitutional would. Have you got one of those? No? too bad.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It remains "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." The process by which West Virginia was admitted as a separate state was a unconstitutional fraud.

It remains that you've got nothing.

Except Lincoln hatred and nostalgia for a slavery-based mistake of history.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

BTW, where was the plagiarism?

You're the one who said you'd take "plagiarism" over "improperly cited". But, on second look, you did in fact preface that the snippet as taken from Wiki.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=89

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're the one who said you'd take "plagiarism" over "improperly cited". But, on second look, you did in fact preface that the snippet as taken from Wiki.

Thank you for not continuing to argue a bad point for once.

Arguing with you is like herding cats.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, in other words, you cannot explain, or reference anything that tries to explain, why Virginia is still a state AFTER it secedes. I take it you've got nothing. Did you run out of Confederate sympathizer websites? The wiki site you cited was all that was needed to rebut your position, ExNYer. BTW, since when did wiki become a “Confederate site”?.

And, realizing you've got nothing, you then try to shift the burden back to me by demanding that I show where Virgina ceased to be a state.

Very well, you asked for it. Here it is. In fact, I'll give you the Ordinances of Secession for ALL the Confederate states:

http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

I particularly enjoyed the part of the Virginia Ordinance of Secession that says:

"...whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State."

How about you? Did you enjoy that part? Kind of settles the issue about whether or not Article IV, Section 3 applies if the Constitution is repealed, abrogated and dissolved, along with Virginia's ties to the USA. Right? Notice how the Virginia claimed it was still a "state", ExNYer. Still waiting for you to show where Virginia ceased to be a “state”, ExNYer.

How about when he invaded them? Presidents can't do that to real states. Lincoln did it! Read your history books, ExNYer.

And how Lincoln "dealt with" Virginia or what he "thought about" Virgina does NOT determine constitutionality. (Although you keep trying) A Supreme Court ruling saying WVa rejoining the US was unconstitutional would. Have you got one of those? No? too bad. You are wrong, ExNYer, and you don’t have a Supreme Court ruling claiming it was constitutional!

You need to read your history, ExNYer. Lincoln acted without congressional input following the events at Ft Sumter, and there was never a declaration of war from Congress: so it was all about how Lincoln "dealt with and "thought about" Virginia, et al. Furthermore, “The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878 [after the Civil War and because of Reconstruction], after the end of Radical Reconstruction. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

It remains that you've got nothing. You're the one without a leg to stand on, ExNYer. You haven't been able to authoritatively substantiate a single one of your erroneous claims.

Except Lincoln hatred and nostalgia for a slavery-based mistake of history.

Yet another of your very ignorant assumptions, ExNYer!

,

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Now that's the most wacked thing I've ever heard.

You didn't hear it, you read it.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

There's absolutely nothing to indicate Wilks was a "sociopath," ...

You must mean other than the fact that he murdered the President because he ended slavery. And he killed him after the war was over in order to reignite it. Like, there weren't enough dead already.

Boothe was vehemently opposed to abolition and Lincoln proposal to allow the freed slaves to vote. That was his motivation.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

... and that you would make such an absurd exaggeration reflects a deep bias against the South.

it wasn't absurd or even an exaggeration.

And, yes, I am biased against the South. As anyone with an IQ above room temperature should be.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Booth yelled, "death to the tyrants" because he and millions of others deeply resented that Lincoln had made himself a dictator by throwing in jail anyone who criticized him or challenge him in court.

Booth hated Lincoln because he hated abolition and anyone who dared free the slaves. And that was BEFORE the war even started.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Booth, like everyone else in Maryland, was against Lincoln for particular reasons pertaining to Maryland. When Lincoln saw the Maryland legislature was going to vote against him he illegally dissolved it, declared marshall law there, occupied it with Federal troops, and imprisoned anyone who spoke out against his tryannical actions.

Booth was a bold and dedicated patriot who had the courage to do what most others feared - to risk sacrifcing his very life to strike a blow at the one person who singularly had brought more suffering to America than any other living being, as well as having destroyed its way of government in the false name of "saving the republic."

Booth was neither bold nor dedicated, nor courageous.

He spent the entire Civil War in the North acting in plays in NY, Chicago, Boston and Pennsylvania, while better men than him put on gray uniforms and faced Union gunners. He shot the President from behind, jumped off the balcony, and ran as fast as his broken leg would take him. He didn't stick around to face the consequences of his action.

He was a nancy boy actor who lacked the courage of his convictions.

And he wasn't against Lincoln for reasons pertaining to Maryland only. He was a violently opposed to freeing the slaves, no matter what state they were held in.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I like it that Lincoln's "cause" was so sacred that he left it open for anyone with $300 could save their lives from his grissly combat by paying $300 in lieu of being drafted. Without that way out for the rich of the north there would have been such an outcry from the wealthy against the war that they surely would have killed Lincoln long before Wilks had his chance.

The North needed the money for weapons more than they needed the men. They did what they had to to win the war. Good for them.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

That war was fought by the north only by a few zealous volunteers and colossal hoards of poor young people who couldn't buy their way out to save themselves from death or amputation.

So, I guess the strategy worked then?

[Guest032516]

IB wrote:

"Notice how the Virginia claimed it was still a "state", ExNYer. Still waiting for you to show where Virginia ceased to be a “state”, ExNYer."

You just read it, but apparently didn't comprehend it.

In the Ordinance of Secession, Virginia declared itself no longer part of the USA and NOT subject to the Constitution. Got that?

It may have declared itself a "free and independent state". But that's NOT a state in the Union and that declaration is not binding on the Union in any event. The Constitution only encompasses and protects states in the Union. Not in the Confederacy, or Mexico, or anywhere else. Virginia can't have it both ways. And neither can you.

IB wrote:

"You are wrong, ExNYer, and you don’t have a Supreme Court ruling claiming it was constitutional!:

I don't need one. Acts of Congress are presumed to be constitutional unless they are ruled unconstitutional by a court. That is the way the law works. Otherwise, we would have chaos because Congress would have to contest every law in court to get a declaration that it was constitutional. But nice try. The burden remains with you to produce a Supreme Ct. ruling that held it was unconstitutional.

IB wrote:

"You haven't been able to authoritatively substantiate a single one of your erroneous claims."

I have substantiated many claims above, particularly the part about Virginia ceasing to be a state once it seceded. But you just pretend you didn't see it or just change the subject.

And what exactly have you substantiated, authoritatively or otherwise?

You couldn't even substantiate plagiarism after throwing out the accusation.

[Doove]

I haven't read 5 posts in this entire thread, but allow me to help.

Guys, IB Hankering has himself convinced that he who gets in the last post wins.

Logic doesn't matter. He'll just keep posting and saying the same thing over and over and over again, until you just give up.

So you might as well save yourself the trouble and just give up now.