Posted on 11/03/2004 8:24:39 AM PST by Always Right
My history books said the south lost the Civil War, but apparently that was just a battle. The south lost the battle of 1861-1865, but now are winning the war.
Excuse the map, I could not find one that had all the states colored in.
Sadly true, but when options are limited, a s**t sandwich is better than a bullet to the head. I don't think that Bush's tendencies for give-aways can be blamed on the South, nor do I think they can be blamed on the war. Handouts appeal to urban voters, to rural voters, to white voters, to black voters, to all voters, and that's what it takes to get into office. It seems like a second-term president really has the option to can it all and risk impeachment in pursuit of a truly conservative agenda though.
But it's not gonna happen.
That is just about as sorry a mealy-mouthed excuse of a post as you have ever made! Let's review what you said in your post #149:
GOPc - "The Texans never even met the californy militia save for a single skirmish outside of Tuscon. They retreated after a couple months of fighting with the federal regulars who had been out their in frontier garrisons all along."
You contend that "federal regulars" were the reason that the Texans were routed. I pointed out that the "regulars" were relatively few compared to the volunteers and militia. Canby commanded all of them, but that does not make them all "regulars." Many of the federal regulars, IIRC, were commanded by Gabriel Paul, who later was severely wounded on the first day of Gettysburg.
New Mexico did provided both volunteers and militia. Colorado did as well. But all of these troops were irregulars with neither the training or the arms as the regulars. It is not simply a "semantic" distinction.
You are a person who willfully distorts any comment. That is not going to help you when you assume a professional career.
...which could also determine whether or not he's a Lincoln wannabe, given that Lincoln did all those things as well
I think he finally retracted the second one but I don't recall him ever addressing the first. From his behavior two conclusions are possible - he is either amazingly inept when it comes to reading and faithfully presenting court decisions to the degree that he goes out searching for the ruling and virtually every time stumbles onto some significantly more obscure dissent or trial material from the opposition -OR- he is simply a filthy liar. Either way, I'll let him pick what person he wants to be today: the filthy liar or capitan_el_stupido
Have at it
You're losing, and you're losing it. Your invective gives you away as the intellectual lightweight you are.
There you go playing fast and loose with the words again. You did not present them as volunteer units, which become a form of REGULARS upon joining into the federal army. Your post focused on militias specifically and even went so far as to change the name designation of a volunteer unit to a militia unit despite the absence of the latter from any historical record.
Last I checked, BTW, it was standard operation to organize volunteer companies under a federal officer structure, arm them from the regular army's arsenals, and train them in the military command of that army. You've provided no reason to believe that this would not have been the case with the colorado volunteers that you dishonestly attempted to pass off as simple militiamen.
No, capitan. It's a simple matter of logical certainty. The fact is certain that you passed off extraneous material as the decision in several different court cases. Their are only two possible explanations for this action: ineptness in reading court decisions or willful deceit. One might not be the case, but if it is not the other necessarily is as there is no other explanation. So the question is did you err by accident or did you intentionally attempt to pass off false material? If you erred by accident, given the frequency and repeated exercise of that particular form of error you may be categorized as inept. If you intentionally posted false material then you practiced deception, thus making you a filthy liar. Again, the choice of which explanation you'd like to accept is yours. But it's gotta be one or the other.
So you say. But I think Bush is already head and shoulders above almost every other Republican president in that regard.
Don't put words in my mouth. If you're incapable of addressing what I said, just say so.
And just how did I put words in your mouth?
If you're incapable of reading your own reply, I'm not sure it would do any good for me to repeat it.
Don't know, huh?
He has that incapability though he'll never admit it. Non-Seq reminds me of Ben Stiller's character in Dodgeball. He constantly finds himself on the losing side of an argument but his incessantly combative nature induces him to continue that argument long past the point of any meaningful contribution he could make (and those are few and far between to begin with). So he turns to smarmy yet utterly stupid, hollow, and meaningless responses just for the sake of posting something in response.
I learned that from the master.
Actually, I think your lamentations over Bush retaining the presidency belong on DU.
Really? So how is Wlat doing these days? Is he stable?
I'm having a hard time too. How can on compare slavery and the wealth begotten from slavery to today? It's a bit of an insult to the progress we've made.
ROFLMAO!!! That's funny! You defending states' rights. Bwahahhaaa!!!!
nolu chan has linked you to it a bout a hundred times, but here it is again.
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.