Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's becoming increasingly obvious.

I'm out of this mad house.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

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

Booth had a lot of opinions, but when he killed Lincoln he said declared him a tyrant. He didn't say, "that's what he gets for freeing the slaves!"

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

That's just an idiotic thing to say. You are well aware that the South was supported by many intelligent people.


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

You don't know that's why he killed Lincoln. He spoke to his conspirators at length about his motives, and it was about Lincoln's dictatorial behavior in Maryland and elsewhere. It was because Lincoln destroyed the Constitution and won that Booth acted, not because of his other grievances.


Booth was neither bold nor dedicated, nor courageous.

That's like saying the 9-11 hijackers were cowards. You might want to think that in your magical thinking because you personally don't like their cause, but if you were honest you have to admit that what Wilks did required a huge amount of courage and self-sacrifice. He didn't pay to have someone else do the job - he did it himself.

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.

Of course he shot Lincoln from behind. Are you really so deluded in your fantasy world that you think an assassin is going to challenge Lincoln to a contest somewhere with choice of weapons? You're ideas about life are so fantastical I don't even know why I bother arguing with you.

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.

Look, he was against freeing the slaves just like Washington and Madison and Jackson and Madison and all your other heros are Dude, but that wasn't the reason why he yelled, "Death to the Tyrants!!"

If you can't understand what he yelled after all this time then give it a rest.


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.

Now you know that's not true. No one is soo stupid to believe that the $300 buyout was not a way to keep monied people out of the war.

If it were so important then they would have just taxed the rich the $300 and then drafted their sons also.

Don't pretend to be more stuoid than you are.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

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.

Again, you're the one who termed it an act of "plagiarism".

Here are the facts that you have not substantively refuted, ExNYer:

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

3) McPherson 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.

4) The wiki article you cited also substantiates the above and states this matter was never tried before the Supreme Court as you earlier and fallaciously claimed it did. A failure to prosecute a crime doesn't negate the fact that a criminal act was committed: so much for your "presumptions", ExNYer!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by 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.

You're a deluded Kool Aid sucking sot, Doofus. You always have been, and you always will be.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That isn't the fault of the Mexican workers. They are just taking any job they can get, even if they are not trained for it. That is the fault of the US builders who won't hire trained workers because they cost too much and won't spend the money to train the unskilled illegals. Instead, they hire unskilled illegals and hope for the best. And the builders select the cheapest material possible to lower costs. That's why homes cost $250K instead of $300K.

Hey Dude you're totally wrong about this.

I've been a homebuilder since I was nineteen years old in 1980, and I've seen it all.

The price of homes isn't determined by the labor costs. It's determined by the availability of sub-contractors in any particular market. If there is a shortage of subs then they will gouge and demand very high prices from the general contractors. If there's too many subs and not enough work then they will lower their prices.

But what happens in active markets is that the sub-contractor demands a particular price REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE PAYS FOR HIS LABOR.

The sub will charge as much as the market can bear and then hire out the CHEAPEST LABOR HE CAN FIND.

That's why in active markets the subs are extremely profitable when the general contractors are just barely making any money at all.

In boom times in Austin I've seen subs who never graduated from high school become millionaires in a few months.* The profits for subs in boom conditons can be as high as 90%. If they paid qualified labor their profit might be 75% instead, and the difference is just their indifference and greed -- that's all.

No sub needs to hire unqualified labor. They CHOOSE to hire unqualified illegals because they're cheaper and the sub pockets the difference. And every time I've tried supervising illegals on the jobsite I've had tremendous problems I never had with non-illegals.

Everytime I go to a new site and I see slabs which are slanted, with undulations and crap of all kinds, I know what kind of "quality" I'm paying for. None.


*I know a roofer in Montgomery County who is illiterate. He's never been to school and cannot read or write. Two years ago he pocketed over two million on a single large job in the Houston area all by using illegals and charging the general contrator for more than he actually paid in labor.

That's why people hire illegals in the construction business.

There's nothing "necessary" about it.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, you're the one who termed it an act of "plagiarism".

I never termed it "plagiarism". You did.

In response to your stupid "choice" of "plagiarism" or "improperly cited" (neither of which applied), I said "I'll take plagiarism for $200 Alex" That's a sarcastic reference to Jeopardy! in case you don't know.

I then asked "Where's the plagiarism" and you couldn't find it. Because you have reading difficulties, apparently.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here are the facts that you have not substantively refuted, ExNYer:

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

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

2) McPherson and other historians have documented that the self-aggrandizing policititians who pushed for annexation as an independent state did not in fact represent the population.

3) McPherson 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.

Those aren't FACTS. They are opinions. And like assholes, everybody has got one, including McPherson.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

4) The wiki article you cited also substantiates the above and states this matter was never tried before the Supreme Court as you earlier and falaciously claimed it did. A failure to prosecute a crime doesn't negate the fact that a criminal act was committed.

Can you read? The Wiki article doesn't mention, let alone substantiate 1) or 2), and it only repeats the allegation in 3). It doesn't substantiate it.

And where do you get the idea the Wiki states the matter was never tried before the Supreme Court? What do you think this citation means?

"The question of the constitutionality of the formation of the new state was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States in the following manner: Berkeley and Jefferson counties lying on the Potomac east of the mountains, in 1863, with the consent of the reorganized government of Virginia voted in favor of annexation to West Virginia. Many voters of the strongly pro-secessionist counties were absent in the Confederate Army when the vote was taken and refused to acknowledge the transfer upon their return. The Virginia General Assembly repealed the act of secession and in 1866 brought suit against West Virginia, asking the court to declare the counties a part of Virginia which would have declared West Virginia's admission as a state unconstitutional. Meanwhile, on March 10, 1866, Congress passed a joint resolution recognizing the transfer. The Supreme Court, in 1870, decided in favor of West Virginia."

So, the lost the vote in those 2 counties because the men were off fighting. And they had the consent of Virgina to hold the election in the first place. And Virginia REPEALED THE ACT OF SECESSION and brought suit in 1866 AFTER the war ended.

And they lost the decision.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The price of homes isn't determined by the labor costs.

You are the first person in history to make that statement.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of the insanity.

[Guest040616]

From today's Houston Chronicle website:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012...t-and-fiction/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I never termed it "plagiarism". You did.

I said "I'll take plagiarism for $200 Alex"

Admitting that wasn't so hard, now was it, ExNYer?

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Those aren't FACTS. They are opinions. And like assholes, everybody has got one, including McPherson.

Those are documented facts. And your mere "opinion" didn't refute a single one of them. BTW, James McPherson is cited in wiki's footnotes, as is James G. Randall. Both men enumerate the unconstitutional proceedings of West Virginia's admission as an independent state. Kinda leaves you looking like the "asshole", doesn't it?

1) McPherson 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 and other historians have documented that the self-aggrandizing policititians 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 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.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Can you read? The Wiki article doesn't mention, let alone substantiate 1) or 2), and it only repeats the allegation in 3). It doesn't substantiate it.

The question is, "Can you read", ExNYer? Per wiki:

"Many in Congress questioned both the legality of the Reorganized Virginia government and the constitutionality of the creation of West Virginia."

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And where do you get the idea the Wiki states the matter was never tried before the Supreme Court? What do you think this citation means?

Good lord, you are dense, ExNYer. The matter of the constitutionality of West Virginia's statehood was never brought before the Supreme Court. Your wiki article states as follows:

"the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's [West Virginia] creation"

[Yssup Rider]

Is there any more annoying motherfucker on this board?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is there any more annoying motherfucker on this board?

Nope, you're it, Assup!!!

[Yssup Rider]

Nope, you're it, DIPSHIT!

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You are the first person in history to make that statement.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of the insanity.

Your comment is typical of all the opinions you espouse.

If confronted with a real world fact stated by someone who has actual knowledge because of experience you call it lunacy because it doesn't comport to some
doctrine or belief you have which is based on.....opinion.

How many homes have you built?

How many subs have you contracted with?

Would you care to see my list?

Everyone in the construction business knows that labor cost is static while market prices for finished homes and the market for subs is highly variable and elastic. Labor is the smallest, least variable factor in the equasion.

[Yssup Rider]

FOR A CHANGE THE "BUSINESSMAN" HERE IS TELLING EVERYBODY ELSE HOW THE COW ATE THE CABBAGE.

If you're such a great fucking businessman, TAE, why do you constantly piss off the guys who you need to keep your pussy machine running?

[theaustinescorts]

Running an escort agency is slightly more fun than building houses, but only slightly.