And as usual with you, any doubt benefits the government, rather than the States or their people - right?
You don't find an analogy comparing the Constitution with a contest to be somewhat...idiotic? What are you joining when you send in your Publishers Clearing House entry?
And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
Because you say so? That always seems to be the only reason why anyone is wrong - because you say they are. Well, thanks for clearing that up for us.
Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790. By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
;>)
I'm just trying to follow your usual twisted logic. If the fact that the states need the permission of other states to join the Union doesn't necessarily mean that the same is required to leave - your words not mine - then that means you admit that it is possible such permission might be required. So who's responsibility is it to clear up your doubts and determine whether the approval of the other states is required?
And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
Because the test is moronic in the extreme. A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry? I mean really. You couldn't come up with an analogy for the Constitution and some other group? You had to pick a totally unrelated, apples-and-oranges comparison?
Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790.
Because it was a member of the Union. It was one of the United States. If it wasn't then you tell me what stripped it of that status.
By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
Now, now, now don't get your mouth to foaming again.