Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
Can't stand disagreement huh?
fyi, i predict that #3 is next, as he appears to me and a lot of other "persons of colour" to be a stone racist.
Oh brother. You're as white as anyone. What are you trying to do, claim victim status?
4CJ will disagree. lol
NOBODY, then or now, except fools believe ANY of those documents were OFFICIAL.
If the Declarations aren't official, why was secession official? It was the same people that did both.
REVISIONISTS & the so-called RADICAL SCHOOL historians tried without sucess in the 1960s to say that the documents were something other than private papers off a FEW persons. they failed in that attempt.
It was all faked, huh? You guys and your cherry-picking. lol
I wonder if they accept Monopoly money.
Nah, without attempting to find you non-existant documentation, they were arsonists ;o)
Lobsters around the world are offended.
No, what he did was called sarcasm. A jab at Paritsan because the source he holds so highly for it's anti-Southern tint is also anti-Republican.
Men in Tights
We're men... we're men in tights
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men... we're men in tights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right.
We may look like sissys,
but watch what you say or else we'll put out your lights. (bang)
We're men... we're men in tights
always on guard defending the peoples rights.
(Can can music)
la la la la la la la la la, la la la la la la la la la...
lalalalalalala (repeat).
We're men..manly men
We're men in tights, yes (with lisp)
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men, we're men in tights
We rob from the rich and give to the poor that's right.
We may look like pansies,
but don't get us wrong or else we'll put out your lights. (bang)
We're men... we're men in tights (tight tights)
Always on guard defending the peoples rights
When your in a fix just call for the men in tights.
We're butch.
If a document says something you don't agree with, just pretend it doesn't exist, huh?
With you guy's crazy theories such as voters being shot in voting booths, how is anyone to know when you're being sarcastic?
stand watie lowercases his name. He does this for a reason, and one that has been explained to you while asking you not to capitalize it. Abiding by his request takes zero effort on your part, and helps to show respect for him, his people, and their tribal custom. He is well known on FR and it is a rare day when I read the foxhole thread when he doesn't stop by for a bump regardless of who is being discussed.
We all disagree about a great many things, and it is appropriate that we have a lively debate on issues important to us and the path of conservative America.
That you continue to insult stand watie and his tribal tradition in such a personal way is beyond your usual annoyances. It is inappropriate. It is racist. It has no place here.
I figured union thugs on being brawling, sweaty, barrel chested men, ready to 'hit the showers' after a hard day of fighting (per your suggestion that the courts martial regarding sexual assault occurred between the soldiers themselves).
You lie. I said the charges could've been for fights between the men since no numbers are given for the other charges listed.
Defense Acquisitions: Naval Surface Fire Support Program Plans and Costs (Letter Report, 06/11/99, GAO/NSIAD-99-91).Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Navy's program to modernize its naval surface fire support (NSFS) capabilities, focusing on the cost of the modernization.
GAO noted that: (1) in the first phase of the NSFS modernization program, planned for completion by 2009, the Navy plans to develop a modified 5-inch gun and associated guided munition, land-attack missiles, and mission planning system for installation on 49 of the current classes of cruisers and destroyers; (2) the weapons developed during this phase are not expected to satisfy the full range of Marine Corps NSFS requirements; (3) development of the modified 5-inch gun is on schedule, but development costs have increased slightly; (4) development of the guided munition for this gun has been delayed by technical problems, and costs have increased; (5) it is too early to know whether the munition will meet performance specifications in terms of range, accuracy, and lethality; (6) the Chief of Naval Operations has decided to modify missiles in the Navy's inventory into a land-attack variant rather than develop a Navy variant of an Army missile; (7) the Navy expects fleet introduction of a mission planning system in 2001 to support weapons developed during the first phase of the NSFS modernization program; (8) the second phase of the modernization program, beyond 2003, includes development of a longer-range gun and munition and an advanced land-attack missile for the planned DD-21 class of destroyers; (9) weapons developed during this phase are intended to fully meet Marine Corps NSFS requirements; (10) the Center for Naval Analyses is conducting an analysis of gun system alternatives for the DD-21, and industry teams are also developing advanced gun concepts for this class of ship; (11) the Navy is conducting technology demonstration projects intended to improve performance and reduce the costs of future munitions; (12) under the Navy's plan, it will be many years before the fleet will have these weapon systems in the quantities needed to support major combat operations; (13) the Navy plans to accept delivery of 32 DD-21s between 2008 and 2020; (14) in fiscal years (FY) 1994-1998, the Navy spent $309 million on both phases of its modernization program; (15) for fiscal years 1999-2005, both phases are estimated to cost a total of about $2 billion; (16) the estimate does not include the cost of: (a) integrating land attack standard missiles into the vertical launch system; (b) changing to the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System; and (c) developing and procuring of an advanced land-attack missile for the DD-21; and (17) total program cost estimates beyond FY 2005 are not available.
In the meantime, there's money to be made selling them battle axes and broadswords.
You were at Andersonville?
Perhaps senility could explain much of what we've seen here today.
There's a difference between reading historical accounts and reading some nut's interpretation of it for a week.
So, you claim that the GAR is a bunch of brawling homo pedophile sodomites and then say that I have contempt for American soldiers?
Even Spoons would be offended that people are comparing you to him.
You lie. I said there may have been fights between the soldiers.
I have been pretty temperate, considering that you've displayed a stubbornness in your ranting on Article IV that would make a mule blush. It is laughable that you think I can't win an argument when no serious attempt to support any argument has been made by you. You post wild assertions which have no bearing on the debate at hand, then flame away like a child and stomp your feet, repeating the unsupported assertions which got you into trouble in the first place.
You go so far as to post links that evidence the exact opposite of what you state (like a trite historian's summation of the Texas secession convention), and refer to them as though there was anything within said "documentation" which could be interpreted by the most twisted logician to support anything you've said.
We treat people with respect who show the same kindness toward us. We accept the notion of authority, and have cited from several (the founders, the constitutional conventions, the SCOTUS) in support of our argument. We do not accept that #3fan had #3epiphany and is anything more than a #3rdratearmchairconstitutionalscholar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.