Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 406
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
Starscream66 285
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 273
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70869
biomed164180
Yssup Rider61765
gman4453562
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48943
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37760
CryptKicker37276
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-13-2012, 02:09 PM   #151
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
It's just another sub-plot in a thread that is so typical of Sandbox threads.
Thank you. Just checking.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:00 PM   #152
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
FACT: You didn't "cite" the article at all! You just posted text from the article; that's "improper citation" or "plagiarism": your choice.
I'll take plagiarism for $200, Alex.

As you so often do in threads, you've thrown a pile of shit at the wall to see what sticks. When nothing does, you simply double down on wrong arguments, change the subject, or throw more shit at the wall.

You've cited a section of the constitution out of context to try and say WVa rejoined in an unconstitutional manner. As I've posted above,
t
he "explicitly stated process" outlined in Art IV, Sec 3 protects a "state" from being carved up by other states or the Federal Government. That it the only thing it proscribes. That's a "state" got it? A member of the Union. Words have meaning.

When Virginia seceded, it was no longer a state (even if bad man Lincoln thought it was!). It was then part of another country. Just like Texas was once part of Mexico. Then, 39 counties in the western part of VA broke away to rejoin the Union. At that point, VA could not turn to the protections of Article IV, Section 3 because VA was NOT a state - by its own declaration. Just like Mexico could not invoke Article IV to get back Texas or California. As I said before, Confederates cannot have it both ways.

So no, West Virginia did not rejoin the Union in an unconstitutional manner.
Article IV, Section 3 doesn't apply and never will.

And, by the way, the western counties of VA rebelled against secession even BEFORE Union troops moved in.

I also asked you to cite a constitutional scholar that agreed that WVa improperly rejoined the Union, rather than an historian who does not know the law. And what do you do? You come back with another historian!

So, y
ou keep citing historians instead of legal scholars. That's "stubbornness" or "poor reading comprehension": your choice.

But, I'll take it that you cannot find a reputable legal scholar to back up your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
Furthermore, the Supreme Court was complicit in that the Radical Republicans pointedly denied President Johnson three appointments; thus, Congress had stacked the justices against Virginia.

A perfect example of inability to read or mulish stubbornness.

How can the Court be "complicit" in something legal? Especially if the Court can't control it. That's like saying they engaged in a conspiracy to eat dinner.The Congress is permitted to reduce the size of the Supreme Court. And they did.

And Congress didn't even stack the justices. They were already on the court. Congress can't even nominate justices. The President does that. Congress can only vote on the ones the President nominates. Congress simply prevented Johnson from nominating new ones to replace old ones.

Smart tactics, but nothing wrong with it. It is about POWER and Congress had it.

Confederate sympathizers may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. That just makes it extra enjoyable.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:10 PM   #153
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNYer View Post

I'll take plagiarism for $200, Alex.

As you so often do in threads, you've thrown a pile of shit at the wall to see what sticks. When nothing does, you simply double down on wrong arguments, change the subject, or throw more shit at the wall.

You've cited a section of the constitution out of context to try and say WVa rejoined in an unconstitutional manner. As I've posted above,
t
he "explicitly stated process" outlined in Art IV, Sec 3 protects a "state" from being carved up by other states or the Federal Government. That it the only thing it proscribes. That's a "state" got it? A member of the Union. Words have meaning.

When Virginia seceded, it was no longer a state (even if bad man Lincoln thought it was!). It was then part of another country. Just like Texas was once part of Mexico. Then, 39 counties in the western part of VA broke away to rejoin the Union. At that point, VA could not turn to the protections of Article IV, Section 3 because VA was NOT a state - by its own declaration. Just like Mexico could not invoke Article IV to get back Texas or California. As I said before, Confederates cannot have it both ways.

So no, West Virginia did not rejoin the Union in an unconstitutional manner.
Article IV, Section 3 doesn't apply and never will.

And, by the way, the western counties of VA rebelled against secession even BEFORE Union troops moved in.

I also asked you to cite a constitutional scholar that agreed that WVa improperly rejoined the Union, rather than an historian who does not know the law. And what do you do? You come back with another historian!

So, y
ou keep citing historians instead of legal scholars. That's "stubbornness" or "poor reading comprehension": your choice.

But, I'll take it that you cannot find a reputable legal scholar to back up your point.


A perfect example of inability to read or mulish stubbornness.

How can the Court be "complicit" in something legal? Especially if the Court can't control it. That's like saying they engaged in a conspiracy to eat dinner.The Congress is permitted to reduce the size of the Supreme Court. And they did.

And Congress didn't even stack the justices. They were already on the court. Congress can't even nominate justices. The President does that. Congress can only vote on the ones the President nominates. Congress simply prevented Johnson from nominating new ones to replace old ones.

Smart tactics, but nothing wrong with it. It is about POWER and Congress had it.

Confederate sympathizers may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. That just makes it extra enjoyable.
Then plagiarism it is, ExNYer!

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?

Scurry, scurry, scurry, ExNYer, sooner or later you'll find a hole to hide in.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:14 PM   #154
Old-T
Valued Poster
 
Old-T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2010
Location: From hotel to hotel
Posts: 9,058
Encounters: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icuminpeace View Post
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.
I think that is too harsh, I happen to know a number of Texans who are really good people. Sonya Playmate in San Antonio comes quickly to mind for one. There are even some who are not providers.

But was his post racist? Of course it was--because he is. He's right up there (or down there) with Wacky Waco.
Old-T is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:14 PM   #155
ChoomCzar
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 20, 2012
Location: There
Posts: 761
Default

The pussy said, "When Virginia seceded, it was no longer a state (even if bad man Lincoln thought it was!)."



HOW THE FUCK IS LINCOLN WRONG?........it was a civil war!........fuckin' proven coward dumbass liberal..........
ChoomCzar is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:17 PM   #156
markroxny
Valued Poster
 
markroxny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 4, 2012
Location: Harlem
Posts: 1,614
Encounters: 3
Default

Ok, so the argument here is that W VA is not legally a state? Is that what you guys are trying to prove to us?

Um...then what is it?
markroxny is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:21 PM   #157
ChoomCzar
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 20, 2012
Location: There
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-farT View Post
But was his post racist? Of course it was--because he is. He's right up there (or down there) with Wacky Waco.

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......
ChoomCzar is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:24 PM   #158
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markroxny View Post
Ok, so the argument here is that W VA is not legally a state? Is that what you guys are trying to prove to us?

Um...then what is it?
Marks-rocks-with-pee, you've just put yourself in the same category with Ekim the Inbred: an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:26 PM   #159
markroxny
Valued Poster
 
markroxny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 4, 2012
Location: Harlem
Posts: 1,614
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
Marks-rocks-with-pee, you've just put yourself in the same category with Ekim the Inbred: an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.
I'm sorry was that an answer to the question?
markroxny is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:28 PM   #160
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markroxny View Post
I'm sorry
There was never any doubt about that!
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:31 PM   #161
markroxny
Valued Poster
 
markroxny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 4, 2012
Location: Harlem
Posts: 1,614
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
I'm stupid and I just like to argue and say the same thing over and over as a way of getting attention
I know IB. It's ok.
markroxny is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:46 PM   #162
icuminpeace
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 29, 2012
Location: Austin
Posts: 874
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T View Post
I think that is too harsh, I happen to know a number of Texans who are really good people. Sonya Playmate in San Antonio comes quickly to mind for one. There are even some who are not providers.

But was his post racist? Of course it was--because he is. He's right up there (or down there) with Wacky Waco.
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).
icuminpeace is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 04:03 PM   #163
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markroxny View Post
I'm stupid
That's obvious, marks-rocks-with-pee. That is why it has been necessary to repeat the simplest, most obvious facts in order to help facilitate your understanding.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 04:08 PM   #164
markroxny
Valued Poster
 
markroxny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 4, 2012
Location: Harlem
Posts: 1,614
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
I don't know what I'd do with myself If i couldn't find things to argue about.
I noticed.
markroxny is offline   Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 04:17 PM   #165
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

[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?[/QUOTE]

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?
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved