Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Marks-rocks-with-pee is a BITCH!

.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Good boy. Always follow my commands. Because you are...



NOW POST IT AGAIN AND CHANGE MY ORIGINAL POST TEXT. DO IT NOW BITCH!

Fetch!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Fetch!

Have a little patience, I B Crying had to stop and piss on a fire hydrant!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

marks-rocks-with-pee is tetched.

.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Good boy. Always follow my commands. Because you are...



NOW POST IT AGAIN AND CHANGE MY ORIGINAL POST TEXT. DO IT NOW BITCH!

Fetch again IBCryin my little bitch! Do as instructed!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Another nonsubstantive, unintelligent post that is so typical of BigKoTex's response to facts.

.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You know, I loved the time I lived in Ft. Worth. Might be time to move back.

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government...

Two things:

1. If you moved back to Fort Worth, you'd be too close to the Rockwall Rock Star Retirement Center where I live!

2. Shouldn't we scrap THIS stupid petition and start one petitioning ECCIE for a Looney Tunes Forum for all the Alex Jones listeners, the Ron Paulers and the rest of the schizoid conspiracy theory believers? I'm sure we could get Donald Trump and half the Fox "News" Channel to moderate it.

The Donald at his best

Teapublicans - irrelevant, whiny losers, as usual.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are the one with "shit for brains". Fact is, you misrepresented what the wiki article said, and that's established fact.

Another non-existent "fact" claimed by the Queen. I never misrepresented the Wiki article. I accurately described it right from the start, including MY statement (not yours) that the SCt. never had to reach the issued of constitutionality because it was able to rule on WVa's behalf on other grounds.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Another fact, your pretentious ass has not refuted the Randall and McPherson that has been quoted and cited.

The Randall and McPherson quotes above are nothing but snippets of conclusory opinions, not facts. You refute alleged "facts", not opinions. And NOTHING you quoted from either man explicitly mentions Article IV, Section 3.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The only way you are getting any more "proof" is for you to get your lazy Cheetos larded ass up and go to the library, you pretentious prick.

Spin, spin, spin, O Queen of Cut-And-Paste.

You never seem to have any problem posting "proof" when it suits your fancy - mostly when it is irrelevant BS.

Now, after you have made specific statements about what McPherson and Randall allegedly said about Article IV, Section 3 based on your vast reading, you suddenly don't want to post what you supposedly read, not even the on-line stuff.

You got caught in a lie or exaggeration. That's why you won't post it.

You cited 2 specific pages from McPherson and 2 from Randall. if you read them, let's see them. And after you post them, I will double check them to see if you misquoted them the way you have misquoted everybody else in this thread.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Such then are the life aspirations of ExNYer the pretentious prick.

BTW, your bullshit psychoanalysis is as ignorant as every other thing you've posted, you pretentious prick.

Really? Is that the best you can do? "Copy" someone else's post and change the wording? Do you think that makes you look witty? Or even dumber?

Yet more proof that you are a narcissistic loser obsessed with "winning" at all costs. You even stoop to misrepresenting other people's posts. So why should we believe any of the things you have posted about McPherson or Randall?

Once a forger, always a forger.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Another non-existent "fact" claimed by the Queen. I never misrepresented the Wiki article. I accurately described it right from the start, including MY statement (not yours) that the SCt. never had to reach the issued of constitutionality because it was able to rule on WVa's behalf on other grounds. You’re a liar, ExNYer: “[T]he U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's [West Virginia’s] creation” wiki.

The Randall and McPherson quotes above are nothing but snippets of conclusory opinions, not facts. You refute alleged "facts", not opinions. And NOTHING you quoted from either man explicitly mentions Article IV, Section 3. What is this? A "demand" for more "cut and paste" when you haven't read what's already been posted and cited, you're a pretentious prick, ExNYer!

Spin, spin, spin, O Queen of Cut-And-Paste. What? Now you do not like "cut and paste", you pretentious prick!?!

You never seem to have any problem posting "proof" when it suits your fancy - mostly when it is irrelevant BS. The proof has been posted and cited, you pretentious prick. If you want more, buy their books or go to the library, you cheap and lazy-ass bastard.

Now, after you have made specific statements about what McPherson and Randall allegedly said about Article IV, Section 3 based on your vast reading, you suddenly don't want to post what you supposedly read, not even the on-line stuff. The on-line proof has already been posted and cited, you pretentious prick.

You got caught in a lie or exaggeration. That's why you won't post it. Whereas your pretentious ass has been shown to be a liar, you pretentious prick.

You cited 2 specific pages from McPherson and 2 from Randall. if you read them, let's see them. And after you post them, I will double check them to see if you misquoted them the way you have misquoted everybody else in this thread. The on-line proof has already been posted and cited, you pretentious prick. If you want more, buy their books or go to the library, you cheap and lazy ass bastard.

1) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented how the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution; thus, de facto making the act "unconstitutional".

2) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that the self-aggrandizing politicians who pushed for annexation as an independent state did not in fact represent the population, and Lincoln and Congress were complicit in that "legal fiction".

3) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that West Virginia would not have been admitted as an independent state were it not for federal occupation troops manning polls and voting illegally during the referendum.


“The bill giving the consent of Congress, to the formation of this new State was rushed through precipitately. The friends of the bill thought delay dangerous -- any little accident, any revival among the Members of Congress, of a sense of justice and decency would, probably defeat it: And so, it was pressed through without any of the ordinary care and caution which is due to every legislative enactment -- and, in fact, the bill was full of the most glaring blunders. But the friends of the bill dared not attempt to amend it, lest delay and the scrut[in]y of debate might expose its absurdity and defeat its passage -- And so it was passed in all its deformity.” Howard K. Beale, editor, The Diary of Edward Bates, October 12, 1865.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I enjoy wasting his time.

ExNYer's life aspiration.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

ExNYer's life aspiration.

No, wasting your time is more like a hobby, not a life aspiration.

Also, what does the quote above about VA vs. WVa mean? I am the one who pointed out the Wiki cite originally. So how am I a liar. I said WVa won against VA, I didn't say the SCt. ruled on constitutionality. Stop misquoting me liar.

[I B Hankering]

1) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented how the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution; thus, de facto making the act "unconstitutional".

2) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that the self-aggrandizing politicians who pushed for annexation as an independent state did not in fact represent the population, and Lincoln and Congress were complicit in that "legal fiction".

3) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that West Virginia would not have been admitted as an independent state were it not for federal occupation troops manning polls and voting illegally during the referendum.

“The bill giving the consent of Congress, to the formation of this new State was rushed through precipitately. The friends of the bill thought delay dangerous -- any little accident, any revival among the Members of Congress, of a sense of justice and decency would, probably defeat it: And so, it was pressed through without any of the ordinary care and caution which is due to every legislative enactment -- and, in fact, the bill was full of the most glaring blunders. But the friends of the bill dared not attempt to amend it, lest delay and the scrut[in]y of debate might expose its absurdity and defeat its passage -- And so it was passed in all its deformity.” Howard K. Beale, editor, The Diary of Edward Bates, October 12, 1865.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I enjoy wasting his time.

ExNYer's true life aspiration.

[Guest032516]

Not even trying any more, huh?

Just quoting your own previous posts, verbatim.

Is that like the blind leading the blind?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Not even trying any more, huh?

Just quoting your own previous posts, verbatim.

Is that like the blind leading the blind?

You are a pretentious prick, ExNYer. You have made it abundantly clear you reject arguments on the mere basis of geography; thus, showing one and all how truly ignorant you chose to remain. You've further stated you're not interested in anything other than playing games, so it matters naught what else is posted; so repeating the facts will suffice:

1) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented how the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution; thus, de facto making the act "unconstitutional".

2) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that the self-aggrandizing politicians who pushed for annexation as an independent state did not in fact represent the population, and Lincoln and Congress were complicit in that "legal fiction".

3) McPherson, Randall and other historians have documented that West Virginia would not have been admitted as an independent state were it not for federal occupation troops manning polls and voting illegally during the referendum.

“The bill giving the consent of Congress, to the formation of this new State was rushed through precipitately. The friends of the bill thought delay dangerous -- any little accident, any revival among the Members of Congress, of a sense of justice and decency would, probably defeat it: And so, it was pressed through without any of the ordinary care and caution which is due to every legislative enactment -- and, in fact, the bill was full of the most glaring blunders. But the friends of the bill dared not attempt to amend it, lest delay and the scrut[in]y of debate might expose its absurdity and defeat its passage -- And so it was passed in all its deformity.” Howard K. Beale, editor, The Diary of Edward Bates, October 12, 1865.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I enjoy wasting his time.

ExNYer's true life aspiration.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a pretentious prick, ExNYer. You have made it abundantly clear you reject arguments on the mere basis of geography;

What the fuck does that mean?