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_Kid37762
CryptKicker37280
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-15-2012, 11:57 AM   #226
ChoomCzar
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 20, 2012
Location: There
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExMan View Post
As for you CumCzar, you win things only in your own mind. and apparently I win over you in your mind too! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I'm living rent free in your head! Where's your argument about Lincoln! LOL!You can pat yourself on the back all you like, you are still a pathetic, racist, homophobic little man. And always will be.

And there is zero point in responding to IB Hankering any more. As someone pointed out above, he keeps posting more and more unrelated shit or misquoted or irrelevant stuff until he wears you out. He thinks if he gets the last post he wins.

He cut and pasted an enormous quote from McPherson above that relies on diary notes from Lincoln's attorney general, but as usual he doesn't cite any legal scholars or case law. The one case on point, Virginia vs. W. VA went against him. MacPherson appears to be a Southern apologist, so I'm not surprised he's relying on diary entries and not a legal decision.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I asked him if he knew the difference between: 1) "tried before" (or "brought before") the Supreme Court and 2) the Supreme Court "not ruling" on the issue of constitutionality.

He responded that I was wrong because "tried before" and "brought before" mean the same thing. Which is true, but that was NOT what I asked him - notice where the 1) and the 2) are placed in the question. So apparently he cannot read.

The comparison was between 1) "tried before/brought before" the SCt on the one hand and 2) the SCt. "not ruling" on an issue on the other hand.

The Shelby Foote quote from above is another example. I remember Foote saying it in the Ken Burns PBS series "The Civil War" back in 1990.

It is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant to the issue of secession.

So, I'm not even going to address his enormous posts. I have wasted FAR too much time in this post. IB apparently doesn't have a demanding job. I do.

And IBHwill just go back to posting from more Southern sympathizers, not legal holdings, especially not
VA vs. WVa.


But here is a question to ponder. If something is unconstitutional, it is always unconstitutional. The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction Era are long gone. The Supreme Court can always reverse its earlier holdings (Brown v. Board of Ed.). So, what is to prevent Virginia from bringing suit TODAY for violation of Article IV, section 3, and demanding the return of West VA?

Perhaps because no one things it will work? Other than Confederate sympathizers, that is.

Yep, IBH destroyed you too! LOL!




ChoomCzar is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:29 PM   #227
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
As for you CumCzar, you win things only in your own mind. You can pat yourself on the back all you like, you are still a pathetic, racist, homophobic little man. And always will be.

And there is zero point in responding to IB Hankering any more. As someone pointed out above, he keeps posting more and more unrelated shit or misquoted or irrelevant stuff until he wears you out. He thinks if he gets the last post he wins.

He cut and pasted an enormous quote from McPherson above that relies on diary notes from Lincoln's attorney general, but as usual he doesn't cite any legal scholars or case law. The one case on point, Virginia vs. W. VA went against him. MacPherson appears to be a Southern apologist, so I'm not surprised he's relying on diary entries and not a legal decision.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I asked him if he knew the difference between: 1) "tried before" (or "brought before") the Supreme Court and 2) the Supreme Court "not ruling" on the issue of constitutionality.

He responded that I was wrong because "tried before" and "brought before" mean the same thing. Which is true, but that was NOT what I asked him - notice where the 1) and the 2) are placed in the question. So apparently he cannot read.

The comparison was between 1) "tried before/brought before" the SCt on the one hand and 2) the SCt. "not ruling" on an issue on the other hand.

The Shelby Foote quote from above is another example. I remember Foote saying it in the Ken Burns PBS series "The Civil War" back in 1990.

It is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant to the issue of secession.

So, I'm not even going to address his enormous posts. I have wasted FAR too much time in this post. IB apparently doesn't have a demanding job. I do.

And IBH will just go back to posting from more Southern sympathizers, not legal holdings, especially not
VA vs. WVa.

As the saying goes "
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

IBH definitely has the weight of experience working for him.

But here is a question to ponder. If something is unconstitutional, it is always unconstitutional. The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction Era are long gone. The Supreme Court can always reverse its earlier holdings (Brown v. Board of Ed.). So, what is to prevent Virginia from bringing suit TODAY for violation of Article IV, section 3, and demanding the return of West VA?

Perhaps because no one things it will work? Other than Confederate sympathizers, that is.
You're an ignorant and inveterate liar, ExNYer!!! Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates: both a lawyer and a judge and other men in Congress and in the Lincoln administration – all properly cited above (from J.G. Randall and the New York Times; not McPherson!) – determined and advised Lincoln that the process was unconstitutional BEFORE Lincoln acted on the matter. Those citations were neither misquoted nor irrelevant, but they sure as hell render your POV worthless!

Read lawyer, judge and Attorney General Bates' judgment again, you blathering ignoramus:


THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA.; Opinion of Attorney-General Bates. Hon. A.F. Ritchu. Virginia Convention, Wheeling:
Published: December 27, 1862


ATTORNEY-GENERAL's OFFICE, Aug. 12, 1861.

SIR: your letter of the 9th instant was received within this hour, and as you ask an immediate answer, you, of couse, will not expect me to go elaborately into the subject.

I have thought a great deal upon the question of dividing the State of Virginia into two States; and since I came here, as a member of the Government, I have conversed with a good many, and corresponded with some, of the good men of Western Virginia in regard to that matter. In all this intercourse, my constant and earnest effort has been to impress upon the minds of those gentlemen the vast importance -- not to say necessity -- In this terrible crisis of our National affairs, to abstain from the introduction of any new elements of revolution, to avoid, as far as possible, all new and original theories of Government; but, on the contrary, in all the insurgent Commonwealths to adhere, as closely as circumstances will allow, to the old constitutional standard of principle, and to the traditional habits and thoughts of the people. And I still think that course is dictated by the plainest teachings of prudence.

The formation of a new State out of Western Virginia is an original, independent act of revolution, I do not deny the power of revolution, (I do not call it right -- for it is never prescribed, it exists in force only, and has and can have no law but the will of the revolutionists.) Any attempt to carry it out involves a plain breach of both the Constitutions -- of Virginia and the nation. And hence it is plain that you cannot take that course without weakening, if not destroying, your claims upon the sympathy and support of the General Government; and without disconcerting the plan already adopted both by Virginia and the General Government, for the reorganization of the revolted States, and the restoration of the integrity of the Union. That plan, I understand to be this: When a State, by its perverted functionaries, has declared itself out of the Union, we avail ourselves of all the sound and loyal elements of the State -- all who own allegiance to and claim protection of the Constitution, to form a State Government as nearly as may be, upon the former model, and claiming to be the very State which has been, in part, overthrown by the successful rebellion. In this way we establish a constitutional nucleus around which all the shattered elements of the Commonwealth may meet and combine, and thus restore the old State to its original integrity.This, I verily thought, was the plan adopted at Wheeling, and recognized and acted upon by the General Government here. Your Convention annulled the revolutionary proceedings at Richmond, both in the Convention and General Assembly, and your new Governor formally demanded of the President the fulfillment of the constitutional guarantee in favor of Virginia -- Virginia as known to our fathers and to us. The President admitted the obligation and promised his best efforts to fulfill it; and the Senate admitted your Senators, not as representing a new and nameless State, now for the first time heard of in our history, but as representing "the good old Commonwealth."

Must all this be undone, and a new and hazardous experiment be ventured upon, at the moment when dangers and difficulties are thickening around us? I hope not; for the sake of the Nation and the State, I hope not. I bad rejoiced in the movement in Western Virginia, as a legal, constitutional and safe refuge from revolution and anarchy, as at once an example and fit instrument for the restoration of all the revolted States.

I have not time now to discuss the subject in its various bearings. What I have written, is written with a running pen, and will need your charitable criticism.

If I had time I think I could give persuasive reasons for declining the attempt to create a new State at this perilous time. At another time. I might be willing to go fully into the question, but now I can say no more. Most respectfully, your ob't serv't,
EDW. BATES.

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/12/27/ne...-virginia.html
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:19 PM   #228
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
You're an ignorant and inveterate liar, ExNYer!!!

Read lawyer, judge and Attorney General Bates' judgment again, you blathering ignamus

Differences of opinions do not constitute lies. I do not call you a liar because of your opinions.


And honest mistakes do not constitute lies either. Above you incorrectly accused me of plagiarism until you realized I had put in a WiKi cite. Still, I did not call you a liar based on your mistak
e.

A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Can you point out a deliberate falsehood? If so, how would you know? Can you read my mind?

Thank you for proving what I and others have said about your posting habits.

The term "narcissistic personality disorder" comes to mind. If it is any consolation, ChoomCzar has it even worse and he combines it with Tourette's.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:29 PM   #229
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

Differences of opinions do not constitute lies. I do not call you a liar because of your opinions.


And honest mistakes do not constitute lies either. Above you incorrectly accused me of plagiarism until you realized I had put in a WiKi cite. Still, I did not call you a liar based on your mistak
e.

A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Can you point out a deliberate falsehood? If so, how would you know? Can you read my mind?

Thank you for proving what I and others have said about your posting habits.

The term "narcissistic personality disorder" comes to mind. If it is any consolation, ChoomCzar has it even worse and he combines it with Tourette's.
You deliberately and repeatedly – repeatedly – claimed that the cited judgments rendered by Attorney General Bates, Secretary Welles and Congressman Stevens were irrelevant because they pointedly contravened your “opinion”. James McPherson researched and factually documented from original source documents how Federal troops suppressed the vote of those citizens who aspired to vote against independent statehood and how many of those said soldiers illegally voted in the referendum for statehood. McPherson’s conclusion is that West Virginia would not have become a separate state without those soldiers at the polls. The Shelby Foote quote is also relevant because it illustrates a post Civil War shift in the way citizens perceived the federal system of government formed by the Constitution. Bates’ argument is lucid and stringently exposes the folly of Lincoln’s claim that he was “defending” the nation as founded by the Constitution while violating the tenets of the very document he claimed to be defending. Bates judged such action violated the Constitution. Lincoln turned a blind eye to the voter suppression and recognized a band of power-hungry politicians that did not represent citizens of Virginia or even the majority of the citizens living in what would become West Virginia. That Lincoln and others did so was a “legal fiction”. Furthermore, despite your fallacious argument otherwise – which you keep repeating, Virginia vs West Virginia does not explicitly address the question regarding the constitutionality of the process by which West Virginia became a state. That process was clearly in violation of Art IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, and thus it was unconstitutional. Again, the failure to prosecute a crime does not mitigate the criminal nature of the criminal act.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:31 PM   #230
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,765
Encounters: 67
Default

God damn, usually when I read that much, there's a punch line, a reward or an ah HA.

Unfortunately with you, there's just more blithering, blather and bullshit.

Folks are in the ignoring mood around here. I suppose you can tell that by all of those threads where you post six or eight times without response.

Kepp this shit up and there'll be a lot more of them. You, Marshall and COG alone in your own little bubble.

Enjoy that, diarrhea mouth!
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:38 PM   #231
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 Yssup Rider View Post
God damn, usually when I read that much, there's a punch line, a reward or an ah HA.

Unfortunately with you, there's just more blithering, blather and bullshit.

Folks are in the ignoring mood around here. I suppose you can tell that by all of those threads where you post six or eight times without response.

Kepp this shit up and there'll be a lot more of them. You, Marshall and COG alone in your own little bubble.

Enjoy that, diarrhea mouth!
You're a dumb-ass jackass, Assup. You spout bullshit about "ignoring" and "not caring"; yet, your dumb-ass suborns your stupid-ass post when you stupidly admit you read everything you said you didn't care about.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:44 PM   #232
Guest040616
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 15,047
Encounters: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
You're a dumb-ass jackass, Assup. You spout bullshit about "ignoring" and "not caring"; yet, your dumb-ass suborns your stupid-ass post when you stupidly admit you read everything you said you didn't care about.
Now, now I B Crying! I understand your plight. You lost an election by a 62% - 38% margin. But it was just an election.

You need to work on controlling your temper!

Why can't we all just get along??????
Guest040616 is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:47 PM   #233
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,765
Encounters: 67
Default

I think IBCrying has been served again.

amazing that most of us can get him to explode in 25 words or less. He can't speak his piece without taking a half a page...

Pathetic dipshit!
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:51 PM   #234
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 Yssup Rider View Post
Assup’s spastic sphincter is dribbling-blather, spouting shit and foaming spatter!
.

I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:07 PM   #235
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=ChoomCzar;1051905852]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-farT View Post
MadDog20/20 is an alcoholic beverage marketed to and generally consumed by negros......typical racist stereotype attributing the consumption of that beverage to someone you hate!
You never cease to amaze me marshall. I never realized you could open your mouth and be even MORE stupid sounding than normal, but you did it. There is no such racial connotation, only in your demented mind.

MD is associated with underaged HS kids and others with small incomes--those who value quantity over quality. Like you. I mentioned no racial group. I impled no racial group. I used no code word for any racial group. See: http://www.bumwine.com/md2020.html and maybe learn something (though that is questionable).

Only in your limited, lieing, sick mind, Marshall.
Old-T is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:08 PM   #236
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,765
Encounters: 67
Default

Well at least that's shorter than his endless droning, slavering posts.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 07:16 PM   #237
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
You deliberately and repeatedly – repeatedly – claimed that the cited judgments rendered by Attorney General Bates, Secretary Welles and Congressman Stevens were irrelevant because they pointedly contravened your “opinion”.
That means I deliberately and repeatedly - repeatedly - expressed my "opinion" that both McPherson/Randall and you are wrong.


It still not a lie, no matter how strong your opinion or how hard you pound the table.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 07:24 PM   #238
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 61,765
Encounters: 67
Default

These fuckers sure like to call any disagreement or contradiction a LIE. That implies a character flaw... In them.
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:08 AM   #239
jaydogg07
Gaining Momentum
 
Join Date: Feb 2, 2011
Location: Ks
Posts: 68
Encounters: 8
Default

Do some research guys! This is a symbolic gesture that is often used in election years. Many states have a petition but none are actually leaving. The same petitions circulated in 2000 and 2004 when Bush was elected. If they get 25,000 (?) signatures the White House has to issue a response. Google it and let's move on.
jaydogg07 is offline   Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:14 AM   #240
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

That means I deliberately and repeatedly - repeatedly - expressed my "opinion" that both McPherson/Randall and you are wrong.


It still not a lie, no matter how strong your opinion or how hard you pound the table.

You asked for an expert legal opinion of someone who held that the action directly contravened the Constitution: Attorney General Bates was that man (and there others).

You asked for evidence from a professional historian who held that the action violated the tenets of the Constitution, and you were given two: Randall and McPherson (and there are more).

The answer to one simple question resolves the entire issue. Did creating the state of West Virginia out of the state of Virginia violate Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution? The answer is an unequivocal "yes". By definition that means the action was "unconstitutional".

BTW, ExNYer, New York was slave state until 1827, and your New York City banks continued to finance the slave trade in the U.S. for another generation afterwards: so slavery and the slave trade was a corner stone in the foundation your “Big Apple”.


New York Doesn’t Care to Remember the Civil War
By SAM ROBERTS
It was anything but civil. On Jan. 7, 1861, Mayor Fernando Wood exhorted New York’s Board of Aldermen to declare the city’s independence from Albany and from Washington — a bold stroke of self-preservation that he maintained “would have the whole and united support of the Southern States.”

. . . . Mayor Wood unabashedly embraced the South initially because its cotton merchants were financed by New York banks and protected from loss by New York insurers, and it transported its harvest in New York ships.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-civil-war/

“In addition to the Bank of America, U.S. Bank. J.P. Morgan and Wachovia, research revealed four other major companies that disclosed ties to the slave trade through slavery-disclosure laws in various jurisdictions: insurers Aetna, New York Life and AIG and financial-service companies ABN AMRO (p8).

http://sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocumen...documentid=860

So you can take your pretentiousness -- like you've done with 'your history' -- and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine, ExNYer.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

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