Definition #1 does a little bit more than allow it.
capture: 1. to take by force or stratagem;
What exactly is the strategy for taking an abandoned fort? Did secret orders fall into the hands of the cacti, allowing them to put up a mean fight?
As far as you being in a 'red' part of CA, you told me where you lived when I posted from LALA land that we could meet for a beer... Since I don't know exactly where you're at, I'll just point out that the area is pretty blue on the county-by-county map. Maybe you have a household-by-household map in which your residence is painted red. So be it. My county was blue. I live in the second largest city in IA. The color of my county does not matter, except for demonstration purposes and general interest. My state was red (for once). Were it not, I don't see how that would reflect on me personally.
The case of Lemmon was not the first or most eggregious of your transgressions. The deception started in a response to lentulusgracchus, in which you quoted the prosecution's argument of the Amy Warwick as the decision. IIRC, you stated four points as the decision of the court. The findings of the court were the oppoisite in all four instances.
No retraction was made.
No apology was offered.
In fact, you continued to hammer on it as though nobody had pointed out your error.
Am I remembering things as they actually happened, or was that just a bad dream?
The company that was dispatched to Fort Davis could not have known with certainty that it was abandoned; however, given the Texans had been routed an were fleeing back to San antonio, it is a reasonable assumption. But Fort Jefferson Davis had symbolic value. My use of the word "capture" is 100% accurate per the definition I have several times supplied. You have as poor comprehension abilities as GOPc if you can not understand that.
"As far as you being in a 'red' part of CA, you told me where you lived when I posted from LALA land that we could meet for a beer... Since I don't know exactly where you're at, I'll just point out that the area is pretty blue on the county-by-county map."
I am in Ventura County. It is located between Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County. It includes the cities of Ventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, and Oxnard. Of these only Oxnard is heavily hispanic and leans Democrat. The County has an historical agricultural, military, and petroleum background. It is becoming a bedroom community for those who are escaping socialist Los Angeles. Here are the preliminary election results for President. Full results can be found on the Calif. Sec. of State, Elction Division website. They represent an improvement from 4 years ago, where Bush won only on the basis of absentee ballots. I expect the margin for Bush to increase when the absentee ballots are counted this year.
Bush - 109,007 50.8%
Kerry - 103,360 48.2%
"The case of Lemmon was not the first or most eggregious of your transgressions."
If you were to go back and actually read my comments, rather than the misrepresentations by nolu coward and others, you will see I made a three-sentence post about it, which I retracted the next day because it was simply a mistake. Posters who are themselves dishonest, point that out as an attempt to deceive. As the post was so clearly and easily proved wrong, and was retracted within a day, that doesn't make much sense, does it? But if you want to be part of the "liar choir," that's your choice.
Amy Warwick was one of the Prize Cases. As I recall, I was making points in that part of the thread about what the case was about, in a discussion of the Congresses power to retrospecively approve actions by the President, and how the cases were cast. If I said they were "rulings" by the Court, that was mistaken. However, the point remains that the Congress had the power to approve of Lincoln's assumption of emergency war powers and to similarly approve his susepnsion of the habeas writ. If you can point to the specific post you have problem with, I will review it.
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