Posted on 08/11/2004 7:08:05 AM PDT by The Wizard
And that's the REAL reason the demonrats hate GWB: not only is he everything they hoped billyboy would be, he will be remembered for planting the seeds that grew into peace to the Middle East.....
Washington was the Father of our country, and Lincoln freed the slaves, and GWB started the journey that will eventually bring peace to this troubled part of the world, and the rats hate him for it, so much so, that I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.......
The real democrats, who controlled the party when Tip was the Man, lost control to the clintonistas, and he was so bad, the party regulars fled as the goon squad came in to defend their leader......
But as I sat watching Rummy from Afgahistan today speaking about 9 million folks so hungry to vote they risk their lives to register, it told any logical man that so it will be in Iraq, and all the other kingdoms throughout the world.....
The time of kings is over, now is the time of the little man, and he never had a stronger, braver friend than Ronald Reagan or GWB......
While not asking for this honor, GWB had it blown up on him on 9-11, and the world will be a safer, better place when this is done.
God Bless and protect GWB....
And I must agree
And it is also the true mark of the Socialist to accuse your opponent of what you yourself have done, as you have done ad hominem to me. Straight out of the playbook of Saul Ailinsky, for all to see. You have attempted to co-opt the discussion, attacked me personally, and befouled the veterans on this forum who are the guarantors of your rights.
Participation on Free Republic is not a God-given or Constitution-granted right: it is a forum-granted privilege, one that many here would not take to the extremes you have done - not just to me, but to others as well. If I can stare down the muzzle of a weapon, there is precious little you can do.
The evidence is for others to judge, since you discount mine. Enjoy your time here, brief though it might be. I shall not waste my host's bandwidth on further futile attempts to reason with your Socialism. Begone, Troll!
"Sorry, not illegal. But nice try."
Show me where it wasn't.
Let me see the proof in black and white.
(crickets chirping)
"I have not attacked those who disagreed with me -"
Old Sarge merely attempted to state another side of the arguement and you started in with ad-hominem attacks on him, his patriotism and his choice of political leanings. If that's your idea of "discourse" then you my friend need help.
"The states do NOT belong to the USA, they are not Federal Property."
Oh ok I see where you're coming from now. Should have know from your first postings. Let me guess, you're of the opinion too that the U.S. Army is in violation of the law becuase "the government shall not fund a standing army for more than 2 years at a time" right?
YOu guys and your kook theories and weird interpretations of the Constitution crack me up.
"If the EP ended slavery the 13th would not have been necessary would it?"
IMHO...the 13th Amendment just solidified and codified what Lincoln started with the E.P.
If Lincoln wasn't the driving force behind the E.P. and eventually the 13th Amendment...then who was?
I am stupid, pay no attention
You wouldn't even remember taking the trip.
As in, "Ignore this post?" I am stupid, so pay attention.
Lincoln can take credit for the EP, but it's like claiming a John F'n Kerry won the Vietnam War. The EP was not a measure designed to free slaves out of compassion. It was intended to cause massive slave revolts whereupon the slaves murdered their masters. As a reward, Liincoln intended on repatriating any and all blacks out of the country.
Lincoln's 13th Amendment guaranteed slavery forever.
Umm,,you seem confused. Backwards actually.
You need to show where it was,,it's a simple concept. How old are you?
Ah, lovely tactic -- attribute some wild idea to me and then attack me for it. I've said nothing about the US Army being in violation of anything.
The record also shows I've expressed not a single "kook" theory here yet.
Old Sarge did not attempt to state another side of the argument, he ASSumed that because I held my view, that I was a troll and begin attacking me in that regard. He has been flatly proven wrong on not only that, but on the legality of secession.
His opinion of Lincoln is just that, an opinion, and cannot be proven wrong. But if you're going to rewrite history, it's better not to do it for things so recent.
Ah, Sarge, you crack us all up with your ignorance.
Keep the FACTS clear...
I've insulted NO ONE in the military because of their service. In fact, you're the only one here with a stick up his arse. Putting you and you alone in your proper place does not "befoul" all veterans, just you.
I have also not co-opted any conversation, but I have responded to those who have asked questions or made comments to my posts -- as is expected on forums. Sorry if on this thread, you aren't getting enough attention.
You are to be admired for your military service, I have never and would never deny that. But like Mr. Kerry, it does not give you a free pass to be as rude as you like and say whatever you like.
You are correct (finally) on one point. The evidence IS here to judge and I have proven myself NOT a troll. It's very easy (and immature) to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a troll. It's much harder to look in the mirror and accept the fact that others might know more than you and that you aren't always right.
Again, like liberals, you want to dish it out but when your victim fights back you scream and holler.
"You're a sad strange little man. You have my pity."
"...But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists upon holding its own forts, or retaking those forst which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations, or even the withdrawl of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any of those things be coercion? Do the lovers of the Union contend that they will resist coercion or invasion of any staten, understanding that any or all of these would be coercing or invading a state? If they do, then it occurs to me that the means for the preservation of the Union they so greatly love, in their own estimation, is of a thin and airy character."
In context, please, Stainless.
Yes it was, per the Supreme Court.
Nonsense.
***Right, but remember what happened to Winston Churchill in 1945.***
Right, Mr. Jeeves, but you must remember that the war was over by then. The British people had six long, hard years of war and deprivations. Their enemies were defeated, and they turned to something that at least looked like a bright tomorrow to them.
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union." Chief Justice Salmon Chase, from the majority decision in Texas v White [74 US 700] (1868)
Wow, it is hard to argue with logic like that.
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.