Posted on 04/21/2007 7:44:44 AM PDT by BnBlFlag
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?pollId=44465
you, evidently, think that LYING for MONEY & POWER is A-OK.
tell us all,how do you feel about STEALING, inasmuch as you believe that HONESTY is "optional" in "public servants"????
free dixie,sw
you, evidently, think that LYING for MONEY & POWER is A-OK.
tell us all,how do you feel about STEALING, inasmuch as you believe that HONESTY is "optional" in "public servants"????
free dixie,sw
when told it was the STATE FLAG of SC, he didn't know WHERE South Carolina IS (and neither did his SUPERVISOR!). imVho, they must have graduated from a "gubmint awfurizd public screwel"!!!!
free dixie,sw
as a result, a MILLION Americans died for NOTHING except lincoln's quest for more POWER,his lust for MONEY & his sick EGOMANIA.
free dixie,sw
we need NO DAMNyankee LOUD-mouthed, PREJUDICED, LOUTS in dixie, as we have enough of "those creatures" down here already.
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
He's not advocating rebellion. He's merely stating the fact that, faced with a government you don't like, you have two choices: change it through constitutional means or rebel against it and create a government you like better. But there's nothing in the natural right of rebellion that says that the existing government isn't allowed to resist.
"republicanlizard", you seem to be an BIGOT & ANY sort of BIGOTRY is UNwelcome on FR & IN dixie. PLEASE stay home. we don't NEED any more BIGOTS "down here", as we already have more than enough already.
free dixie,sw
And for creatures who HATE us, as you DO, there is only amused disbelief at your antics.
Considering the content of your posts I never doubted otherwise.
I sure will.
Why? Your aim has been all over the place from the beginning?
Sumter was the property of the federal government. Built on land deeded to it by the state of South Carolina with federal revenue, it was the government's and the government's alone.
Now if you want to take the matter to the next step and and adopt the same old Southron song-and-dance that the government IS the states then so be it. But no one state had any greater claim than any other. South Carolina could no more seize the property without compensation than New York could.
But obviously you think I'm wrong so I'll bite. What rule of law suddenly made Sumter South Carolina's property?
“Why? Your aim has been all over the place from the beginning?”
As stated, that’s because I’m shooting at a moving target. Duh.
“What rule of law suddenly made Sumter South Carolina’s property?”
Sigh . . . . right back where we started. The same law that allowed the colonies to keep England’s “possessions” after the Revolutionary war.
As Brother Bubba Bo Peep said: Ownership came out of the natural right of rebellion. Win the war and you can write your own laws. To which he supported by quoting Lincoln in his first inaugural, “Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
So, there you have it, as your hero Lincoln demonstrated.
This is too easy. NEXT!
Except that South Carolina hadn't won any war when it demanded Sumter, and like I said before, there's nothing in the natural right of rebellion that says the other side has to pull down their pants, bend over and take it.
Kalipornia, Oregano and Washington state don’t surprise me. Nor does the typical Northeastern corridor.
Idaho IS a surprise.
Why is this a national poll anyway?
I think its the business of the people of South Carolina, who apparently have no problem with it.
And as I said before that law was called the Treaty of Paris, negotiated and agreed to by both sides. It followed a long and protracted rebellion. So what was the similar process used by South Carolina?
As Brother Bubba Bo Peep said: Ownership came out of the natural right of rebellion. Win the war and you can write your own laws.
But South Carolina claimed ownership without the rebellion, without negotiation, without compensation. Obviously they didn't have the benefit of your dazzling intellect.
The two comments can be taken together or separately. “Ownership came out of the natural right of rebellion.” The fact that the South had seceded did not preclude that there would be a war. Given that CSA claimed Sumter as its own and the Union did not declare war simply because of that claim nor did they declare war when states seceded it was not a foregone conclusion that there would be a war. If Lincoln believed the fort belonged to the Union he should have declared war before any fighting at Sumter took place. Either he did not believe it truly belonged to the U.S. or he was using it as an excuse to start the slaughter. In the meantime, the lack of a declaration of war would have — as Lincoln indicated — demonstrated that the fort belonged to the CSA as part of “natural right of rebellion.”
“Obviously they didn’t have the benefit of your dazzling intellect.”
Wasn’t my “intellect” that came up with that, it was Bubba. So don’t be insulting him like that.
Geez, you try to question MY intellect and you don’t even attribute the arguement to the right person.
I know, I know. Here, let me do it for you.
“I know you are, but what am I?”
You win. I can’t argue with such intellect.
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.