Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

It is a simple question. Since you missed it, I'll ask it again.

"Just answer the damn question: YOU accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! You may well be correct (but I doubt it). The point is, until you clarify your statement we can't intelligently discuss it, can we? So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood? Speak up with SPECIFICS, of shut the hell up and be labled an assinine, bloated, ignorant, lieing, blowhard forever!"

have a great day you slanderous bastard! :mf_laughbounc e:

Unfortunately your post does not adress it at all. Not that I'm shocked. You are 0 for 1 and counting. Last time we got you up to about 0 for 24 before I lost interest. Let's see how many posts you can make and not answer the question. I'm guessing the over/under is about 12.


Pretty map! Want to tell me where on there my ancestors were in 1865? That might help you answer the question you were asked, but I doubt it.

Until proven otherwise, you have YET AGAIN demonstrated IBH is a sniveling, assinine, bloated, ignorant, lieing, blowhard. All you have to do is answer my simple question--back up your slander, and prove me wrong--and I will retract all those words. But pretty maps and other non-related hate talk from you doesn't work.

Sorry! :mf_laughbounc e:

Old-goaT is a pretentious, ignorant fuck that wants to insinuate and slander, but then he cries like a little girl when the same is done to him.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Old-goaT is a pretentious, ignorant fuck that wants to insinuate and slander, but then he cries like a little girl when the same is done to him.

Now you're just reduced to name calling.

I guess you got tired of googling and cutting and pasting.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Now you're just reduced to name calling.

I guess you got tired of googling and cutting and pasting.

You've posted a very lame-ass, hypocritical remark, ExNYer, considering you, Assup and Old-goaT have been doing the same. You're a pretentious prick, ExNYer. BTW, the articles cited devastate your weak-ass POV, ExNYer. Deal with it, bitch!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You've posted a very lame-ass, hypocritical remark, ExNYer, considering you, Assup and Old-goaT have been doing the same. BTW, the articles cited devastate your weak-ass POV, ExNYer. Deal with it, bitch!

You forgot to say "pretentious".

That TOTALLY destroys ALL your arguments. Wow, I won!

Does that sound familiar?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You forgot to say "pretentious".

That TOTALLY destroys ALL your arguments. Wow, I won!

Does that sound familiar?

Fixed that for you, you pretentious prick. Buy a serious book and read it; maybe next time you might fare better, you pretentious prick.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Fixed that for you, you pretentious prick. Buy a serious book and read it; maybe next time you might fare better, you pretentious prick.

Cut and paste some better articles. Maybe someday, you might win an argument.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Cut and paste some better articles. Maybe someday, you might win an argument.

Many of the "articles" provided were excerpts from "books" written by "learned men", such as "constitutional historian" James G. Randall and lawyer and judge, the Attorney General Edward Bates, unlike you who cited a wiki article -- a wiki article that directly contravened your POV, you pretentious prick. Own your failure, bitch!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Many of the "articles" provided were excerpts from "books" written by "learned men", such as "constitutional historian" James G. Randall and lawyer and judge, the Attorney General Edward Bates, unlike you who cited a wiki article -- a wiki article that directly contravened your POV, you pretentious prick. Own your failure, bitch!

You cited the same article. Repeatedly.

And the article cited Randall and McPherson, the same guys you claim are authorities. What's your point?

And what qualifies Bates as a constitutional authority? He was a political appointee, the same as Eric Holder and Janet Reno and John Ashcroft. There are LOTS of lawyers and/or judges and very few ever qualify as constitutional authorities, including the ones who are appointed AG.

In fact, in every Supreme Court case, half of the lawyers involved are wrong about what the law and/or Constitution says. Fact.

[CuteOldGuy]

And in fact, the Supreme Court is often wrong about what the law and/or Constitution says.

Just my $0.02. You may know return to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You cited the same article. Repeatedly.

And the article cited Randall and McPherson, the same guys you claim are authorities. What's your point?

And what qualifies Bates as a constitutional authority? He was a political appointee, the same as Eric Holder and Janet Reno and John Ashcroft. There are LOTS of lawyers and/or judges and very few ever qualify as constitutional authorities, including the ones who are appointed AG.

In fact, in every Supreme Court case, half of the lawyers involved are wrong about what the law and/or Constitution says. Fact.

Attorney General Bates' constitutional expertise was equal to or surpassed that of any other Supreme Court justice appointed during that era. Had Bates been more supportive of Lincoln’s policies, he would have been Lincoln’s nomination for Chief Justice. So your argument against Bates “expertise” is bogus. AG Bates discerned and told Lincoln the action was unconstitutional before it was taken.

James G. Randall was/is considered a preeminent constitutional scholar who argued the action was both unconstitutional and unnecessary (Randall argued the 37th Congress had already recognized and seated five congressmen from VIRGINIA -- NOT West Virginia; hence, there was no justification for splitting the state of Virginia to create and recognize TWO SEPARATE congressional delegations from Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37th_Un...tates_Congress).

James McPherson is a preeminent historian whose research documented the civil rights violations perpetrated by the Union Army, and he further resolved that without those civil rights violations, the state of West Virginia would not have garnered the requisite number of votes to support the referendum: "without the presence of victorious Northern troops, the state of west Virginia could not have been born" (299); thus, the act was unconstitutional. Admitting West Virginia violated Art IV Sec 3 of the Constitution: admitting West Virginia as a separate state created from land belonging to Virginia was unconstitutional.

BTW, the "facts" are the "facts". There's no need to post anything else.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Attorney General Bates' constitutional expertise was equal to or surpassed that of any other Supreme Court justice appointed during that era. Had Bates been more supportive of Lincoln’s policies, he would have been Lincoln’s nomination for Chief Justice. So your argument against Bates “expertise” is bogus. AG Bates discerned and told Lincoln the action was unconstitutional before it was taken.

Can you cite anything at all that says he was a great constitutional scholar? Or is that just your opinion because he coincides with you on WVa?

A quick perusal of his Wiki bio indicates a rather mundane political career. Although trained as a lawyer, it appears he spent most of his time in politics - Missouri state legislature and one term in Congress), not so much time practicing law. He ran for President against Lincoln in 1860 and lost. It appears the only reason he got to be AG in the first place was that Lincoln was famous for asking his adversaries to work for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bates

So, just how does he qualify as a constitutional expert?

In one of your rants against Lincoln, you pointed out that his "illegal" arrests of civilians made him a tyrant. Interestingly enough, one of Lincoln's defenders who said that Lincoln HAD the right to make mass arrests of civilians was none other than your constitutional expert, Edward Bates:

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/...83&subjectID=2

Here is a key quote:
-------------------------------------------------
"One of the issues which Bates had to handle for President Lincoln was the issue of military arrests of civilians. According to historian Allan Nevins: "By 1862 the lengthening roll of prisoners, the irritation of the public and Congress, and the demands of military leaders, made it imperative for Attorney-General Bates to take some action. General Buell laid the problem squarely before him. Bates in reply tried to draw a law between judicial arrest on one side, and political or military arrests on the other, saying the judicial cases must go to the civil courts, but the others were subject to the 'somewhat broad, and yet undefined, discretion of the President, as political chief of the nation' and commander in chief. The Attorney-General wisely decided that the Department of Justice had no powers in connections with prisoners held on political or military grounds, for it could deal only with offenses against clear Federal statutes."
-------------------------------------------

So if Bates said mass arrests of secessionists was lawful, do you now change your opinion of Lincoln? Is Bates still a constitutional expert?

Here's another fun quote from the same article:
--------------------------------------------------
"His tenure as Attorney General was notable for the inconsistency of his legal judgements."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. That's a ringing endorsement.

It appears he barely lasted in Lincoln's cabinet. He spent a lot of time second-guessing Lincoln's policy decisions before quitting in frustration. And it seem more like he had zero chance of getting on the Supreme Court, even though he campaigned to get it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Chief Justice Roger Taney died in October 1864, Bates "looked upon the office as suitable reward for his devotion and service. In the letter in which he informed Lincoln officially of the death of Taney, Bates stated his claims. He said to Lincoln that he wished to 'recall to your memory...our former conversations in regard to a vacancy on the Supreme bench...I could not desire to close my public life more honorably, than by a brief term of service in that eminent position," noted historian David M. Silver. "Bates's request is remarkable because of a proviso which he included: he suggested to Lincoln that he had no desire to occupy the Chief Justiceship more than two or three years 'and so it would still be within your disposal during your second term. In fact I desire it chiefly—almost wholly—as the crowning, retiring honor of my life." Bates resigned on November 24, 1864, however, before President Lincoln could appoint Salmon P. Chase as the Supreme Court's Chief Justice. Helen Nicolay wrote: “The Attorney General, who had cherished hopes of becoming Chief Justice himself, was a good loser and bore the disappointment as a gallant gentleman should.
------------------------------------------------------------
He thought he should be a Supreme as a reward for his career in politics. He even offered to resign after 2 or 3 years so Lincoln could appoint his replacement. And still didn't get it.

Who - other than Bates himself - thought he should be on the Supreme Court, let alone Chief Justice? Is that the considered opinion of Confederate sympathizers?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

James G. Randall was/is considered a preeminent constitutional scholar who argued the action was both unconstitutional and unnecessary (Randall argued the 37th Congress had already recognized and seated

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

five congressmen from VIRGINIA -- NOT West Virginia; hence, there was no justification for splitting the state of Virginia to create and recognize TWO SEPARATE congressional delegations from Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37th_Un...tates_Congress).

James McPherson is a preeminent historian whose research documented the civil rights violations perpetrated by the Union Army, and he further resolved that without those civil rights violations, the state of West Virginia would not have garnered the requisite number of votes to support the referendum "without the presence of victorious Northern troops, the state of west Virginia could not have been born" (299); thus, the act was unconstitutional. Admitting West Virginia violated Art IV Sec 3 of the Constitution: admitting West Virginia as a separate state was unconstitutional.

BTW, the "facts" are the "facts". There's no need to post anything else.

You can state all the opinions for Southern sympathizers you want and call them "facts".

The only actual FACT is Virginia vs. West Virginia, which was tried before the US Supreme Court. And Virginia LOST.

[Old-T]

I came home and saw IBH had another post. I thought, "Maybe he answered my question!" OK boys and girls, let's see!

The question:

"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"

I'm tingling with anticipation! Let's see what IBH answered!:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Old-goaT is a pretentious, ignorant fuck that wants to insinuate and slander, but then he cries like a little girl when the same is done to him.

Oh! I'm very sorry little boy! Your answer doesn't go with the question. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with the question. Class, don't snicker at little IBH. Some people just have a little more trouble learning how to read. He might get there one day.

Butt for now IBH, we have to give that answer a zero. Than means you are 0 for 2. But keep trying! :tramp oline:

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I came home and saw IBH had another post. I thought, "Maybe he answered my question!" OK boys and girls, let's see!

The question:

"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"

I'm tingling with anticipation! Let's see what IBH answered!:



Oh! I'm very sorry little boy! Your answer doesn't go with the question. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with the question. Class, don't snicker at little IBH. Some people just have a little more trouble learning how to read. He might get there one day.

Butt for now IBH, we have to give that answer a zero. Than means you are 0 for 2. But keep trying! :tramp oline:

Old-goaT is a pretentious, ignorant fuck that wants to insinuate and slander others, but then he cries like a little school girl when the same is done to him.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Can you cite anything at all that says he was a great constitutional scholar? Or is that just your opinion because he coincides with you on WVa?

A quick perusal of his Wiki bio indicates a rather mundane political career. Although trained as a lawyer, it appears he spent most of his time in politics - Missouri state legislature and one term in Congress), not so much time practicing law. He ran for President against Lincoln in 1860 and lost. It appears the only reason he got to be AG in the first place was that Lincoln was famous for asking his adversaries to work for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bates

So, just how does he qualify as a constitutional expert?

In one of your rants against Lincoln, you pointed out that his "illegal" arrests of civilians made him a tyrant. Interestingly enough, one of Lincoln's defenders who said that Lincoln HAD the right to make mass arrests of civilians was none other than your constitutional expert, Edward Bates:

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/...83&subjectID=2

Here is a key quote:
-------------------------------------------------
"One of the issues which Bates had to handle for President Lincoln was the issue of military arrests of civilians. According to historian Allan Nevins: "By 1862 the lengthening roll of prisoners, the irritation of the public and Congress, and the demands of military leaders, made it imperative for Attorney-General Bates to take some action. General Buell laid the problem squarely before him. Bates in reply tried to draw a law between judicial arrest on one side, and political or military arrests on the other, saying the judicial cases must go to the civil courts, but the others were subject to the 'somewhat broad, and yet undefined, discretion of the President, as political chief of the nation' and commander in chief. The Attorney-General wisely decided that the Department of Justice had no powers in connections with prisoners held on political or military grounds, for it could deal only with offenses against clear Federal statutes."
-------------------------------------------

So if Bates said mass arrests of secessionists was lawful, do you now change your opinion of Lincoln? Is Bates still a constitutional expert?

Here's another fun quote from the same article:
--------------------------------------------------
"His tenure as Attorney General was notable for the inconsistency of his legal judgements."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. That's a ringing endorsement.

It appears he barely lasted in Lincoln's cabinet. He spent a lot of time second-guessing Lincoln's policy decisions before quitting in frustration. And it seem more like he had zero chance of getting on the Supreme Court, even though he campaigned to get it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Chief Justice Roger Taney died in October 1864, Bates "looked upon the office as suitable reward for his devotion and service. In the letter in which he informed Lincoln officially of the death of Taney, Bates stated his claims. He said to Lincoln that he wished to 'recall to your memory...our former conversations in regard to a vacancy on the Supreme bench...I could not desire to close my public life more honorably, than by a brief term of service in that eminent position," noted historian David M. Silver. "Bates's request is remarkable because of a proviso which he included: he suggested to Lincoln that he had no desire to occupy the Chief Justiceship more than two or three years 'and so it would still be within your disposal during your second term. In fact I desire it chiefly—almost wholly—as the crowning, retiring honor of my life." Bates resigned on November 24, 1864, however, before President Lincoln could appoint Salmon P. Chase as the Supreme Court's Chief Justice. Helen Nicolay wrote: “The Attorney General, who had cherished hopes of becoming Chief Justice himself, was a good loser and bore the disappointment as a gallant gentleman should.
------------------------------------------------------------
He thought he should be a Supreme as a reward for his career in politics. He even offered to resign after 2 or 3 years so Lincoln could appoint his replacement. And still didn't get it.

Who - other than Bates himself - thought he should be on the Supreme Court, let alone Chief Justice? Is that the considered opinion of Confederate sympathizers?


You can state all the opinions for Southern sympathizers you want and call them "facts".

The only actual FACT is Virginia vs. West Virginia, which was tried before the US Supreme Court. And Virginia LOST.

No need to cite a damn thing! Attorney General Bate's credentials were solid enough that Lincoln picked him to be his Attorney General. Attorney General Bates' constitutional expertise was equal to or surpassed that of any other Supreme Court justice appointed during that era (*compare with the list below -- one of whom wasn't even a lawyer, jackass). So your argument against Bates' “expertise” remains as bogus now as when it first dribbled out of your ignorant mouth. AG Bates discerned and told Lincoln the action was unconstitutional before it was taken.

Edward Bates
Twenty-Sixth Attorney General 1861-1864
Edward Bates was born in Belmont, Virginia, on September 4, 1793. He received his education at Charlotte Hall Academy, in St. Mary’s, Maryland, and from a private tutor. From February until October 1813 he served in the Virginia Militia at Norfolk. Bates emigrated to the Territory of Missouri in 1814 and soon entered the practice of law. In 1818 he was prosecuting attorney for the St. Louis circuit and in 1820 was elected delegate to the State constitutional convention. Towards the close of the same year he was appointed State's attorney of the State of Missouri and held the office for two years. In 1822 he was elected to the State legislature, and in 1824 became State's attorney for the Missouri District. In 1826 he was elected Representative in Congress and served one term. Bates was in the state senate of Missouri in 1830 and 1834. In 1850 President Fillmore offered him the post of Secretary of War, which he declined. In 1853 he became judge of the St. Louis land court, presided over the Whig Convention in Baltimore in 1856, became prominent as an anti-slavery man, and in 1859 was considered for the Presidency. On March 5, 1861, Bates was appointed Attorney General of the United States by President Lincoln. He resigned in 1864, and returned to St. Louis, Missouri, where he died on March 25, 1869.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/aghistpage.php?id=25

*SC Justices
James M. Wayne · Samuel Nelson · Robert C. Grier Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne · Samuel F. Miller · David Davis · Stephen J. Field

BTW, check the map, you pretentious jackass. Missouri, Illinois and Washington D.C. aligned with the North during the Civil War. The fact that you reject him because he was from Missouri says much more about you than him, you pretentious jackass.




"James G. Randall (1881 – 1953) was an American historian, specializing on Abraham Lincoln and the era of the American Civil War. He taught at the University of Illinois, (1920–1950), where David Herbert Donald was one of his students and continued his traditions. Born in Indiana, he took a B.A. degree from Butler College (1903), and a Ph.D. in history at the University of Chicago (1912). Randall was known for his systematic, scientific methodology based on thorough study of primary sources, his mastery of constitutional issues, and his neutrality regarding North and South. His multi-volume biography of Abraham Lincoln remains a major resource for scholars . . . . His The Civil War and Reconstruction (1937) was for many years the most important history of the era."

Randall argued the action was both unconstitutional and unnecessary (Randall argued the 37th Congress had already recognized and seated five congressmen from VIRGINIA -- NOT West Virginia; hence, there was no justification for splitting the state of Virginia to create and recognize TWO SEPARATE congressional delegations from Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37th_Un...tates_Congress). Check the map, you pretentious jackass. Indiana and Illinois aligned with the North during the Civil War.

"James M. McPherson (born October 11, 1936) is an American Civil War historian, and is the George Henry Davis '86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University in New Jersey. He received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book"(wiki) wherein his research documented the civil rights violations perpetrated by the Union Army, and he further resolved that without those civil rights violations, the state of West Virginia would not have garnered the requisite number of votes to support the referendum: "without the presence of victorious Northern troops, the state of west Virginia could not have been born" (299); thus, the act was unconstitutional. Admitting West Virginia violated Art IV Sec 3 of the Constitution: admitting West Virginia as a separate state created from land belonging to Virginia was unconstitutional. Check the map, you pretentious jackass. New Jersey and Minnesota aligned with the North during the Civil War.


BTW, the "facts" are the "facts". There's no need to post anything else.

Speaking of "facts, you pretentious jackass, recheck your wiki cite. It says:
"the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the West Virginia's creation" in Virginia vs. West Virginia or any other case: and that's a FACT!

One more fact, you pretentious fuck, that other bullshit allegation you made is also fallacious and preposterous!

[Old-T]

Class, as you all remember, the question is:

"YOU (IBH) accused MY family of having ancestral guilt, so now back that up with specifics! .... So tell me, what evil did my family support? What attrocity did they commit? What "ancestral guilt" do you know is in my blood?"

So who thinks IBH will get a passing grade this time? Oh, don't be afraid to raise your hands! SOMEONE must thinkk little IBH is able to learn. You'll hurt his feelings if no one has confidence in him.

Let's look:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Old-goaT is a pretentious, ignorant fuck that wants to insinuate and slander others, but then he cries like a little school girl when the same is done to him.

Oh, I'm sorry little IBH! This question had nothing to do with slandering other people, don't you see that? It has nothing to do with crying. It has to do with backing up a statement you made. Remember, you said someone had "ancestral guilt". I'm sure you remember that. And you were asked to substantiate that claim with specific facts. If you can't, that is called LIEING. You should look up that word.

Personally little boy, I don't usually insinuate. I generally come right out and say it kind of bluntly. Look at my statement above: "Speak up with SPECIFICS, of shut the hell up and be labled an assinine, bloated, ignorant, lieing, blowhard forever!"


Do you REALLY think that is insinuating anything? I don't. I think it's quite direct. Show of hands, class, how many of you think I am subtly insinuating anything here?

Sorry little boy, 0 for 3 and counting! HINT: if you cut and paste your same answer again, it probably won't do very well next time either. You may want to consider that since I am trying to help you here. It's so sad to see you flail so much at a very simple question. All you have to do is explain what was behind your own statement. You mean you can't explain your own words? Maybe ExNYer is right about you after all. :mf_laughbounc e:

PS: If you think your drivel is making me cry, then you are mistaking my hysterical laughing for crying. Until you answer my question you aren't worth crying. Sorry to burst your overly inflated sense of self.