No, evan... you don't have a point. Even if your attempted moral equivalence was valid, no one cares about seeing a swastika online either. Paint one on someone's house and I'll be concerned. Until then, grow a skin, hippy.
No, evan... you don't have a point. Even if your attempted moral equivalence was valid, no one cares about seeing a swastika online either. Paint one on someone's house and I'll be concerned. Until then, grow a skin, hippy.
Still mad at Bostick.Originally Posted by murf
I'll be back when the moderation is reasonable. Enjoy the forum you created, Gree.
Confederate flags=good azz wipeage material
Anyone pretending that the flag is prideful or defends it= good azz wiping material as well.
I love it how all it takes is one crazy person to say he killed people because of the flag for everyone to go ape s*** over it
Liberals don't have principles, they have causes.
Still mad at Bostick.
I'll be back when the moderation is reasonable. Enjoy the forum you created, Gree.
I bet you do love it....and actually that idiot is not the cause, this has been happening way longer than you can remember champ.Im from the south and have dealt with the ignorance longer than I care to admit.
if you think that, you don't realize that the underlying problem was already there, all the guy did was get people to notice it. do you see anyone here saying we should put the flag down because one guy killed some people because he loved the flag? no we tell all of the other reasons it should have been down long time ago.
Funny, because Lee never considered that HE, as a loyal Virginian, had committed Treason... And how could any of them? People who never rebelled against the USA. Where in the Constitution does it say secession is not allowed. Never knew the USA was a blood in/blood out gang... Well until 1860. Lots of blood.
So please explain how it is treason when a certain people peacefully leave their nation, peacefully form another, and when the "home" nation refuses to vacate a military fort in the new nation, the army of the new fires on the fort after fair warning, and after 3 or so days, with no Union soldiers dead, allows the boys in blue to surrender and simply go home????
Explain why that is treason? What government was being challenged given the founding documents of the U.S. and it's organization. Folk's ALWAYS forget about the organization of the U.S. (and even it's very name) when equating the Civil War (frankly a misnomer itself) with Treason.
"Let us look for the truth about ourselves in history rather than burying it out of misunderstood embarrassment."
"When the going gets weird
The Weird turn pro."
-- Hunter S Thompson, True American
i dont think you know the meaning of the word peacefully. also, unless the "home country" recognizes the new country, it is not a country, it is just a bunch of rebels, who also declared war against the "Home Country". they attacked a fort who was legally allowed to be where it was, as the "Home country" had not recognized the traitor/rebels as a new country. they were still under the sovereignty of the USA, whether they wanted or not. Imagine if any state could just say, you know what? i don't want to belong to this country anymore, and it would just be the end of it? no that doesn't happen. the same way when the USA declared themselves Independent, they had to fight against UK to keep that independence. it doesn't come free. and even then, the south were the first ones to attack, not the north. basically they declared themselves independent and then attacked the north, in that order.... I'm sorry that still sounds like treason to me....
Citation please?
Still mad at Bostick.
I'll be back when the moderation is reasonable. Enjoy the forum you created, Gree.
for the meaning of sovereignty???
For your rather strong statement on what the law was regarding the permanency of the Union. If you think it's inherent in the meaning of sovereignty, I suggest you take a good look at the concept of "dual sovereignty" and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Still mad at Bostick.
I'll be back when the moderation is reasonable. Enjoy the forum you created, Gree.
you asked for quote:
Scalia is not the first Supreme Court justice to establish this position. In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”
and here is the source, amazingly enough it is a conservative site:
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...cession-legal/
which actually is exactly what i said. you either rebel or you get permission from the "Home Country"
no permission means, the only way to get away is to rebel, take arms and win it!!!
Posting Permissions
