Posted on 06/25/2010 4:31:27 PM PDT by central_va
Lol! Be my guest. It might be interesting to see what he thinks.
Nah, I'll stay down here and scroll through your usual bullshit. As usual.
In other words, you can't substantiate your claim - as usual. Let's do a little review of your knowledge (or, actually, the lack thereof ;>) of history:
N-S: Sorry, losing rebellions is a Southern trait and not a Northern one.
WIJG: Obviously, you've never heard of the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays' Rebellion, Fries's Rebellion, or the Dorr Rebellion (and possibly others). And these were actually 'rebellions,' unlike State secession, which was nowhere prohibited by the Constitution.
No surprise - your grasp of historical fact has always been somewhat lacking...
And your ability to respond to a reasonable post is also "somewhat lacking"...
;>)
Since you've requested it, I'll send it his way. He owns things here, and we'll see what he thinks. Either way, you're a bigot. If you weren't, the following (please see my Post #859) wouldn't be offensive to anyone:
Who knows or cares what some Jewish person thinks is facinating.
;>)
I realize that between whipping your slaves and counting your cash (or are you the one with the high IQ?) you feel a need to be paid attention.
I can’t much stomach your point of view, your dreams of the return of 1859 or whatever it is that animates you. I don’t even know how you inserted yourself into this, except to antagonize people who deplore your past, and it’s frankly too much effort to go back and see why you keep pinging me.
So, whatever, eventually I’ll tire of you and stop responding.
By the by, do you get residuals from Dukes of Hazzard too, or were you like the rest of the fools on this thread that took the cash up front?
PS. Why do you insist on including perverted emoticons when you write to me?
"If you don't care, wander off somewhere (please see your own Post #834). If you're a liar (and you really DO care ;>), keep posting on these threads.
"Liar..."
Thanks for proving my point...
;>)
Be sure to ping me when you do. I wouldn't want to 'miss' anything. In the meantime I'll set my stuner to 'ignore'.
LOL! You know, Fifi, you keep 'threatening' to do that - but every day I find you back again, humping my leg! As I noted previously:
"If you don't care, wander off somewhere (please see your own Post #834). If you're a liar (and you really DO care ;>), keep posting on these threads.
"Liar..."
Thanks for proving my point [again]...
;>)
;>)
;>)
-----------------------------------------------
Emotional tyrads, nothing more. Did the Southern States have the right to reassume delegated authority ? Hows does one "delegate" ?
Would the neighborhood Federalist like a crack at it ? What does it mean to “ delegate “ ?
(*Yawn*) Which powers are you muttering about now?
The only authority the general government possesses have been delegated by the States. It would not be a foregone conclusion that the delegating authority could reassume what has been delegated.
That post wasn’t directed to you. In any case, I’ve lost interest in this. Leave me out of further discussion.
That's assuming the individual states ever had the powers to delegate to begin with. Or are you honestly suggesting that the individual states could ever declare war, deal with foreign countries, acquire their own territories, or take any actions contrary to the well-being of another state?
Vermont could, for about 14 years.
So could Texas for a couple of years, and California for a short time, and Hawaii for a while. And your point is?
You're right for once! I must say that your "whipping your slaves and counting your cash," with "dreams of the return of 1859" just "to antagonize people who deplore your past" substitute-for-an-argument is even more idiotic than your Post #826 suggestion that 'might makes right.'
I did appreciate your "Dukes of Hazzard" reference, though - it proves you're an ignorant, Southern-citizen-hating bigot, just like mac_truck (as per his Post #753)...
;>)
You might also mention the State of Rhode Island, during the period between the ratification of the Constitution by the first nine States, and the ratification of the same compact by the State of Rhode Island itself (approximately two years). Of course, most folks who insist that secession is unconstitutional refuse to admit that Rhode Island was ever outside the union.
Oh, and please see my Post #878 - wouldn't want to leave you out, since I mentioned you by name...
;>)
Don't you have a life, or is this it?
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.