I'm sure there is a Latin word to describe your faulty logic but I do not know what it is. I just call it wrong-headed.
Yes, I supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. And yes, I opposed the mob that attempted his high-tech lynching. But there was no “both ways” about it.
The elimination of the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution was necessary and advantageous but it should have been done peacefully using the agreed upon amendment process without all the war and killings.
I'm sure there is a Latin word to describe your faulty logic but I do not know what it is. I just call it wrong-headed.
Yes, I supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. And yes, I opposed the mob that attempted his high-tech lynching. But there was no both ways about it.
The elimination of the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution was necessary and advantageous but it should have been done peacefully using the agreed upon amendment process without all the war and killings.
I never studied Latin, but I know there's nothing "faulty" in my logic.
I know you Lost Causers wish to deny the 13th, 14th & 15th's legitimacy and yet none of you will admit to wanting the status quo ante -- is that Latin enough for you?
jeffersondem: "Yes, I supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court.
And yes, I opposed the mob that attempted his high-tech lynching. But there was no both ways about it."
Of course there is, because at the same time you wish to deny legitimacy to the very amendments which made Justice Thomas a possibility.
jeffersondem: "The elimination of the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution was necessary and advantageous but it should have been done peacefully using the agreed upon amendment process without all the war and killings."
Then talk to the ghosts of your own leadership.
Ask your own Jefferson Davis: