Posted on 08/29/2011 12:27:09 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
And that’s a true statement. Because you will never lead me.
“I said “It takes a minimum of 2/3s of Congress or 2/3s of the state legislatures to call for amendments to the Constitution.”
You said “Read Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, the other method is 2/3rds of the state legislators calling for a convention.”
That is not only correct but I said EXACTLY that in the quote from me you quoted.
And your comment about change by a minority is still incorrect.”
Forgive the oversight of your quote, I miss-read what you wrote. Perhaps because I presumed you knew that the smallest 3/4ths of the States contain combined only a minority of the the combined population of the 50 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
There is no chance that all the people of the smallest states (or the largest for that matter) will agree on an issue. Or that all the smallest states will unify against the larger states. Vermont will agree with NY and Utah with Texas for example.
I will concede the theoretic possibility that a minority could change the constitution but that chance is so small as to be discounted. Of course, someone wins the lottery.
Virtually every point raised by the LIAR you love I have refuted with little effort. He (and the other defenders of the Traitors of 1861) have no truth on their side just a bunch of hackneyed falsehoods which even a slight study of history shows to be utterly false.
No doubt there has been smuggling throughout history, slaves included, but it was negligible. Care to tell me how many slaves were imported into this nation after 1808?
There is clearly a need for engineers but I have to say that they generally know as much about history as I know about engineering. You prove this point by agreeing with outright falsehoods just because you want to.
That is your loss.
Red, White and Blue, the colors the defenders of the Union kicked Slaver butt under, are my colors now and forever.
Just read my prior posts and you will find every point raised by the Slave Power Defense Committee easily refuted. For example the excuse that the war was fought over the tariff. TRUTH - the South controlled the entire federal government until 1860. The tariff had been declining since 1828. Every president but the two Adams was pro-slavery or a slaver himself since our founding. Every Congress was controlled by Southerners, every Court manned by those sympathetic to slavery.
Or the excuse that there was some “TYRANNY” threatening the Land of the Whip and the Lash - TRUTH - the federal government was TINY, it had almost no army. It threatened nothing.
These aren’t even debatable so they are, of course, dropped when the truth is revealed and another lie is propped up. Every one dealt with in turn.
In 200+ yrs the total number of slaves imported into America prior to the 19th century is estimated to be 645,000. By 1860 there were almost 4 million slaves. So I will estimate that since 645,000 were brought in for the two hundred yrs. when it was entirely legal a safe estimate for those brought in the fifty years after it became illegal would be 65,000. Or around a thousand a year. Compared to the millions of slaves, that is indeed “negligible” not even 1%, far lower than those added by breeding.
As to the added laws, WHO do you think was behind having them passed? Slave breeders in alliance with Yankee moralists would be my guess.
Trade in slaves with other nations was forbidden by US and British legislation and that would have had the same impact on smuggling elsewhere, greatly reducing it.
All things being equal I would say that a non-slaver (Southern or Northern) is morally superior to a slaver (Southern or Northern) but that is not the issue in this discussion. I will never defend a Northern slaver or condemn him more for being so than I would a Southern one.
I would be honored to be on your sh!t list.
“As for the tariff ‘FACT’, well again if you think a lower rate on a specific tariff is the end-all-be-all of discussion on the economic war waged by the North from the start of the ‘Union’, then please knock yourself down another notch on the intellectual honesty meter.” I missed this piece of nonsense earlier. How did the North fight an economic “war” when the South controlled the federal government since its foundation? EVERY president except the Adams was either a slave owner himself or pro-slavery. Who was the commander-in-chief in this “war”? What troops did it use?
It is hilarious to hear a member of the Defense Committee of the Land of the Whip and Lash speak about intellectual honesty. What next, Pol Pot telling me to be open-minded?
Pot, meet kettle.......
OMG!
lol
((snicker))
;~)
(rockrr: FR's village idiot)
That is such a ridiculously false statement that it doesn't even deserve a response.
TRUTH - the federal government was TINY, it had almost no army. It threatened nothing.
False: Barbary wars, War of 1812, war with Mexico.
dropped when the truth is revealed and another lie is propped up.
And that appears to be your MO, which is the yankee way. You should change your login name to arrogantLIAR.
BTW, it's you and your POS lying comrades up north that is going to be the downfall of this country.
BTW, were you born and raised in the United States?
This is getting even funnier with each new clown.
Of course you don’t refute what you CANNOT refute. Only the Adams president was a break in the chain of either pro-slavery or outright slave owning (not the same thing) presidents. Pro-slavery (or indifferent) forces controlled Congress. Anti-slavery forces in the North were always a minority and concentrated in the Abolitionists who had little political control anywhere until the 1850s and even then it was small. The Slave Power was so strong that it was able to pass and enforce the abomination of the Fugitive Slave Act. This was one of the blunders it made which so infuriated the Yankees that many more were becoming anti-slavery when the Wah fell upon them.
As for you ridiculous stunt of claiming the Barbary Wars or 1812 or even Mexico showed a great federal military power while it is a contemptible stunt unworthy of any serious thought you won’t get off so easily.
The Barbary Wars involved very little American military power. Jefferson’s allies in the Congress had reduced Adams’ requests to build a bigger navy and had consistently resisted any expansion of the military. However, he was FORCED to fight the pirates after becoming president with the reduced military and naval forces he had helped create.
So a few dozen warships and privateering military attacks do not constitute a large military.
The War of 1812 was lost except for the Battle of New Orleans and a few naval victories. Only because a general of genius, Andrew Jackson, wielded a rag-tag lot of state militia, volunteers, pirates into a fighting force did the British lose. That same general’s attitude towards such treason as secession represented is summed up by his threat when president to hang South Carolina’s “nullifiers”. Can you even imagine what he would have done to those insane enough to fire on federal forts and men?
Ironically the Mexican War strengthened the South’s military capacity and spirit at least as much and probably more than the North. Many of the generals and politicians of the Cornfederacy cut their teeth in the US Army in Mexico. Lee and Davis are the most prominent. But the Southerners stayed in the army in a greater proportion after the drastic cutback following the war. America has always drastically cut the military back to pre-war standards after a war. The 1850s were no exception.
The fact is the Blue states are paying more than their fair share of the freight for the nation as a whole. Most of the problems they face are posed by the descendents of those enslaved by the Slave Power. So the entire nation is still plagued by after-shocks from slavery.
History does not move as fast as we would like unfortunately.
I was born and raised in Southern Arkansas from parents out of that area and grandparents from Mississippi and Alabama. My mother’s mother was named Alabama. I was raised believing a Yankee had two heads and breathed fire and swallowed every absurdity the Protect the Slave Power ideology fostered. My family all lives in the South except for my sons from my gorgeous but deceased Yankee wife.
Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question since I am the one defending the United States not those who tried to destroy it and, since you believe me a unmitigated liar, why would you think I would honestly answer it?
Because pokie likes to collect personal data on her victims that she can later use to torment them.
I seriously doubt that. Not only is the attitude grossly misrepresentative of Southern AR, but your use of wah instead of war (when you first began your rude exchanges and continued until your most recent) is highly indicative of roots outside of AR altogether. You see, wah is a non-rhotic accent and the non-rhotic accent doesn't exist in AR; not among the city dwellers nor those that reside in the sticks, not among the gentry nor the poor or anythin' in between. It doesn't exist in AR period. With an AR accent it's always a hard r and we're prone to drop the g at the endin' of more than a few words. On many occassions I've been told we sound like hicks simply because of that hard r.
For an AR accent, think Bear Bryant, Johnny Cash, Glen Campbell (good ole' South AR boys) among others, or just pull up AR accents online which are available for your edification. Many audios of AR accents are available.
And it burns, burns, burns, that ring of fire, that ring of fire. (/Johnny Cash)
Don't ever recall a South AR boy that shares your view of the WBTS, either.
With a South AR accent: IgnerntLIAR. LOL!
So it's your revisionist belief that the north didn't send any congressmen to DC until after 1860? Like I said, your statement is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a response.
From you: "the federal government was TINY, it had almost no army. It threatened nothing."
I refuted that stupidity by listing three wars that the US engaged in prior to 1861 in which they were a definite threat. And as you know, it didn't take long for the US to raise a huge army and mass them on the USA/CSA border where they became much more than a threat.
Most of the problems they face are posed by the descendents of those enslaved by the Slave Power.
You racist pig.
yous about as ignert as they come.
Are you suggesting that the Southern states that seceded were trying to destroy the United States? If so, that is another patently ridiculous statement from the self professed arrogant SOB.
The United States did more than remain intact. They raised a massive army, invaded their Southern neighbors and waged a war of imperialism for 4 years.
So how about giving us specific examples of how the United States was 'destroyed' instead of all that liberal style, emotional hand wringing that is so prevalent in your patently absurd postings.
BTW, when the South left the union the entire federal government came under yankee control. That should make you happy.
why would you think I would honestly answer it?
I don't. That's why I've renamed you 'arrogantliar'.
BTW, it appears that you've snagged yourself a little cheerleader in one rocker, FR's Queen of Snark. lol ((snicker)) ;~)
You and snarkrr make a good couple. She's a notorious liar as well. She's claimed to have been born and raised in three different Southern states and now that Southernsunshine has exposed your Arkansas lie you two are even more of a match. lol lol omg omg ;~) ((snicker))
“Are you suggesting that the Southern states that seceded were trying to destroy the United States? If so, that is another patently ridiculous statement from the self professed arrogant SOB.” I’m not suggesting, I’m DECLARING. Only a liar or a fool would believe that shooting at the United States Army is anything but.
Of course, it remained intact it takes more than an insurrection of idiots to destroy it. But the idiots TRIED their best.
Emotion is the only glue to the Cornfederate lovers’ arguments. There certainly is nothing truthful or rational about them.
Most people ignore the fools arguing for the Cornfederacy. I find them occasionally amusing and love to goad them into making their stupid and hilarious statements.
Nothing I have ever said has been either a lie or “exposed as a lie”. Rarely I might make a mistake as to a fact but I never lie. Why would I lie when arguing with the hapless stooges arguing for the Cornfederacy? There is nothing to gain.
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.