Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: smolensk
You have a strange view of debate. - We must believe your unsupported opinions, or be branded 'charlatans'.

[Which is an odd, almost paranoid charge. Who has tried to con or swindle you?] - Weird. #173

--------------------------------------

charlatan - A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

I stand by my correct usage of the word. I may be an illiterate and ignorant southerner whose ancestors narrowly avoided genocide by the north, but I do know the proper definition.

================================

Now you're begging the question & nit picking.

- I made NO such 'fraudulant' claims, I merely gave you my opinions on how the south could [& should] have avoided the war.

You [being unable it refute my reason], have flipped out, making silly, paranoid charges and are now claiming a false humility. -- Whatta bizarre way to argue.

183 posted on 11/02/2001 2:45:38 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Yes, tpaine, I refuted it. You just can't admit and started backpeddling when I had you in a corner.

But, for the sack of fairness, please explain to all on the list what logic you use to explain how someone (in this case the several northeastern states who held a secession convention) can get what they want by threatening to do something that can't be done because it is illegal and groundless (according to your own words)? My logic says that this would be like threatening to shot someone with a rubber band and expecting this 'show of force' to get you what you want.

You can't have it both ways. Either secession was an accepted doctrine by even this northeastern states as well as the other states, in which case they truly had something to threaten Jefferson with to end the war of 1812 - and this would prove that there really was the right to secede.

Or, there was no right to secede, and their threats had absolutely nothing to do with when and how the war was brought to a close. You strongly insinuated that it was this threat of secession that prompted Jefferson to bring the war to a speedy halt (which is not the case).

When, I called you on this, you stated that they could threaten secession even though there was no such thing which makes absolutely no logical sense except that you are in a corner and had to say something to backpeddle.

185 posted on 11/02/2001 4:13:01 PM PST by smolensk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson