Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
Republican presidential candidate
Nikki Haley steadfastly avoided
bringing up slavery when asked
during a New Hampshire town hall
Wednesday what caused the Civil
War-and when confronted by a
voter who felt her omission was
"astonishing," she was puzzled
by his concerns.
"I mean, I think the cause of
the Civil War was basically how
government was going to run-the
freedoms and what people could
and couldn't do," said Haley,
who then asked the questioner
what he believed the cause of
the war to be.
"I'm not running for president,"
the man replied. "I wanted to
see your view on the cause of
the Civil War."
Haley then basically reiterated
her prior answer, saying, "I
think it always comes down to
the role of government."
Moments later, the individual
in the audience reacted with
dismay by Haley's comments.
"In 2023, it's astonishing
to me that you would answer
that question without
mentioning the word 'slavery,'"
he said, which prompted Haley
to appear unsure what his
point was.
"What do you want me to say
about slavery?" she said with
her palm facing upward.
But that remark apparently
said it all. "You've answered
my question," the man responded.
Haley then moved on, saying,
"Next question."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-when >-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
Republican presidential candidate
Nikki Haley steadfastly avoided
bringing up slavery when asked
during a New Hampshire town hall
Wednesday what caused the Civil
War-and when confronted by a
voter who felt her omission was
"astonishing," she was puzzled
by his concerns.
"I mean, I think the cause of
the Civil War was basically how
government was going to run-the
freedoms and what people could
and couldn't do," said Haley,
who then asked the questioner
what he believed the cause of
the war to be.
"I'm not running for president,"
the man replied. "I wanted to
see your view on the cause of
the Civil War."
Haley then basically reiterated
her prior answer, saying, "I
think it always comes down to
the role of government."
Moments later, the individual
in the audience reacted with
dismay by Haley's comments.
"In 2023, it's astonishing
to me that you would answer
that question without
mentioning the word 'slavery,'"
he said, which prompted Haley
to appear unsure what his
point was.
"What do you want me to say
about slavery?" she said with
her palm facing upward.
But that remark apparently
said it all. "You've answered
my question," the man responded.
Haley then moved on, saying,
"Next question."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whe
n -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
Murray Kaye <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:umkm19$ght7$5@dont-email.me:
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
Republican presidential candidate
Nikki Haley steadfastly avoided
bringing up slavery when asked
during a New Hampshire town hall
Wednesday what caused the Civil
War-and when confronted by a
voter who felt her omission was
"astonishing," she was puzzled
by his concerns.
"I mean, I think the cause of
the Civil War was basically how
government was going to run-the
freedoms and what people could
and couldn't do," said Haley,
who then asked the questioner
what he believed the cause of
the war to be.
"I'm not running for president,"
the man replied. "I wanted to
see your view on the cause of
the Civil War."
Haley then basically reiterated
her prior answer, saying, "I
think it always comes down to
the role of government."
Moments later, the individual
in the audience reacted with
dismay by Haley's comments.
"In 2023, it's astonishing
to me that you would answer
that question without
mentioning the word 'slavery,'"
he said, which prompted Haley
to appear unsure what his
point was.
"What do you want me to say
about slavery?" she said with
her palm facing upward.
But that remark apparently
said it all. "You've answered
my question," the man responded.
Haley then moved on, saying,
"Next question."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whe
n -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
They are teaching fucking lies.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln >>wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in news:uml079$i1l9$2@dont- email.me:whe
Murray Kaye <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:umkm19$ght7$5@dont-email.me:
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
Republican presidential candidate
Nikki Haley steadfastly avoided
bringing up slavery when asked
during a New Hampshire town hall
Wednesday what caused the Civil
War-and when confronted by a
voter who felt her omission was
"astonishing," she was puzzled
by his concerns.
"I mean, I think the cause of
the Civil War was basically how
government was going to run-the
freedoms and what people could
and couldn't do," said Haley,
who then asked the questioner
what he believed the cause of
the war to be.
"I'm not running for president,"
the man replied. "I wanted to
see your view on the cause of
the Civil War."
Haley then basically reiterated
her prior answer, saying, "I
think it always comes down to
the role of government."
Moments later, the individual
in the audience reacted with
dismay by Haley's comments.
"In 2023, it's astonishing
to me that you would answer
that question without
mentioning the word 'slavery,'"
he said, which prompted Haley
to appear unsure what his
point was.
"What do you want me to say
about slavery?" she said with
her palm facing upward.
But that remark apparently
said it all. "You've answered
my question," the man responded.
Haley then moved on, saying,
"Next question."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-
aboutn -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all
Lincolnthe south defending themseles from northern agression over how
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
They are teaching fucking lies.
You're in no position to judge. Your laughing stock schools teach that
birth genders can be changed by cutting off penises or turning vaginas
wrong side out.
You're in no position to judge.
Your laughing stock schools teach that
birth genders can be changed by cutting off penises or turning vaginas
wrong side out.
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>> en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>> en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about >>>> the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln >>>> wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
s of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slaveryhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slaver >>>>>> y-wh en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
-wh en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all
about the south defending themseles from northern agression over
how Lincoln wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever
useless shit Texas had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six
of the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article
of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and
ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms,
you'd better not use any yourself.
s of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
Republican presidential candidate
Nikki Haley steadfastly avoided
bringing up slavery when asked
during a New Hampshire town hall
Wednesday what caused the Civil
War-and when confronted by a
voter who felt her omission was
"astonishing," she was puzzled
by his concerns.
"I mean, I think the cause of
the Civil War was basically how
government was going to run-the
freedoms and what people could
and couldn't do," said Haley,
who then asked the questioner
what he believed the cause of
the war to be.
"I'm not running for president,"
the man replied. "I wanted to
see your view on the cause of
the Civil War."
Haley then basically reiterated
her prior answer, saying, "I
think it always comes down to
the role of government."
Moments later, the individual
in the audience reacted with
dismay by Haley's comments.
"In 2023, it's astonishing
to me that you would answer
that question without
mentioning the word 'slavery,'"
he said, which prompted Haley
to appear unsure what his
point was.
"What do you want me to say
about slavery?" she said with
her palm facing upward.
But that remark apparently
said it all. "You've answered
my question," the man responded.
Haley then moved on, saying,
"Next question."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-when
-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln wanted
to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas had to
offer in those days.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:39:40 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Bullshit. It was actually about the North telling
the South what they could and could not do
and refusing to let the south leave the union.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:44:17 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2grahbqrbyq249
@pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:39:40 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:it was about the North saying the South couldn't spread their
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Bullshit. It was actually about the North telling
the South what they could and could not do
and refusing to let the south leave the union.
institution of slavery to the West.
Wrong, as always.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>> en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>>>> en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all >>>>>>> about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how
Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas >>>>>>> had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of >>>>>> the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>> war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article of >>>> cc
Secession" aka the Ordnance of Secession.
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:05:08 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:41:57 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote inWas a issue but?? You have a cite?
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Here is a map showing Americas Slave and non-slave states of the time
<https://cdn.britannica.com/49/168949-050-64CF22C4/Map-states-slave-slavery-territory-freedom-Missouri-1856.jpg>
 or  https://t.ly/zvYn3
Main article
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confederate-States-of-America#ref348693> >>  or  https://t.ly/-S4H3
Some journo from a propaganda rubbish paper saying/manipulating
something
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html>
 or  https://t.ly/KgIFg
==========So having wealthiest 6 of !6 states leave the Union was of no interest
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to gain
recognition as an independant nation.
to the other under-performing states (you are claiming)?
Never sated it was? Slavery however provided the "expensive stock"
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves were >>> "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
with meals, clothing, education, doctors, medicine, etc.
After the civil war this!
I call being left in a lurch, but OK you don't?
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American/The-Civil-War-era>
     or  https://t.ly/XtfFu
After the Civil War, the freedmen were thrown largelyon their own meagre >> resources. Landless anduprooted, they moved about in search of work.
The work they had been doing still had to be done.
The slave owners couldnt do the work themselves.
They generally lacked adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
BULLSHIT.
The Southern states enacted Black codes, laws resemblingthe slave codes that
restricted the movement of the formerslaves in an effort to force them to >> work as plantation labourers
—often for their former masters—at absurdly low wages.
That last was inevitable.
On 12/30/2023 3:41 PM, Half Speed, dopey Aussie drunk lied:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:05:08 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:41:57 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote inWas a issue but?? You have a cite?
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Here is a map showing Americas Slave and non-slave states of the
time
<https://cdn.britannica.com/49/168949-050-64CF22C4/Map-states-slave-s
lavery-territory-freedom-Missouri-1856.jpg>  or Â
https://t.ly/zvYn3
Main article
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confederate-States-of-America#ref34
8693>  or  https://t.ly/-S4H3
Some journo from a propaganda rubbish paper saying/manipulating
something
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-sout
h-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html>  or Â
https://t.ly/KgIFg
==========So having wealthiest 6 of !6 states leave the Union was of no
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to
gain recognition as an independant nation.
interest to the other under-performing states (you are claiming)?
Never sated it was? Slavery however provided the "expensive stock"
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves
were "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
with meals, clothing, education, doctors, medicine, etc.
After the civil war this!
I call being left in a lurch, but OK you don't?
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American/The-Civil-War-era>
     or  https://t.ly/XtfFu
After the Civil War, the freedmen were thrown largelyon their ownÂ
meagre resources. Landless anduprooted, they moved about in search
of work.
The work they had been doing still had to be done.
The slave owners couldnt do the work themselves.
They generally lacked adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
BULLSHIT.
No, *not* bullshit, Half Speed:
At least one quarter of the four million former slaves got sick or
died between 1862 and 1870,
https://www.nytimes.com/biased_full_of_shit
You are full of shit, Half Speed.
Rudy Canoza <druggy.Wieber.thief@meth.whore> wrote in news:FY1kN.124228$83n7.121138@fx18.iad:
On 12/30/2023 3:41 PM, Half Speed, dopey Aussie drunk lied:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:05:08 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:41:57 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote inWas a issue but?? You have a cite?
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Here is a map showing Americas Slave and non-slave states of the
time
<https://cdn.britannica.com/49/168949-050-64CF22C4/Map-states-slave-s
lavery-territory-freedom-Missouri-1856.jpg> Â or
https://t.ly/zvYn3
Main article
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confederate-States-of-America#ref34
8693>  or  https://t.ly/-S4H3
Some journo from a propaganda rubbish paper saying/manipulating
something
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-sout
h-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html> Â or
https://t.ly/KgIFg
==========So having wealthiest 6 of !6 states leave the Union was of no
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to
gain recognition as an independant nation.
interest to the other under-performing states (you are claiming)?
Never sated it was? Slavery however provided the "expensive stock"
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves
were "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
with meals, clothing, education, doctors, medicine, etc.
After the civil war this!
I call being left in a lurch, but OK you don't?
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American/The-Civil-War-era>
     or  https://t.ly/XtfFu
After the Civil War, the freedmen were thrown largelyon their own
meagre resources. Landless anduprooted, they moved about in search
of work.
The work they had been doing still had to be done.
The slave owners couldnt do the work themselves.
They generally lacked adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
BULLSHIT.
No, *not* bullshit, Half Speed:
At least one quarter of the four million former slaves got sick or
died between 1862 and 1870,
Not nearly enough. Those critters breed like rats and have fewer brain cells.
https://www.nytimes.com/biased_full_of_shit
You are full of shit, Half Speed.
40% of the slaves in the South were owned by former slaves and
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 06:19:12 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gr0l7dlbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:44:17 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2grahbqrbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:39:40 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>it was about the North saying the South couldn't spread their
wrote:
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Bullshit. It was actually about the North telling
the South what they could and could not do
and refusing to let the south leave the union.
institution of slavery to the West.
Wrong, as always.
So what's your claim?
Its there above.
There's plenty of Civil War scholars that do say it was about
slavery.
And plenty more who know it wasnt.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:41:57 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:=================
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:Was a issue but?? You have a cite?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Here is a map showing Americas Slave and non-slave states of the time <https://cdn.britannica.com/49/168949-050-64CF22C4/Map-states-slave-sla very-territory-freedom-Missouri-1856.jpg>
or https://t.ly/zvYn3
Main article <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confederate-States-of-America#ref3486
or https://t.ly/-S4H3
Some journo from a propaganda rubbish paper saying/manipulating
something
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south- seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html>
or https://t.ly/KgIFg
==========So having wealthiest 6 of !6 states leave the Union was of no interest
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to
gain recognition as an independant nation.
to the other under-performing states (you are claiming)?
Never sated it was? Slavery however provided the "expensive stock"
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves
were "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
with meals,
clothing,
doctors, medicine, etc.
After the civil war this!
I call being left in a lurch, but OK you don't?
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American/The-Civil-War-era>
or https://t.ly/XtfFu
After the Civil War, the freedmen were thrown largely on their own
meagre resources. Landless and uprooted, they moved about in search of
work. They generally lacked adequate food, clothing, and shelter. The Southern states enacted Black codes, laws resembling the slave codes
that restricted the movement of the former slaves in an effort to
force them to work as plantation labourers-often for their former
masters-at absurdly low wages.
40% of the slaves in the South were owned by former slaves
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:59:30 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
Fuck off with your Nazi lies, you sthitbag.Did not know Britannica had Nazi connections?
All my cites came from there.
On top of that around a third or more Freed slaves died from smallpox!
On 12/30/2023 3:41 PM, Half Speed, dopey Aussie drunk lied:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:05:08 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:41:57 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote inWas a issue but?? You have a cite?
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Here is a map showing Americas Slave and non-slave states of the
time
<https://cdn.britannica.com/49/168949-050-64CF22C4/Map-states-slave-s
lavery-territory-freedom-Missouri-1856.jpg>  or Â
https://t.ly/zvYn3
Main article
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confederate-States-of-America#ref34
8693>  or  https://t.ly/-S4H3
Some journo from a propaganda rubbish paper saying/manipulating
something
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-sout
h-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html>  or Â
https://t.ly/KgIFg
==========So having wealthiest 6 of !6 states leave the Union was of no
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to
gain recognition as an independant nation.
interest to the other under-performing states (you are claiming)?
Never sated it was? Slavery however provided the "expensive stock"
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves
were "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
with meals, clothing, education, doctors, medicine, etc.
After the civil war this!
I call being left in a lurch, but OK you don't?
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American/The-Civil-War-era>
     or  https://t.ly/XtfFu
After the Civil War, the freedmen were thrown largelyon their ownÂ
meagre resources. Landless anduprooted, they moved about in search
of work.
The work they had been doing still had to be done.
The slave owners couldnt do the work themselves.
They generally lacked adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
BULLSHIT.
No, *not* bullshit, Half Speed:
At least one quarter of the four million former slaves got sick or
died between 1862 and 1870, Professor Downs writes, including at
least 60,000 (the actual number is probably two or three times
higher, he argues) who perished in a smallpox epidemic that began
in Washington and spread through the South as former slaves
traveled in search of work — an epidemic that Professor Downs
says he is the first to reconstruct as a national event.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/books/sick-from-freedom-by-jim-downs -about-freed-slaves.html
You are full of shit, Half Speed.
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>> en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>>
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about >>>>> the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln >>>>> wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas >>>>> had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article
of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and
ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself.
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise. Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts - and it was the
South that set the taxes/tariffs.
==========
To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false
claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between
the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, "the main reasons for
secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using
Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure," The Washington
Post reported.
These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded
the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South
Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern
states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written
the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates
were lower than at any point since 1816.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south- seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
==========
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to gain recognition as an independant nation.
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves were "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:41:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 10:05:08 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:The conquered states had all gold currency taken, so little money
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:41:57 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote inWas a issue but?? You have a cite?
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Here is a map showing Americas Slave and non-slave states of the time
<https://cdn.britannica.com/49/168949-050-64CF22C4/Map-states-slave-slavery-territory-freedom-Missouri-1856.jpg>
or https://t.ly/zvYn3
Main article
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confederate-States-of-America#ref348693> >>> or https://t.ly/-S4H3
Some journo from a propaganda rubbish paper saying/manipulating
something
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html>
or https://t.ly/KgIFg
==========So having wealthiest 6 of !6 states leave the Union was of no interest
The myth about high taxes was simply propaganda aimed at Europe to gain >>>> recognition as an independant nation.
to the other under-performing states (you are claiming)?
Never sated it was? Slavery however provided the "expensive stock"
After the war a great many former slaves were unemployed,
That right there exposes the propaganda - it implys that the slaves were >>>> "employed" - slavery is NOT employment.
with meals, clothing, education, doctors, medicine, etc.
After the civil war this!
I call being left in a lurch, but OK you don't?
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American/The-Civil-War-era>
or https://t.ly/XtfFu
After the Civil War, the freedmen were thrown largelyon their own
meagre resources. Landless anduprooted, they moved about in search of
work.
The work they had been doing still had to be done.
The slave owners couldnt do the work themselves.
They generally lacked adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
BULLSHIT.
The Southern states enacted Black codes, laws resemblingthe slave codes >>> that restricted the movement of the formerslaves in an effort to force
them to work as plantation labourers
—often for their former masters—at absurdly low wages.
That last was inevitable.
around at all.
On top of that around a third or more Freed slaves died from smallpox!
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>> en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>>> en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about >>>>>> the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln >>>>>> wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas >>>>>> had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of >>>>> the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article of
Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and ammunition. >> If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, you'd better not use any
yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also noting your
absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used instead of "Secession".
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>>>>
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all >>>>>>> about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how
Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit
Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of >>>>>> the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>> war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article
of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and
ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms,
you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also
noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used
instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh >>>>>>> en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about >>>>>>>> the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln >>>>>>>> wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas >>>>>>>> had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of >>>>>>> the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>>> war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article of >>>>> Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and ammunition.
If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, you'd better not use >>>> any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also noting >>> your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used instead of >>> "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
On 31/12/2023 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise.
Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts - and
it was the South that set the taxes/tariffs.
I really do hate to say anything in support of pretzel who is the
village idiot of aus.pol but having read some of the states articles
of secession, he does have a point about tariffs. It was just another
one of many items that pissed them off.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 13:51:11 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
As to succession - that had already been decided in court - leaving
the union was not an option.
No court gets to decide something like that.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:47:25 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:3gh1pitqs2am4vbjmgoqo30iujekpuqhea@4ax.com:That was then this is now, since 1996. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:59:30 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
Fuck off with your Nazi lies, you sthitbag.Did not know Britannica had Nazi connections?
All my cites came from there.
The Britannia is a good source -IF you know how to read it and its >>limitations.
There are many things the Brits don't understand about America, and
most Americans don't understand all the nuances and phraseology of the >>Brits. There's a reason why it's said that Britain and America are
"two nations divided by a common language".
is owned in turn by the William Benton Foundation of Illinois, a
charitable foundation supporting programs in journalism and the media
at the University of Chicago.
Meet their team
<https://corporate.britannica.com/about-us>
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:47:25 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:3gh1pitqs2am4vbjmgoqo30iujekpuqhea@4ax.com:That was then this is now, since 1996. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:59:30 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
Fuck off with your Nazi lies, you sthitbag.Did not know Britannica had Nazi connections?
All my cites came from there.
The Britannia is a good source -IF you know how to read it and its >>limitations.
There are many things the Brits don't understand about America, and
most Americans don't understand all the nuances and phraseology of the >>Brits. There's a reason why it's said that Britain and America are
"two nations divided by a common language".
is owned in turn by the William Benton Foundation of Illinois, a
charitable foundation supporting programs in journalism and the media
at the University of Chicago.
Meet their team
<https://corporate.britannica.com/about-us>
The reason is called macaroni sedition by sole impetus of greed (ie. that
you continue to declare gun rights over human life is testimony to such)
and none of the colonialist states established by 1493 papal bull had succeeded from their masters as republics so what precedent was there for language not to be considered ipso facto of sovereignty?
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Dalek%20Revival.pdf>
How stupid of Americans not to get the declaration of independence written
in French 🇫🇷 and once they did their own king over around 1798 you would
be able to rightfully convey a sovereignty without the encumbrance as psychosis being rooted in "right to bear arms" as civilian militia.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
There's a reason why it's said that Britain and America are "two nations divided by a common language".
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was >>>>>>>>> all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how >>>>>>>>> Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit >>>>>>>>> Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by
six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>>>> war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the
"Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and
ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms,
you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also
noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was
used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo bin.
But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in news:t5k2pi5dpit14cpiotv8maaiupt2b2adck@4ax.com:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:47:25 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote inThat was then this is now, since 1996. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
news:3gh1pitqs2am4vbjmgoqo30iujekpuqhea@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:59:30 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
Fuck off with your Nazi lies, you sthitbag.Did not know Britannica had Nazi connections?
All my cites came from there.
The Britannia is a good source -IF you know how to read it and its
limitations.
There are many things the Brits don't understand about America, and
most Americans don't understand all the nuances and phraseology of the
Brits. There's a reason why it's said that Britain and America are
"two nations divided by a common language".
is owned in turn by the William Benton Foundation of Illinois, a
charitable foundation supporting programs in journalism and the media
at the University of Chicago.
Meet their team
<https://corporate.britannica.com/about-us>
The Brittania is what, 24 volumes covering everything?
writings about the Civil war, events leading up to it and events
following it could fill entire libraries. The Brittania article will be incomplete, and possible misleading.
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umqoqu$1ka1d$3@dont-email.me:
On 31/12/2023 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:The US President does not have the power to impose tariffs - that is the provence of Congress. Note also any tariffs would apply to all - not
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise.
Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts - and
it was the South that set the taxes/tariffs.
I really do hate to say anything in support of pretzel who is the
village idiot of aus.pol but having read some of the states articles
of secession, he does have a point about tariffs. It was just another
one of many items that pissed them off.
just the South.
To show that taxes/tariffs to have been an issue, you need to show that tariffs were exceptionally high on only items imported to the South
===========
Over the years, some people have claimed the real cause of the American Civil War was a generally forgotten law passed in early 1861, the Morrill Tariff. This law, which taxed imports to the United States, was said to
be so unfair to southern states that it caused them to secede from the
Union.
This interpretation of history, of course, is controversial. It
conveniently ignores the subject of enslavement, which had become the dominant political issue in America in the decade preceding the Civil
War.
So the simple answer to common questions about the Morrill Tariff is, no,
it was not the "real cause" of the Civil War.
And people who claim a tariff caused the war seem to be trying to
obscure, if not ignore, the fact that enslavement was the central issue
of the secession crisis in late 1860 and early 1861.
examining newspapers published in America during the 1850s will
immediately see that enslavement was a prominent topic of debate.
The continually escalating tensions over enslavement had certainly not
been some obscure or side issue in America.
While mentions of tariffs and taxation can be found within the various declarations of secession, it would be quite a stretch to say that the
issue of tariffs, and specifically the Morrill Tariff, was the "real
cause" of the Civil War.
https://www.thoughtco.com/morrill-tariff-real-cause-of-the-civil-war-
1773719
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the cross
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of >>>>>>>>> the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>>>>> war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article of >>>>>>> Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and
ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, you'd >>>>>> better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also noting
your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used instead of >>>>> "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo bin. But it's an >>> interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even an idiot
among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Never seen him before.
On 1/01/2024 4:10 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umqoqu$1ka1d$3@dont-email.me:
On 31/12/2023 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:The US President does not have the power to impose tariffs - that is
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six
of the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise.
Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts - and
it was the South that set the taxes/tariffs.
I really do hate to say anything in support of pretzel who is the
village idiot of aus.pol but having read some of the states articles
of secession, he does have a point about tariffs. It was just
another one of many items that pissed them off.
the provence of Congress. Note also any tariffs would apply to all -
not just the South.
I never mentioned the POTUS imposing tariffs.
And obviously tariffs
do apply across the board.
The fact that the South was more agricultural and the North was more industrial is precisely why there could be a negative impact on one
side or the other depending on which goods were selected and to which
the tariffs would be applied. Exactly the same thing applies even
today in modern economies
To show that taxes/tariffs to have been an issue, you need to show
that tariffs were exceptionally high on only items imported to the
South
And the south had been complaining about various tariffs since the
1820s.
===========
Over the years, some people have claimed the real cause of the
American
Civil War was a generally forgotten law passed in early 1861, the
Morrill Tariff. This law, which taxed imports to the United States,
was said to be so unfair to southern states that it caused them to
secede from the Union.
This interpretation of history, of course, is controversial. It
conveniently ignores the subject of enslavement, which had become the
dominant political issue in America in the decade preceding the Civil
War.
So the simple answer to common questions about the Morrill Tariff is,
no, it was not the "real cause" of the Civil War.
No war is ever just about one issue.
On 1/01/2024 4:21 am, Baxter wrote:the
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t5k2pi5dpit14cpiotv8maaiupt2b2adck@4ax.com:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:47:25 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3gh1pitqs2am4vbjmgoqo30iujekpuqhea@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:59:30 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
Fuck off with your Nazi lies, you sthitbag.Did not know Britannica had Nazi connections?
All my cites came from there.
The Britannia is a good source -IF you know how to read it and its
limitations.
There are many things the Brits don't understand about America, and
most Americans don't understand all the nuances and phraseology of
Brits. There's a reason why it's said that Britain and America areThat was then this is now, since 1996. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
"two nations divided by a common language".
is owned in turn by the William Benton Foundation of Illinois, a
charitable foundation supporting programs in journalism and the media
at the University of Chicago.
Meet their team
<https://corporate.britannica.com/about-us>
The Brittania is what, 24 volumes covering everything?
No, there are volumes at all involved.
"The Brittania" used to be the Royal yacht.
The encyclopedia is called "The Brittanica".
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umt5ur$1tjs8$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/01/2024 4:10 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umqoqu$1ka1d$3@dont-email.me:
On 31/12/2023 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:The US President does not have the power to impose tariffs - that is
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six
of the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>> war.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise.
Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts - and
it was the South that set the taxes/tariffs.
I really do hate to say anything in support of pretzel who is the
village idiot of aus.pol but having read some of the states articles
of secession, he does have a point about tariffs. It was just
another one of many items that pissed them off.
the provence of Congress. Note also any tariffs would apply to all -
not just the South.
I never mentioned the POTUS imposing tariffs.
Maybe *you* didn't, but the taxes meme going around specifically blames Lincoln.
And obviously tariffs
do apply across the board.
The fact that the South was more agricultural and the North was more
industrial is precisely why there could be a negative impact on one
side or the other depending on which goods were selected and to which
the tariffs would be applied. Exactly the same thing applies even
today in modern economies
To show that taxes/tariffs to have been an issue, you need to show
that tariffs were exceptionally high on only items imported to the
South
And the south had been complaining about various tariffs since the
1820s.
===========
Over the years, some people have claimed the real cause of the
American
Civil War was a generally forgotten law passed in early 1861, the
Morrill Tariff. This law, which taxed imports to the United States,
was said to be so unfair to southern states that it caused them to
secede from the Union.
This interpretation of history, of course, is controversial. It
conveniently ignores the subject of enslavement, which had become the
dominant political issue in America in the decade preceding the Civil
War.
So the simple answer to common questions about the Morrill Tariff is,
no, it was not the "real cause" of the Civil War.
No war is ever just about one issue.
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'. And, yes,
WWI was started by a single instant (the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.)
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was >>>>>>>>>>> all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over >>>>>>>>>>> how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless >>>>>>>>>>> shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by >>>>>>>>>> six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and
justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the
"Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and >>>>>>> ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, >>>>>>> you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst
also noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession"
was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo
bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even
an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umt699$1tkrh$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/01/2024 4:21 am, Baxter wrote:the
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t5k2pi5dpit14cpiotv8maaiupt2b2adck@4ax.com:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 03:47:25 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3gh1pitqs2am4vbjmgoqo30iujekpuqhea@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:59:30 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
Fuck off with your Nazi lies, you sthitbag.Did not know Britannica had Nazi connections?
All my cites came from there.
The Britannia is a good source -IF you know how to read it and its
limitations.
There are many things the Brits don't understand about America, and
most Americans don't understand all the nuances and phraseology of
Grammer/spelling trolls are simply avoidance of issue - and attempt toBrits. There's a reason why it's said that Britain and America areThat was then this is now, since 1996. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
"two nations divided by a common language".
is owned in turn by the William Benton Foundation of Illinois, a
charitable foundation supporting programs in journalism and the media
at the University of Chicago.
Meet their team
<https://corporate.britannica.com/about-us>
The Brittania is what, 24 volumes covering everything?
No, there are volumes at all involved.
"The Brittania" used to be the Royal yacht.
The encyclopedia is called "The Brittanica".
save face after losing a debate.
On 1/01/2024 2:41 pm, Baxter wrote:<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umt5ur$1tjs8$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/01/2024 4:10 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umqoqu$1ka1d$3@dont-email.me:
On 31/12/2023 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
awrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six >>>>>>> of the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify
andwar.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise.
Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts -
articlesit was the South that set the taxes/tariffs.
I really do hate to say anything in support of pretzel who is the
village idiot of aus.pol but having read some of the states
-of secession, he does have a point about tariffs. It was justThe US President does not have the power to impose tariffs - that is
another one of many items that pissed them off.
the provence of Congress. Note also any tariffs would apply to all
blamesnot just the South.
I never mentioned the POTUS imposing tariffs.
Maybe *you* didn't, but the taxes meme going around specifically
said.Lincoln.
So? I'm not posting memes so that is not relevant to anything I've
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
I never would say that.
I'd add in a lot of other factors as well.
Andyu
if you thought through that straw that broke the camel's back comment
made then that could very well have been the Morrill tariff. And no,Fort
before you get what I write all mixed up again, I'm not stating that
that particular straw was the Morrill tariff but just following through
the logic of your comment.
I must go and check out when the Morrill tariff was passed and when
Sumter was attacked. I do know it passed after at least some sates had seceded.
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 14:41:56 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
And, yes, WWI was started by a single instant (the assassinationof
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.)
Nope, It was actually the alliances and stupid royals
that turned that single event into a full world war.
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
Only if you don't have a clue about what actually caused it.
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the >>>>> cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo bin. But >>>>> it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a >>>>>>>>>>> war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article of
Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and >>>>>>>> ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, you'd
better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also >>>>>>> noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used >>>>>>> instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even an >>>> idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence.
Fantasy.4
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort Sumter,
South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort
Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
Not with a CIVIL WAR or what is a STRAW they don't
question, it's always a trap.
There is no question involved with what constitutes a STRAW
On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 12:22:55 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Not with a CIVIL WAR or what is a STRAW they don't
question, it's always a trap.
There is no question involved with what constitutes a STRAW
Well, I have no clue what you mean by "what constitutes a STRAW". I
think you mean when people finally say: "Fuck it!" and open fire, and
the distinction of having fired the first shot was won by the South
Carolina militia at Ft. Sumpter. Politically, it was a poor choice.
Ft. Sumpter was meaningless from a military perspective because it was undefensible against an attack from the land-side; its guns were all
fixed and zeroed on the harbor channels... the Union would have been
forced to abandon the position soon anyway because resupply would have
been impossible. That event cost the Union nothing and allowed them
to say that the South Carolina militia attacked first.
This becomes a big deal when you're trying to convince the European
navies to stay home and let the 'Muricans sort out their own problems.
The South had three primary issues, and being labeled the aggressor
(whether true or not) internationally was but one of them. Slavery
was another; England and France both disliked the idea of buying
cotton produced by slave labor or supporting a government explicitly
based on slavery. Finally, the South had over-produced cotton in the
latter half of the '50s, the European market was glutted, and the
prices had collapsed; European warehouses were full of cotton in 1860,
thus they could easily sit this one out.
The South fought well; however, they never really had a snowball's
chance of actually winning in the long run.
Of course, that's the history written by Northern historians. Had the
South not been forced to surrender, I'm sure the account would have
been completely different. In that version, Ft. Sumpter might have
been holding Charleston hostage to be liberated by the heroic Southern artillery.
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the rallying call
to arms.
Somewhat surprisingly, nations usually shy away from getting involved in or taking
advantage of other nations' civil wars. It can have the effect of inducing both sides to
get together to throw out the invaders.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the
violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort
Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
You've wandered off the reservation
There is no reservation and no straw.
and are no longer making any sense.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Again: the CAUSE of the Civil war was slavery (not taxes)
Never said it was taxes.
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Yep, what I said right at the start.
Slavery was the primary expression,the trigger and the rallying call
to arms.
The last was more the reason for the sessesion.
And there was never anything even remotely like a STRAW
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gurn6hbbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 14:41:56 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence. In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
And, yes, WWI was started by a single instant (the assassinationof
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.)
Nope, It was actually the alliances and stupid royals
that turned that single event into a full world war.
You proving my point.
Clearly you don't. I'll trust the Civil War scholars on the subject -
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
Only if you don't have a clue about what actually caused it.
and they say Slavery was the primary issue.
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umtrl0$23iie$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/01/2024 2:41 pm, Baxter wrote:<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umt5ur$1tjs8$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/01/2024 4:10 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:umqoqu$1ka1d$3@dont-email.me:
On 31/12/2023 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5iavoih1gehk24q8c7sr92q3vvs3jigu4g@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 15:38:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:09:10 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 10:00:34 +1100, Fran
awrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
of the majority of Confederate States
specifically said Sleavery was the issue.
No they did not.
Even the constitution of the Confederacy specified slavery.
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party)
On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six >>>>>>>> of the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify
andwar.
Bullshit! I posted detailed reference that showed otherwise.
Southern Democrats were in control of Congress and the Courts -
articlesit was the South that set the taxes/tariffs.
I really do hate to say anything in support of pretzel who is the
village idiot of aus.pol but having read some of the states
-of secession, he does have a point about tariffs. It was justThe US President does not have the power to impose tariffs - that is >>>>> the provence of Congress. Note also any tariffs would apply to all
another one of many items that pissed them off.
blamesnot just the South.
I never mentioned the POTUS imposing tariffs.
Maybe *you* didn't, but the taxes meme going around specifically
said.Lincoln.
So? I'm not posting memes so that is not relevant to anything I've
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
I never would say that.
That's because you're ignorant
I'd add in a lot of other factors as well.
Go ahead and name them AND their importance. a cause that's over 50% is
THE cause.
Andyu
if you thought through that straw that broke the camel's back comment
made then that could very well have been the Morrill tariff. And no,Fort
before you get what I write all mixed up again, I'm not stating that
that particular straw was the Morrill tariff but just following through
the logic of your comment.
I must go and check out when the Morrill tariff was passed and when
Sumter was attacked. I do know it passed after at least some sates had
seceded.
Actually, I posted - it was passed BEFORE any states succeeded,
President Buchanan, a Democrat. If the South was that opposed Buchanan
could have vetoed the tariff
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gv2xfcibyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort
Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
You've wandered off the reservation and are no longer making any sense.
Again: the CAUSE of the Civil war was slavery (not taxes)
============
Historians who address the origins of the American Civil War agree that
the preservation of the institution of slavery was the principal
the 11 Southern states (seven states before the onset of the war and four states after the onset) that declared their secession from the United
States (the Union) and united to form the Confederate States of America (known as the "Confederacy"). However, while historians in the 21st
century agree on the centrality of the conflict over slavery—it was not just "a cause" of the war but "the cause" according to Civil War
historian Chris Mackowski[1]—they disagree sharply on which aspects of
this conflict (ideological, economic, political, or social) were most important, and on the North’s reasons for refusing to allow the Southern states to secede.[2] Proponents of the pseudo-historical Lost Cause
ideology have denied that slavery was the principal cause of the
secession, a view that has been disproven by the overwhelming historical evidence against it, notably the seceding states' own secession
documents.[3]
The principal
whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the Western territories destined to become states.
(and to your BS:)
Nationalists in the North and "Unionists" in the South refused to accept
the declarations of secession. No foreign government ever recognized the Confederacy. The U.S. government, under President James Buchanan, refused
to relinquish its forts that were in territory claimed by the
Confederacy. The war itself began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate
forces bombarded Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, South
Carolina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
==========
Repeat:
"The war itself began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces
bombarded Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina."
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:7mf9pile0jh2v9r45msn7f0irhj47h98aa@4ax.com:
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the rallying call
to arms.
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in >>>>>> the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo >>>>>> bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons >>>>>>>>> and ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye
<elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war >>>>>>>>>>>>> was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over >>>>>>>>>>>>> how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless >>>>>>>>>>>>> shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession >>>>>>>>>>>> by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and >>>>>>>>>>>> justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the >>>>>>>>>> "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession. >>>>>>>>>
malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst >>>>>>>> also noting your absence and failure to comment when
"Succession" was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's
even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that
I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years. Do
the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells?
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the rallying call
to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like an
adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the same
thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery" is
presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of you) to
say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the civil war was
only about slavery, but like you, that is too simplistic.
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the >>>>>>> cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo bin. But >>>>>>> it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the "Article
of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and >>>>>>>>>> ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, >>>>>>>>>> you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also >>>>>>>>> noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used >>>>>>>>> instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even an >>>>>> idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that I'm a >>> 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years. Do the >> names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' and
David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the
violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort >>>>>>>> Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
You've wandered off the reservation
There is no reservation and no straw.
and are no longer making any sense.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Again: the CAUSE of the Civil war was slavery (not taxes)
Never said it was taxes.
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Yep, what I said right at the start.
Slavery was the primary expression,the trigger and the rallying
call to arms.
The last was more the reason for the sessesion.
And there was never anything even remotely like a STRAW
=============
Slavery, Not States' Rights, Caused Civil War Whose Political Effects
Linger
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slave
ry- not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-cause
Just because some individual claims something...
On 2/01/2024 2:29 am, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gurn6hbbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 14:41:56 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence. In
out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
And, yes, WWI was started by a single instant (the assassinationof
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.)
Nope, It was actually the alliances and stupid royals
that turned that single event into a full world war.
You proving my point.
Clearly you don't. I'll trust the Civil War scholars on the subject
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
Only if you don't have a clue about what actually caused it.
- and they say Slavery was the primary issue.
Do you know what the word "PRIMARY" actually means??? If you do,
you'd know that using that word blows a hole in your previous sentence that:"And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery."
On 2/01/2024 2:17 pm, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gv2xfcibyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort
Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
You've wandered off the reservation and are no longer making any
sense.
Again: the CAUSE of the Civil war was slavery (not taxes)
============
Historians who address the origins of the American Civil War agree
that the preservation of the institution of slavery was the principal
"Principal"!!!!!!!!! I know I'm wasting my time, but that word means
it was the main thing, not the ONLY thing.
aim of
the 11 Southern states (seven states before the onset of the war and
four states after the onset) that declared their secession from the
United States (the Union) and united to form the Confederate States
of America (known as the "Confederacy"). However, while historians in
the 21st century agree on the centrality of the conflict over
slavery—it was not just "a cause" of the war but "the cause"
according to Civil War historian Chris Mackowski[1]—they disagree
sharply on which aspects of this conflict (ideological, economic,
political, or social) were most important, and on the North’s
reasons for refusing to allow the Southern states to secede.[2]
Proponents of the pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology have denied
that slavery was the principal cause of the secession, a view that
has been disproven by the overwhelming historical evidence against
it, notably the seceding states' own secession documents.[3]
The principal
Yep, there is that word again. MAIN thing, not the ONLY thing.
political battle leading to Southern secession was over
whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the Western
territories destined to become states.
(and to your BS:)
Nationalists in the North and "Unionists" in the South refused to
accept the declarations of secession. No foreign government ever
recognized the Confederacy. The U.S. government, under President
James Buchanan, refused to relinquish its forts that were in
territory claimed by the Confederacy. The war itself began on April
12, 1861, when Confederate forces bombarded Fort Sumter, in the
harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
And to address your own particular bullshit, you should have read your
cite further down where it says: "As a panel of historians emphasized
in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents
were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that
sparked the war."[7] Historian David M. Potter wrote: "The problem for Americans who, in the age of Lincoln, wanted slaves to be free was not
simply that southerners wanted the opposite, but that they themselves cherished a conflicting value: they wanted the Constitution, which
protected slavery, to be honored, and the Union, which was a
fellowship with slaveholders, to be preserved. Thus they were
committed to values that could not logically be reconciled."[8]
Other important factors were partisan politics, abolitionism,
nullification versus secession, Southern and Northern nationalism, expansionism, economics, and modernization in the Antebellum period."
On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:57:45 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort
Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
You've wandered off the reservation
There is no reservation and no straw.
and are no longer making any sense.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Again: the CAUSE of the Civil war was slavery (not taxes)
Never said it was taxes.
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the rallying call
to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was about slavery. And you've posted ziltch to support your claim.
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery"
is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of
you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's
only about slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the
civil war was only about slavery, but like you, that is too
simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the
rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdywh1byq249@pvr2.lan:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about
slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as
it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that
particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you,
that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and
the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And what Abe said so clearly proves that it was actually about
sessesion, not slavery,
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the rallying call >>>>> to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was about
slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about slavery.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:06:22 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was >>>>>> about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to slavery.
But Abe said very clearly that sessesion
was the cause of the civil war, not slavery.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like >>>>>>> an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about
slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that
particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you >>>>>>> also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
On 1/3/2024 10:13 PM, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like >>>>>>>>> an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that
particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you >>>>>>>>> also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take >>>> the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim. >>>
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
Rudy is still kicking the living fuck out of right-wingnuts like me.
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:
Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like an
adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the same
thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery" is
presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of you) to
say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's only about
slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the civil war was
only about slavery, but like you, that is too simplistic.
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups >>>>>>>> in the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my >>>>>>>> Bozo bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit >>>>>>>> longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons >>>>>>>>>>> and ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the >>>>>>>>>>>> "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession. >>>>>>>>>>>
malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic]
whilst also noting your absence and failure to comment when >>>>>>>>>> "Succession" was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's >>>>>>> even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view
that I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years.
Do the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr'
and 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post with last
names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like >>>>>>>> an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about
slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that
particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you >>>>>>>> also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gzdywh1byq249@pvr2.lan:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery"
is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of
you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's
only about slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the
civil war was only about slavery, but like you, that is too
simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, childreservation of the institution of slavery was the principal
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo bin. But
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and >>>>>>>>>>>> ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms, >>>>>>>>>>>> you'd better not use any yourself.
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was all
about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless shit
Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst also
noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" was used
instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in the
it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even an
idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that I'm a
'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years. Do the >>>> names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' >>>> and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I've never posted in that group and
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post with last names
back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like >>>>>>>> an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about
slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that
particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you >>>>>>>> also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
On 4/01/2024 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like an
adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the same
thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery" is
presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of you) to
say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's only about
slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the civil war was
only about slavery, but like you, that is too simplistic.
And you're just thick and illogical.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the >>>>>> rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
On 1/3/2024 8:38 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like an >>>> adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the same
thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery" is
presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of you) to
say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's only about >>>> slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the civil war was >>>> only about slavery, but like you, that is too simplistic.
And you're just thick and illogical.
He is, but he's on your team. He's a left-wingnut goofball, like you.
You two just happen to disagree (fatuously) on this issue. No one can coherently name another cause of the American civil war. There's a lot
of bullshit guff about "states's rights" and "how the government would
be run," but no specifics. The fact is, those traitor states that said
in their secession declarations *why* they were seceding all said it was
over slavery. Then the traitor states fired the first shots that started
the war. Lincoln may have prosecuted the war that the traitor states
started in order to preserve the Union, but the war started over
slavery. This is not in rational dispute.
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like >>>>>>>>> an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that
particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you >>>>>>>>> also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take >>>> the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim. >>>
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it to you because
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gzv97u7byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to slavery.
Abe didn't start the war - and again, succession is tied directly to
And what Abe said so clearly proves that it was actually about
sessesion, not slavery,
slavery. Without slavery issue there is no succession.
On 4/01/2024 4:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:38 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly >>>>>> grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like an >>>>> adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the same
thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery" is
presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of you) to >>>>> say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's only about >>>>> slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the civil war was >>>>> only about slavery, but like you, that is too simplistic.
And you're just thick and illogical.
He is, but he's on your team. He's a left-wingnut goofball, like you.
Coming from you, thats a compliment.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycl4hpbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteAnd that "individual" would be you.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'. >>>>>>Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the
violence.
Fantasy.
In out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
Bullshit.
Really?!!!
Fraid so.
============
Fact #4: The Civil War began when Southern troopsbombarded Fort >>>>>>>>> Sumter, South Carolina.
That was nothing even remotely like a STRAW
any more than Hitler's attack on Poland or the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was.
You've wandered off the reservation
There is no reservation and no straw.
and are no longer making any sense.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
Again: the CAUSE of the Civil war was slavery (not taxes)
Never said it was taxes.
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal Supremacy.
Yep, what I said right at the start.
Slavery was the primary expression,the trigger and the rallying
call to arms.
The last was more the reason for the sessesion.
And there was never anything even remotely like a STRAW
=============
Slavery, Not States' Rights, Caused Civil War Whose Political Effects
Linger
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slave
ry- not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-cause
Just because some individual claims something...
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2t55$340f9$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:29 am, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gurn6hbbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2024 14:41:56 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
But there's always the 'straw the breaks the camel's back'.
Its never a straw with a civil war.
Yeah, there always is that one incident that starts the violence. In
out Civil War it was Fort Sumpter.
And, yes, WWI was started by a single instant (the assassinationof
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.)
Nope, It was actually the alliances and stupid royals
that turned that single event into a full world war.
You proving my point.
Clearly you don't. I'll trust the Civil War scholars on the subject
And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery.
Only if you don't have a clue about what actually caused it.
- and they say Slavery was the primary issue.
Do you know what the word "PRIMARY" actually means??? If you do,
you'd know that using that word blows a hole in your previous sentence
that:"And yes you CAN say that the Civil War was about Slavery."
Apparently you don't know what "primary" means. If it's 90% slavery,
that other 10% is irrelavent.
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxterall of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take >>>>> the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim. >>>>
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act >>>>>>>>>> like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than >>>>>>>>>> you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse. >>>>
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking
liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it to
you because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about slavery.
On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> >>>>> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxterall of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take >>>>>> the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim. >>>>>
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you >>>>>>>>>>> also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse. >>>>>
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it to you >>> because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about slavery.
Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:groups in the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end >>>>>>>>>> up in my Bozo bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read >>>>>>>>>> for a bit longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
(The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military >>>>>>>>>>>>> weapons and ammunition. If you're going to lecture people >>>>>>>>>>>>> about malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] >>>>>>>>>>>> whilst also noting your absence and failure to comment when >>>>>>>>>>>> "Succession" was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot.
He's even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view
that I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years.
Do the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and
'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I've never posted in that group and
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that group,
and those people I mentioned did as well, and those replies went back to misc.rural.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post with
last names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it regularly.
Here's a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which you *state* that
you participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
This straying far afield from the fact that I know who you are, and have
seen your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 years.
On 1/3/2024 9:23 PM, Fran wrote:Obviously you don't.
On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard >>>>>>>> arse.
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>>>>>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and >>>>>>>>>>>> act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share >>>>>>>>>>>> the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me >>>>>>>>>>>> (as
it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other >>>>>>>>>>>> than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like >>>>>>>>>>>> you,
that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists. >>>>>>>>
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to >>>>>>> take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing
victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you
wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it
to you because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about slavery.
Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
I know what he said about preserving the union was said during the war,
On 4/01/2024 3:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's even
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about malapropisms,
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> six of
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over how
Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you'd better not use any yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>> also noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession" >>>>>>>>>>>>> was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in >>>>>>>>>>> the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo >>>>>>>>>>> bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer. >>>>>>>>>>
an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that I'm
a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years. Do the
names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus'
and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I've never posted in that group and
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that group, and >> those people I mentioned did as well, and those replies went back to misc.rural.
So? Just because they did doesn't mean I remember the names you mentioned.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post with last >>>> names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it regularly. Here's
a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which you *state* that you
participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
All of those posts seem to be into aus.politics no that defunct group. I remember Jon Ball (and yes, I must have posted to misc.rural).
I commented on my remebering Jon Ball and yet you've conflated that into some fantasy.
This straying far afield from the fact that I know who you are, and have seen
your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 years.
I'm happy that I made a lasting impression. And, as a well known centrist
On 4/01/2024 4:37 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:23 PM, Fran wrote:Obviously you don't.
On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fran wrote:Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>
wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxterall of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take >>>>>>>> the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse. >>>>>>>
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists. >>>>>>>>>
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it to you >>>>> because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about slavery. >>>
I know what he said about preserving the union was said during the war,
Baxter:..."this Civil War apologia came AFTER the war...
Roddles:..."What ABE said was NOT AFTER the war, fool."
The discussion into which you butted was about TIMING of when certain things were said
On 1/3/2024 9:55 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery
When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War
Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession by six of
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weapons and ammunition. If you're going to lecture people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst also noting your absence and failure to comment >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when "Succession" was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those >>>>>>>>>>>> groups in the cross post list are full of nuts who usually >>>>>>>>>>>> end up in my Bozo bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll >>>>>>>>>>>> read for a bit longer.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> He's even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view >>>>>>>> that I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20
years. Do the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect'
and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I've never posted in that group and
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that
group, and those people I mentioned did as well, and those replies
went back to misc.rural.
So? Just because they did doesn't mean I remember the names you
mentioned.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post
with last names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it
regularly. Here's a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which you
*state* that you participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
All of those posts seem to be into aus.politics no that defunct group.
I remember Jon Ball (and yes, I must have posted to misc.rural).
You posted there frequently. It may have been cross-posting, but you
were there. I'm right and you're wrong.
 I commented on my remebering Jon Ball and yet you've conflated that
into some fantasy.
They were cross-posted to a bunch of groups, and you replied to *lots*
of posts that were cross-posted to the same groups. So you're lying if
you say you don't remember any of those group participants, or the
groups. You remember them...unless you're suffering early onset
dementia. Which is it?
This straying far afield from the fact that I know who you are, and
have seen your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 years.
I'm happy that I made a lasting impression. And, as a well known
centrist
You are not a centrist. You are a socialist far-left-wing goofball.
Although I'm sure you would omit "goofball" from the description, I
suspect you would *agree* with all the rest...but it doesn't matter if
you would or wouldn't. I know what you are, going back more than 20
years, and you are a far-left socialist goofball. This is settled.
On 1/3/2024 10:06 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 4:37 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:23 PM, Fran wrote:Obviously you don't.
On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your >>>>>>>>>> lard arse.
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me (as
it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like you,
that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists. >>>>>>>>>>
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort >>>>>>>>> to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing >>>>>>>>> victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you
wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it >>>>>> to you because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about
slavery.
Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
I know what he said about preserving the union was said during the war,
Baxter:..."this Civil War apologia came AFTER the war...
He's right. They did.
Roddles:..."What ABE said was NOT AFTER the war, fool."
The discussion into which you butted was about TIMING of when certain
things were said
And
the war was not about slavery. You lose.
On 4/01/2024 5:14 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:55 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's >>>>>>>>>>>> even an idiot among socialist idiots.
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my Bozo
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons and
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec. 27, 2023
<https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-whhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession by
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war was
all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also noting your absence and failure to comment when "Succession"
was used instead of "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups in
bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit longer. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that >>>>>>>>> I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years. Do >>>>>>>> the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr' and >>>>>>>> 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I've never posted in that group and
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that group, and
those people I mentioned did as well, and those replies went back to
misc.rural.
So? Just because they did doesn't mean I remember the names you mentioned.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post with last
names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it regularly. >>>> Here's a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which you *state* that you >>>> participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
All of those posts seem to be into aus.politics no that defunct group. I >>> remember Jon Ball (and yes, I must have posted to misc.rural).
You posted there frequently. It may have been cross-posting, but you were
there. I'm right and you're wrong.
Same old Jon.
 I commented on my remebering Jon Ball and yet you've conflated that into >>> some fantasy.
They were cross-posted to a bunch of groups, and you replied to *lots* of
posts that were cross-posted to the same groups. So you're lying if you say >> you don't remember any of those group participants, or the groups. You
remember them...unless you're suffering early onset dementia. Which is it?
Without looking at the cross post list here,
I post into aus.pol and one other group.
You are not a centrist. You are a socialist far-left-wing goofball.This is straying far afield from the fact that I know who you are, and have
seen your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 years.
I'm happy that I made a lasting impression. And, as a well known centrist >>
LOL.
Although I'm sure you would omit "goofball" from the description, I suspect >> you would *agree* with all the rest...but it doesn't matter if you would or >> wouldn't. I know what you are, going back more than 20 years, and you are a >> far-left socialist goofball. This is settled.
How are Les Petomanes going?
On 4/01/2024 5:16 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:06 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied:
On 4/01/2024 4:37 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:23 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied: >>>>> On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied: >>>>>>> On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as
it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you,
that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists. >>>>>>>>>>>
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it to you
because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about slavery. >>>>>
I know what he said about preserving the union was said during the war, >>> Obviously you don't.
Baxter:..."this Civil War apologia came AFTER the war...
He's right. They did.
Well at least you finally have half of it figured out.
Roddles:..."What ABE said was NOT AFTER the war, fool."
The discussion into which you butted was about TIMING of when certain things
were said
And
There was no "and" involved
about when certain things were *never* said. Lincoln *never* said
the war was not about slavery. You lose.
I didn't.
On 1/3/2024 10:38 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:14 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:55 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:You posted there frequently. It may have been cross-posting, but you
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:WTF??????? You are deluded.
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups in the cross post list are full of nuts who usually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end up in my Bozo bin. But it's an interesting topic so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll read for a bit longer.
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec. 27, 2023
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war>
   or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession by six of
Florida and Texas children are taught that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's the "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weapons and ammunition. If you're going to lecture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people about malapropisms, you'd better not use any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whilst also noting your absence and failure to comment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when "Succession" was used instead of "Secession". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He's even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the >>>>>>>>>> view that I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 >>>>>>>>> years. Do the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' >>>>>>>>> and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells? >>>>>>>>
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever.
You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I've never posted in that group and
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that
group, and those people I mentioned did as well, and those replies
went back to misc.rural.
So? Just because they did doesn't mean I remember the names you
mentioned.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post
with last names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it
regularly. Here's a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which
you *state* that you participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
All of those posts seem to be into aus.politics no that defunct
group. I remember Jon Ball (and yes, I must have posted to misc.rural). >>>
were there. I'm right and you're wrong.
Same old Jon.
Not me, not a pseudonym I've ever used. But thanks for confirming
everything I've said about you.
 I commented on my remebering Jon Ball and yet you've conflated that
into some fantasy.
They were cross-posted to a bunch of groups, and you replied to
*lots* of posts that were cross-posted to the same groups. So you're
lying if you say you don't remember any of those group participants,
or the groups. You remember them...unless you're suffering early
onset dementia. Which is it?
Without looking at the cross post list here,
So, you admit to being a Usenet incompetent, Fat Fran. Good...because
you are.
I post into aus.pol and one other group.
And numerous others, even though you're too stupid to realize it.
This is straying far afield from the fact that I know who you are,
and have seen your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 years.
I'm happy that I made a lasting impression. And, as a well known
centrist
You are not a centrist. You are a socialist far-left-wing goofball.
LOL.
No — settled.
Although I'm sure you would omit "goofball" from the description, I
suspect you would *agree* with all the rest...but it doesn't matter
if you would or wouldn't. I know what you are, going back more than
20 years, and you are a far-left socialist goofball. This is settled.
How are Les Petomanes going?
Never heard of that, Fat Fran. You're wrong about who I am, Fat Fran,
but I know who you are, Fran Higham/Snortilus. *HA HA HA HA HA*
On 4/01/2024 5:46 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:38 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:14 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:55 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:I've never posted in that group and
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:in the cross post list are full of nuts who usually end up in my
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that person. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those groups
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military weapons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ammunition. If you're going to lecture people about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malapropisms, you'd better not use any yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec. 27, 2023
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â or https://t.ly/uidZ3https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The National Union Party, now called Republican party) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the southern states which reacted by planning secession
Florida and Texas children are taught that the civil war >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was all about
the south defending themseles from northern agression over
how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and whatever useless
shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop succession and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that it's the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance [sic] of Secession. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu [sic] whilst
also noting your absence and failure to comment when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Succession" was used instead of "Secession". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bozo bin. But it's an interesting topic so I'll read for a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an idiot. He's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even an idiot among socialist idiots.
Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the view that
I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 years. Do
the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual suspect' and 'frlpwr' and
'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever. >>>>>>>>You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian >>>>>>>
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that group, >>>>>> and those people I mentioned did as well, and those replies went back to >>>>>> misc.rural.
So? Just because they did doesn't mean I remember the names you mentioned.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post with >>>>>>>> last names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it regularly. >>>>>> Here's a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which you *state* that you
participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
All of those posts seem to be into aus.politics no that defunct group. I >>>>> remember Jon Ball (and yes, I must have posted to misc.rural).
You posted there frequently. It may have been cross-posting, but you were >>>> there. I'm right and you're wrong.
Same old Jon.
Not me, not a pseudonym I've ever used. But thanks for confirming everything >> I've said about you.
Without looking at the cross post list here,
 I commented on my remebering Jon Ball and yet you've conflated that into
some fantasy.
They were cross-posted to a bunch of groups, and you replied to *lots* of >>>> posts that were cross-posted to the same groups. So you're lying if you say
you don't remember any of those group participants, or the groups. You >>>> remember them...unless you're suffering early onset dementia. Which is it? >>>
So, you admit to being a Usenet incompetent, Fat Fran. Good...because you are.
I post into aus.pol and one other group.
And numerous others, even though you're too stupid to realize it.
This is straying far afield from the fact that I know who you are, and >>>>>> have seen your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 years.
I'm happy that I made a lasting impression. And, as a well known centrist
You are not a centrist. You are a socialist far-left-wing goofball.
LOL.
No — settled.
Although I'm sure you would omit "goofball" from the description, I suspect
you would *agree* with all the rest...but it doesn't matter if you would or
wouldn't. I know what you are, going back more than 20 years, and you are a
far-left socialist goofball. This is settled.
How are Les Petomanes going?
Never heard of that, Fat Fran. You're wrong about who I am, Fat Fran, but I >> know who you are, Fran Higham/Snortilus. *HA HA HA HA HA*
Tsk tsk Jon.
Don't lie!
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the >>>>>> rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gzdywh1byq249@pvr2.lan:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you gullibly
grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about slavery"
is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as it is of
you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that particular "it's
only about slavery" meme. People, other than you also say that the
civil war was only about slavery, but like you, that is too
simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gzv97u7byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to slavery.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:un4qp6$3c9oa$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the >>>>>>> rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Saving the Union.. See above.
Oh, that's right according to you it was ONLY about slavery...
On 1/4/2024 7:29 AM, Scout wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:un4qp6$3c9oa$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249 >>>>> @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the >>>>>>>> rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Saving the Union.. See above.
Oh, that's right according to you it was ONLY about slavery...
The only way Jon Ball reaches that conclusion is to completely ignore Lincoln's own words. Then again, he is a victim of govt education.
"Yak" <yak@inbox.com> wrote in message news:un6a25$3lbj9$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/4/2024 7:29 AM, Scout wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:un4qp6$3c9oa$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249 >>>>>> @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the >>>>>>>>> rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was >>>>>> about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Saving the Union.. See above.
Oh, that's right according to you it was ONLY about slavery...
The only way Jon Ball reaches that conclusion is to completely ignore
Lincoln's own words. Then again, he is a victim of govt education.
Objection: There is no indication that he has any education.. govt or otherwise.
On 1/4/2024 7:29 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:un4qp6$3c9oa$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gycjen7byq249 >>>>> @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and the >>>>>>>> rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was
about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Saving the Union.. See above.
Oh, that's right according to you it was ONLY about slavery...
The only way Jon Ball
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:un57bd$3hh9e$1@dont-email.me...
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was >>>>>> about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession
are connected directly to slavery.
Maybe, maybe not.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:06:22 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzv97u7byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War
was about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to
slavery.
But Abe said very clearly that sessesion
was the cause of the civil war, not slavery.
And whatever those 3 slave states said is completely irrelevant
given that it was ABE that declared war on the confederacy.
And what Abe said so clearly proves that it was actually about
sessesion, not slavery,
Abe didn't start the war
Of course he did.
- and again, succession is tied directly to slavery.
It was never the only reason the confederacy
chose to sessede and caused ABE to go to war.
Without slavery issue there is no succession.
Without ABE choosing to go to war to prevent sessesion, there would
have been no civil war.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gz5vjkdbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:06:22 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzv97u7byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War
was about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to
slavery.
But Abe said very clearly that sessesion
was the cause of the civil war, not slavery.
And whatever those 3 slave states said is completely irrelevant
given that it was ABE that declared war on the confederacy.
And what Abe said so clearly proves that it was actually about
sessesion, not slavery,
Abe didn't start the war
Of course he did.
- and again, succession is tied directly to slavery.
It was never the only reason the confederacy
chose to sessede and caused ABE to go to war.
Without slavery issue there is no succession.
Without ABE choosing to go to war to prevent sessesion, there would
have been no civil war.
The South had already posted their articles of succession, the North
refused to recognize the succession until the South fired on Fort
Sumpter.
Whoever taught you American History is wrong - they taught you
propaganda.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:un6ncn$3ngcn$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gz5vjkdbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:06:22 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzv97u7byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal >>>>>>>>>>> Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War >>>>>>>> was about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to
slavery.
But Abe said very clearly that sessesion
was the cause of the civil war, not slavery.
And whatever those 3 slave states said is completely irrelevant
given that it was ABE that declared war on the confederacy.
And what Abe said so clearly proves that it was actually about
sessesion, not slavery,
Abe didn't start the war
Of course he did.
- and again, succession is tied directly to slavery.
It was never the only reason the confederacy
chose to sessede and caused ABE to go to war.
Without slavery issue there is no succession.
Without ABE choosing to go to war to prevent sessesion, there would
have been no civil war.
The South had already posted their articles of succession, the North
refused to recognize the succession until the South fired on Fort
Sumpter.
Which they did only because of Abe actions to resupply, and massively re-enforce [sic]
the garrison there.
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzwb4pwbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdywh1byq249@pvr2.lan:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act
like an adult. More than one person at a time can think or
share the same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only
about slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of
me (as it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of
that particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other
than you also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but >>>>>>> like you, that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard
arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to
take the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing
victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
On 1/3/2024 9:07 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 4:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:38 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:41 am, Baxter wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act
like an adult. More than one person at a time can think or
share the same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only
about slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of
me (as it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of
that particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other
than you also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but
like you, that is too simplistic.
And you're just thick and illogical.
He is, but he's on your team. He's a left-wingnut goofball, like
you.
Coming from you, thats a compliment.
It's not. Being a left-wingnut goofball is not a good thing. You
support socialist measures that are bad and wrong.
On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 03:46:16 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
The South had already posted their articles of succession, the North
refused to recognize the succession until the South fired on Fort
Sumpter.
Nothing to do with SLAVERY. Everything to do with
secession, as Abe said so very clearly at the time.
Whoever taught you American History is wrong - they taught you
propaganda.
No one ever taught me american history, its trivial to read up on
the history and to check what Abe actually said he cared about.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The South had already posted their articles ofsuccession, the North
refused to recognize thesuccession until the South fired on Fort
Sumpter.
The confederacy fired on Fort Sumpter because the
union was attempting to resupply it and if that had
been successful, the union could have fucked over
trade to Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
Nothing to do with SLAVERY. Everything to do with
secession, as Abe said so very clearly at the time.
Everything to do with slavery: I'm leaving because ...
There is only so much mindless pig ignorant
shit anyone should have to put up from you...
Whoever taught you American Historyis wrong - they taught you
propaganda.
No one ever taught me american history, its trivial to read up on
the history and to check what Abe actually said he cared about.
You're clearly ignorant about American Civil War
Your so fucking stupid that you can't even manage to
comprehend what Abe said very clearly indeed about
why he called out the volunteer troops that meant that
there was a full civil war, and he said very clearly that that
was to prevent SECESSION, nothing to do with SLAVERY.
Bugster, purveyor of buggy code and stupid ardent communist shitbag, lied:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Bugster, purveyor of buggy code and stupid ardent communist shitbag, lied:
The South had already posted their articles of succession,
to recognize the succession
until the South fired on Fort Sumpter.
The confederacy fired on Fort Sumpter
because the union was attempting to resupply it
Nothing to do with SLAVERY. Everything to do with
secession, as Abe said so very clearly at the time.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 21:37:03 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <pp@ua.org> wrote:
The war was about slavery. Slavery is why the traitor states seceded (they said
as much), slavery was why the traitor states started the war, and so slavery is
why the war was fought.
You're not American, are you?
On 1/5/2024 7:39 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 21:37:03 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <pp@ua.org>
wrote:
The war was about slavery. Slavery is why the traitor states seceded
(they said as much), slavery was why the traitor states started the
war, and so slavery is why the war was fought.
You're not American, are you?
Ball lives in California. Close enough.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:38:37 -0800, David Hartung
<junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote:
You're working overtime at being stupid again, scooter. No
"re-enforce" [sic] effort was contemplated or made. The Army was
trying to send food *only* to the fort.
Got to agree with you this time, Rudy. Baxter is a fucking moron with
the writing skills of a Downs baby and the character depth of a sheet
of typing paper. At least your posts, however misbegotten, make some
sort of sense most of the time.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The South had already posted their articles of
succession, the North refused to recognize the
succession until the South fired on Fort Sumpter.
The confederacy fired on Fort Sumpter because the
union was attempting to resupply it and if that had
been successful, the union could have fucked over
trade to Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
That was the trigger - not the cause.
Abe said very clearly indeed that he wasnt going
to have a civil war over slavery, only secession
Abe was sending just food - the
South wanted to seize the fort.
So the ammunition already there could not be used to fuck
over trade to Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
And the reason they wanted the fort was connected to slavery.
BULLSHIT.
Nothing to do with SLAVERY. Everything to do with
secession, as Abe said so very clearly at the time.
Everything to do with slavery: I'm leaving because ...
There is only so much mindless pig ignorant
shit anyone should have to put up from you...
Since you're ignorant of actual facts,
There you go, lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.
why don't you go away with your propaganda?
I call pig ignorant lies pig ignorant lies. You get to like that or
lump it.
Whoever taught you American History
is wrong - they taught you propaganda.
No one ever taught me american history, its trivial to read up on
the history and to check what Abe actually said he cared about.
You're clearly ignorant about American Civil War
Your so fucking stupid that you can't even manage to
comprehend what Abe said very clearly indeed about
why he called out the volunteer troops that meant that
there was a full civil war, and he said very clearly that that
was to prevent SECESSION, nothing to do with SLAVERY.
And the Secession was about slavery.
It was actually about the North telling them what they could
and couldnt do and the Confederacy wasnt having that and
chose to secees and form their own confederacy.
They didn't say 'oh, let's secede justbecause it's tuesday', or
'let's secedebecause they hurt out feelings.'
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
And don't confuse events with causes.
You don't have a fucking clue what the cause of the civil war was.
And Abe called out the troops AFTER the South fired on Ft Sumpter -
not before.
Never said he did that before Ft Summter, fuckwit child
On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 03:46:16 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gz5vjkdbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:06:22 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzv97u7byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:31:51 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal >>>>>>>>>>> Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>>>> the rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War >>>>>>>> was about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Already did, states rights and sessesion.
And the States Rights and seccession are connected directly to
slavery.
But Abe said very clearly that sessesion
was the cause of the civil war, not slavery.
And whatever those 3 slave states said is completely irrelevant
given that it was ABE that declared war on the confederacy.
And what Abe said so clearly proves that it was actually about
sessesion, not slavery,
Abe didn't start the war
Of course he did.
- and again, succession is tied directly to slavery.
It was never the only reason the confederacy
chose to sessede and caused ABE to go to war.
Without slavery issue there is no succession.
Without ABE choosing to go to war to preventsecession, there would have >>> been no civil war.
The South had already posted their articles of succession, the North
refused to recognize the succession until the South fired on Fort
Sumpter.
Nothing to do with SLAVERY. Everything to do with
secession, as Abe said so very clearly at the time.
Whoever taught you American History is wrong - they taught you
propaganda.
No one ever taught me american history, its trivial to read up on
the history and to check what Abe actually said he cared about.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2g2ahgxqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The South had already posted their articles of
succession, the North refused to recognize the
succession until the South fired on Fort Sumpter.
The confederacy fired on Fort Sumpter because the
union was attempting to resupply it and if that had
been successful, the union could have fucked over
trade to Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
That was the trigger - not the cause.
Abe said very clearly indeed that he wasnt going
to have a civil war over slavery, only secession
Wasn't up to him. And do post a reference to those words - because
context matters.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2g13tfkkbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The South had already posted their articles ofsuccession, the North
refused to recognize thesuccession until the South fired on Fort
Sumpter.
The confederacy fired on Fort Sumpter because the
union was attempting to resupply it and if that had
been successful, the union could have fucked over
trade to Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
That was the trigger - not the cause. Abe was sending just food
- the
South wanted to seize the fort.
And the reason they wanted the fort was connected to slavery.
To prevent it being used to fuck over trade to
Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:04:04 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2g25onq8byq249the
@pvr2.lan:
To prevent it being used to fuck over trade tosuccinct and definitive:
Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
============
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an
American pseudohistorical[1][2] negationist myth[3][4][5] that claims
cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was,
just
heroic, and not centered on slavery.[6][7] First enunciated in 1866,t
i
has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religiouses
attitud
in the Southern United States to the present day.[8][9] The Lost's
Cause
false historiography – much of it based on rhetoric mythologizing Robert
E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized by contemporaryhistorians,
who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of theost
L
Cause mythos.ed
Beyond forced unpaid labor and denial of freedom to leave the
slaveholder, the treatment of slaves in the United States often
includ
sexual abuse and rape, the denial of education, and punishments suchs
a
whippings. Families were often split up by the sale of one or moreing
members, usually never to see or hear of each other again.[10] By
turn
a blind eye to these realities, Lost Cause proponents re-imaginery
slave
as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions ofery
slav
was the central cause of the American Civil War, contrary tos
statement
made by Confederate leaders, such as in the Cornerstone Speech.[11]ult
Instead, they frame the war as a defense of states' rights, and as
necessary to protect their agrarian economy against supposed Northern
aggression.[12][13][14] The Union victory is thus explained as the
res
of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate sideis
portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[11] Moderng
historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations,
notin
that the central cause of the war was slavery.[15][16][17]l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
===========
Any claims that Slavery wasn't the central cause of the American
Civi
War are Lost Cause bullshit propaganda
Pity about what ABE, who actually decided to go to war said so
clearly.
On 1/3/2024 10:55 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:46 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:38 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:14 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:55 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 3:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/3/2024 8:37 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 2:37 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 1/2/2024 10:28 PM, Fran wrote:I've never posted in that group and
On 2/01/2024 8:12 am, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 11:50 PM, Fran wrote:
On 1/01/2024 1:11 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 5:31 PM, Fran wrote:
On 31/12/2023 8:38 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/31/2023 12:35 AM, Fran wrote:Hmmmmmmm. No idea what you mean by my team.
On 31/12/2023 5:58 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/30/2023 7:49 PM, Fran wrote:LOL. He's new to me so I'll read him for a while. Those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups in the cross post list are full of nuts who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually end up in my Bozo bin. But it's an interesting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic so I'll read for a bit longer.
On 30/12/2023 2:03 pm, Jay Santos wrote:
On 12/29/2023 3:00 PM, Fran wrote:
On 29/12/2023 1:52 pm, Baxter wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mtvroi105hjrqj91csa7vhdbr530qu29bs@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 20:32:41 -0000 (UTC), Murray Kaye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elonx@protonmail.com> wrote:
Snip
Nikki Haley Seemingly Forgets Slavery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Asked to Name Cause of Civil War >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec. 27, 2023
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en -asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikki-haley-seemingly-forgets-slavery-wh
en-asked-to-name-cause-of-civil-war> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â or https://t.ly/uidZ3
Was about very high taxes imposed by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The National Union Party, now called Republican >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> party)
Florida and Texas children are taught that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil war was all about
the south defending themseles from northern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agression over how Lincoln
wanted to steal their oranges, cotton and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever useless shit Texas
had to offer in those days.
On the southern states which reacted by planning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession by six of
the then 15 states.
Slavery was just used as a excuse to stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succession and justify a
war.
Nope. The Articles of Succession
Nice malapropism but you probably should know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's the "Article of Secession" aka the Ordnance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sic] of Secession.
The *ordinance* of secession. "Ordnance" is military >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weapons and ammunition. If you're going to lecture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people about malapropisms, you'd better not use any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
Fair comment and I'll pay that gotcha moment to yu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [sic] whilst also noting your absence and failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment when "Succession" was used instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Secession".
I didn't see the post. I seldom read posts from that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person.
Bugster ("Baxter") is part of your team, but he's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot. He's even an idiot among socialist idiots. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Left-wing goofballs.
You have read probably 5 posts from me and yet you form the >>>>>>>>>>>> view that I'm a 'left-wing goofball.
I've seen your left-wing goofballery going back more than 20 >>>>>>>>>>> years. Do the names Derek Nash and Rat&Swan and 'usual
suspect' and 'frlpwr' and 'Lotus' and David Harrison not ring >>>>>>>>>>> any bells?
WTF??????? You are deluded.
Nope.
Until a few days ago, I've never seen your name anywhere
I used a different pseudonym then.
and none of those names you've typed ring any bell whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>You interacted with all of them in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian >>>>>>>>
You replied to posts to misc.rural that were cross-posted to that >>>>>>> group, and those people I mentioned did as well, and those
replies went back to misc.rural.
So? Just because they did doesn't mean I remember the names you
mentioned.
and misc.rural back in 2000-2005. You occasionally used to post >>>>>>>>> with last names back then (Higham, 'Snortilus').
I also don't remember posting into that group but
Then you're suffering from early dementia. You posted to it
regularly. Here's a post to that defunct a.a.e.v. group in which >>>>>>> you *state* that you participated in misc.rural:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/c/JKUkm31FEOE/m/G38ioFh5BQAJ
All of those posts seem to be into aus.politics no that defunct
group. I remember Jon Ball (and yes, I must have posted to
misc.rural).
You posted there frequently. It may have been cross-posting, but
you were there. I'm right and you're wrong.
Same old Jon.
Not me, not a pseudonym I've ever used. But thanks for confirming
everything I've said about you.
 I commented on my remebering Jon Ball and yet you've conflated
that into some fantasy.
They were cross-posted to a bunch of groups, and you replied to
*lots* of posts that were cross-posted to the same groups. So
you're lying if you say you don't remember any of those group
participants, or the groups. You remember them...unless you're
suffering early onset dementia. Which is it?
Without looking at the cross post list here,
So, you admit to being a Usenet incompetent, Fat Fran. Good...because
you are.
I post into aus.pol and one other group.
And numerous others, even though you're too stupid to realize it.
This is straying far afield from the fact that I know who you
are, and have seen your left-wingnut goofballery for more than 20 >>>>>>> years.
I'm happy that I made a lasting impression. And, as a well known >>>>>> centrist
You are not a centrist. You are a socialist far-left-wing goofball.
LOL.
No — settled.
Although I'm sure you would omit "goofball" from the description, IHow are Les Petomanes going?
suspect you would *agree* with all the rest...but it doesn't matter
if you would or wouldn't. I know what you are, going back more than
20 years, and you are a far-left socialist goofball. This is settled. >>>>
Never heard of that, Fat Fran. You're wrong about who I am, Fat Fran,
but I know who you are, Fran Higham/Snortilus. *HA HA HA HA HA*
Tsk tsk Jon.
Not me, Fat Fran.
Don't lie!
I haven't, Fat Fran. LOL!
You're wrong, Fat Fran, but I'm not. I know who you are — Fat Fran
Higham — but you don't know who I am. You're not even close, Fat Fran.
On 1/3/2024 10:44 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied:
On 4/01/2024 5:16 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:06 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied:
On 4/01/2024 4:37 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:23 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied: >>>>>> On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:Obviously you don't.
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball,
lied:
On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your >>>>>>>>>>>> lard arse.
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of me (as
it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like you,
that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists. >>>>>>>>>>>>
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an
effort to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just
playing victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you
wallaby-fucking liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain >>>>>>>> it to you because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about
slavery.
Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
I know what he said about preserving the union was said during the
war,
Baxter:..."this Civil War apologia came AFTER the war...
He's right. They did.
Well at least you finally have half of it figured out.
I have all of it figured out, Fat Fran...including you.
Roddles:..."What ABE said was NOT AFTER the war, fool."
The discussion into which you butted was about TIMING of when
certain things were said
And
There was no "and" involved
There was, Fat Fran.
about when certain things were *never* said. Lincoln *never* said
the war was not about slavery. You lose.
I didn't.
You did, Fat Fran — just as you always lost back in misc.rural and alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. Go dig them up, Fat Fran — you always
lost (and you never denied being fat/obese, either).
On 1/5/2024 7:39 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 21:37:03 -0800, Pipewrench Peterson <pp@ua.org> wrote:
The war was about slavery. Slavery is why the traitor states seceded
(they said
as much), slavery was why the traitor states started the war, and so
slavery is
why the war was fought.
You're not American, are you?
Ball lives in California. Close enough.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2gz7j11kbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzwb4pwbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdywh1byq249@pvr2.lan:
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> >>>>>>> wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you
gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act
like an adult. More than one person at a time can think or
share the same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only >>>>>>>> about slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of >>>>>>>> me (as it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of
that particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other >>>>>>>> than you also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but >>>>>>>> like you, that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists.
You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard
arse.
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to
take the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing
victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
You think Abe was God?!
thought were two different things.
On 1/4/2024 9:16 AM, Scout wrote:
"Yak" <yak@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:un6a25$3lbj9$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/4/2024 7:29 AM, Scout wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:un4qp6$3c9oa$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gzdwhhcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:38:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2gycjen7byq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
The CAUSE of the Civil War was States' Rights vs Federal
Supremacy. Slavery was the primary expression, the trigger and >>>>>>>>>> the
rallying call to arms.
That's the post-Civil War propaganda from the South.
Nope, the South said that before the civil war
happened and that wasnt just about slavery.
I've posted multiple references that say the American Civil War was >>>>>>> about slavery.
Not one of them actually says that the civil war was ONLY about
slavery.
Go ahead, detail these other things the Civil War was about.
Saving the Union.. See above.
Oh, that's right according to you it was ONLY about slavery...
The only way Jon Ball reaches that conclusion is to completely ignore
Lincoln's own words. Then again, he is a victim of govt education.
Objection: There is no indication that he has any education.. govt or
otherwise.
Overruled: his idiocy is direct evidence of being educated
(indoctrinated) by the govt. No education would have been better than
his parents (God bless them) abusing him by handing him over to the govt
to be 'educated.'
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 14:17:42 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in9
news:op.2g3luqclbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:04:04 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g25onq8byq24
s@pvr2.lan:
To prevent it being used to fuck over trade tosuccinct and definitive:
Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
===========
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an
American pseudohistorical[1][2] negationist myth[3][4][5] that
claim
the
cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was,
just
heroic, and not centered on slavery.[6][7] First enunciated in
1866,
etoric mythologizit
has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religiouses
attitud
in the Southern United States to the present day.[8][9] The Lost's
Cause
false historiography – much of it based on rh
by contemporarying Robert
E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized
historians,
who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of
the
Lost
Cause mythos.ed
Beyond forced unpaid labor and denial of freedom to leave the
slaveholder, the treatment of slaves in the United States often
includ
sexual abuse and rape, the denial of education, and punishments
such
nas
whippings. Families were often split up by the sale of one or moreing
members, usually never to see or hear of each other again.[10] By
turn
a blind eye to these realities, Lost Cause proponents re-imaginery
slave
as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions ofery
slav
was the central cause of the American Civil War, contrary tos
statement
made by Confederate leaders, such as in the Cornerstone Speech.[11]
Instead, they frame the war as a defense of states' rights, and as
necessary to protect their agrarian economy against supposed
Norther
eaggression.[12][13][14] The Union victory is thus explained as theult
res
of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate
sid
and not inis“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen [the South],
portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[11] Moderng
historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations,
notin
that the central cause of the war was slavery.[15][16][17]l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
==========
Any claims that Slavery wasn't the central cause of the American
Civi
War are Lost Cause bullshit propaganda
Pity about what ABE, who actually decided to go to war said so
clearly.
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
- Abe Lincoln, Inaugural Address.
That was talking about secession and when the confederacy chose
to seceed, he chose to go to war.
On 4/01/2024 5:52 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:44 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied:
On 4/01/2024 5:16 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 10:06 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied: >>>>> On 4/01/2024 4:37 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:23 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied: >>>>>>> On 4/01/2024 4:11 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 9:05 PM, Fat Fran, left-wingnut socialist goofball, lied: >>>>>>>>> On 4/01/2024 3:13 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/3/2024 7:49 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 14:07:46 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 10:32:52 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:You wouldnt know what propaganda was if it bit you on your lard arse.
.On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 02:41:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
Fran
<gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com>
wrote in news:un2svn$33vj7$1@dont-email.me:
On 2/01/2024 2:38 am, Baxter wrote:Oh bullshit! You're just full of it.
You're repeating the meme. What you're saying is that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gullibly grabbed only part of that meme.
Yoohoo! Earth to the Baxter baby. Do try to grow up and act like
an adult. More than one person at a time can think or share the
same thought. Your one eyed attachment to "it's only about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery" is presumably not a meme and it would be rude of me (as
it is of you) to say you gullibly grabbed only part of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular "it's only about slavery" meme. People, other than you
also say that the civil war was only about slavery, but like you,
that is too simplistic.
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there, child >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's the appropriate response to propaganda from appologists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
all of this Civil War apologia came after the war in an effort to take
the blame off the South and put it on the North. Just playing victim.
What ABE said so clearly was not after the war, fool.
Lincoln did not say the war wasn't about slavery, you wallaby-fucking
liar.
You should reread what he wrote and then ask someone to explain it to >>>>>>>>> you because
I know what he said. I know he didn't say the war wasn't about slavery.
Hint:Â ".....clearly was not after the war, fool."
I know what he said about preserving the union was said during the war, >>>>> Obviously you don't.
Baxter:..."this Civil War apologia came AFTER the war...
He's right. They did.
Well at least you finally have half of it figured out.
I have all of it figured out, Fat Fran...including you.
Roddles:..."What ABE said was NOT AFTER the war, fool."
The discussion into which you butted was about TIMING of when certain >>>>> things were said
And
There was no "and" involved
There was, Fat Fran.
about when certain things were *never* said. Lincoln *never* said
the war was not about slavery. You lose.
I didn't.
You did, Fat Fran — just as you always lost back in misc.rural and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. Go dig them up, Fat Fran — you always lost (and
you never denied being fat/obese, either).
Snort. I don't deny being Idid Amin or Donald Trump either.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 02:44:54 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g3yntyqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 14:17:42 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in9
news:op.2g3luqclbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:04:04 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g25onq8byq24
s@pvr2.lan:
To prevent it being used to fuck over trade to succinct and definitive:
Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
===========
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is an >>>>>> American pseudohistorical[1][2] negationist myth[3][4][5] that
claim
etoric mythologizthe
cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was,
just
heroic, and not centered on slavery.[6][7] First enunciated in
1866,
it
has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religiouses
attitud
in the Southern United States to the present day.[8][9] The Lost's
Cause
false historiography – much of it based on rh
 by contemporarying Robert
E. Lee's heroic status – has been scrutinized
nhistorians,
who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of
the
Lost
Cause mythos.ed
Beyond forced unpaid labor and denial of freedom to leave the
slaveholder, the treatment of slaves in the United States often
includ
sexual abuse and rape, the denial of education, and punishments
such
as
whippings. Families were often split up by the sale of one or more >>>>>> members, usually never to see or hear of each other again.[10] Bying
turn
a blind eye to these realities, Lost Cause proponents re-imaginery
slave
as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions ofery
slav
was the central cause of the American Civil War, contrary tos
statement
made by Confederate leaders, such as in the Cornerstone Speech.[11] >>>>>> Instead, they frame the war as a defense of states' rights, and as >>>>>> necessary to protect their agrarian economy against supposed
Norther
eaggression.[12][13][14] The Union victory is thus explained as the >>>>>> result
of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate
sid
 and not inis“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen [the South],
portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[11] Modern >>>>>> historians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations,g
notin
that the central cause of the war was slavery.[15][16][17]l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
==========
 Any claims that Slavery wasn't the central cause of the American >>>>>>  Civi
War are Lost Cause bullshit propaganda
Pity about what ABE, who actually decided to go to war said so
clearly.
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
 - Abe Lincoln, Inaugural Address.
That was talking about secession and when the confederacy chose
to seceed, he chose to go to war.
No, that's wrong - it was the Confederacy that chose to go to war.
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 02:44:54 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g3yntyqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 14:17:42 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in9
news:op.2g3luqclbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:04:04 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g25onq8byq24
@pvr2.lan:
To prevent it being used to fuck over trade tosuccinct and definitive:
Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
==========
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is
an
¬Å“ much of it based on rhsAmerican pseudohistorical[1][2] negationist myth[3][4][5] that
claim
the
cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was,
just
heroic, and not centered on slavery.[6][7] First enunciated in
1866,
it
has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religiouses
attitud
in the Southern United States to the present day.[8][9] The Lost's
Cause
false historiography â€ââ‚
¬Å“ has been scrutinizedetoric mythologiz
ing Robert
E. Lee's heroic status â€ââ‚
by contemporary
historians,
who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of
the
Lost
Cause mythos.ed
Beyond forced unpaid labor and denial of freedom to leave the
slaveholder, the treatment of slaves in the United States often
includ
sexual abuse and rape, the denial of education, and punishments
such
as
whippings. Families were often split up by the sale of one or
more
]members, usually never to see or hear of each other again.[10] Bying
turn
a blind eye to these realities, Lost Cause proponents re-imaginery
slave
as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions ofery
slav
was the central cause of the American Civil War, contrary tos
statement
made by Confederate leaders, such as in the Cornerstone
Speech.[11
Instead, they frame the war as a defense of states' rights, and
as
nnecessary to protect their agrarian economy against supposed
Norther
aggression.[12][13][14] The Union victory is thus explained as
the
neresult
of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate
sid
is
portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[11]
Moder
n [the South],“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymehistorians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations,g
notin
that the central cause of the war was slavery.[15][16][17]l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
=========
Any claims that Slavery wasn't the central cause of the American
Civi
War are Lost Cause bullshit propaganda
Pity about what ABE, who actually decided to go to war said so
clearly.
and not in
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
- Abe Lincoln, Inaugural Address.
That was talking about secession and when the confederacy chose
to seceed, he chose to go to war.
No, that's wrong - it was the Confederacy that chose to go to war.
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed, as they were legally welcome to
do.
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 11:23:31 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g4xiyjrbyq249@pvr2.lan:
oNope, the confederacy chose to seceed, as they were legally welcome
t
do.
To your specific claim - no, the Civil War establishedonce and for
all
that secession was not allowed
Bullshit it did.
- this is one nation, like it or not.
Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and that's
saying something.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 12:43:58 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g5kewgkbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 11:23:31 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2g4xiyjrbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed, as they were legally
welcome
ot
do.
To your specific claim - no, the Civil War establishedonce and for
all
that secession was not allowed
Bullshit it did.
- this is one nation, like it or not.
Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and
that's
saying something.
The claim that States had the right to secede is Lost Causethe
Propaganda/myth/lies - and an attempt to shift blame for the war from
South to the North.
The United States is a nation - not a confederacy.
Nations are free to break up.
There is no right of secession in the Constitution.
There is no right to land a man on the moon or to put americans
into space either, but it is still perfectly legal to do that.
============her
Those who claim it is legal for a state to unilaterally secede are
eit
ill-informed, monumentally stupid, or completely dishonest. Take yourn’t
pick. Those who are ill-informed can be educated. Unfortunately, we
ca
fix stupid, and dishonest won’t be fixed.
More mindlessly silly shit.
While secession never came up in Court cases prior to the war, thereere
w
cases that dealt with the relations of states with each other and
with
the Federal government. If secession was a legal thing to do, itd
woul
be inconsistent with this body of case law.
Case law is irrelevant. There is always a right to secede.
https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/unilateral-secession-is-illegal/
Just because some fool claims something...
=========
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 11:23:31 +1100, Bugster, pig-ignorant communist, lied:
"Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 02:44:54 +1100, Bugster, pig-ignorant communist, lied: >>>
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:¬Å“ much of it based on rh
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 14:17:42 +1100, Bugster, pig-ignorant communist, lied:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:04:04 +1100, Bugster, pig-ignorant communist, lied:
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
To prevent it being used to fuck over trade to succinct and definitive:
Charleston etc. Nothing to do with SLAVERY.
==========
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply the Lost Cause) is >>>>>>>> an
sAmerican pseudohistorical[1][2] negationist myth[3][4][5] that >>>>>>>> claim
the
cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was >>>>>>>> just,
heroic, and not centered on slavery.[6][7] First enunciated in >>>>>>>> 1866,
it
has continued to influence racism, gender roles, and religious >>>>>>>> attitudes
in the Southern United States to the present day.[8][9] The Lost >>>>>>>> Cause's
false historiography â€ââ‚
¬Å“ has been scrutinizedetoric mythologiz
ing Robert
E. Lee's heroic status â€ââ‚
]Â by contemporary
historians,
who have made considerable progress in dismantling many parts of >>>>>>>> the
Lost
Cause mythos.ed
Beyond forced unpaid labor and denial of freedom to leave the
slaveholder, the treatment of slaves in the United States often >>>>>>>> includ
sexual abuse and rape, the denial of education, and punishments >>>>>>>> such
as
whippings. Families were often split up by the sale of one or
more
members, usually never to see or hear of each other again.[10] By >>>>>>>> turning
a blind eye to these realities, Lost Cause proponents re-imagine >>>>>>>> slavery
as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions of >>>>>>>> slavery
was the central cause of the American Civil War, contrary tos
statement
made by Confederate leaders, such as in the Cornerstone
Speech.[11
nInstead, they frame the war as a defense of states' rights, and >>>>>>>> as
nnecessary to protect their agrarian economy against supposed
Norther
aggression.[12][13][14] The Union victory is thus explained as >>>>>>>> the
eresult
of its greater size and industrial wealth, while the Confederate >>>>>>>> sid
is
portrayed as having greater morality and military skill.[11]
Moder
n [the South],“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymehistorians overwhelmingly disagree with these characterizations, >>>>>>>> noting
that the central cause of the war was slavery.[15][16][17]l
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
=========
 Any claims that Slavery wasn't the central cause of the American >>>>>>>>  Civi
War are Lost Cause bullshit propaganda
Pity about what ABE, who actually decided to go to war said so
clearly.
 and not in
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."
 - Abe Lincoln, Inaugural Address.
That was talking about secession and when the confederacy chose
to seceed, he chose to go to war.
No, that's wrong - it was the Confederacy that chose to go to war.
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed, as they were legally welcome to
do.
To your specific claim - no, the Civil War establishedonce and for all that >> secession was not allowed
Bullshit it did.
- this is one nation, like it or not.
Even sillier and more pig ignorant than
On 1/5/2024 7:33 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:52 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
You did, Fat Fran — just as you always lost back in misc.rural and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. Go dig them up, Fat Fran — you always
lost (and you never denied being fat/obese, either).
Snort. I don't deny being Idid Amin or Donald Trump either.
No one ever called you those, Fat Fran.
On 7/01/2024 4:35 am, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/5/2024 7:33 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:52 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
You did, Fat Fran — just as you always lost back in misc.rural and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. Go dig them up, Fat Fran — you always lost
(and you never denied being fat/obese, either).
Snort. I don't deny being Idid Amin or Donald Trump either.
No one ever called you those, Fat Fran.
Only a moron would call me either of those things and only a moron would call me
Fat Fran in a text only newsgroup.
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2g6uenzqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
Thousands of historians devoted their entire careers to the study of
the Civil War and you say their consensus is "shit any 3 year old
could leave for dead". Take your Lost Cause lies elsewhere.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
On 1/6/2024 8:17 PM, Fran wrote:
On 7/01/2024 4:35 am, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/5/2024 7:33 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:52 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
You did, Fat Fran — just as you always lost back in misc.rural and >>>>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. Go dig them up, Fat Fran — you
always lost (and you never denied being fat/obese, either).
Snort. I don't deny being Idid Amin or Donald Trump either.
No one ever called you those, Fat Fran.
Only a moron would call me either of those things and only a moron
would call me Fat Fran in a text only newsgroup.
You're fat.
On 7/01/2024 4:30 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/6/2024 8:17 PM, Fran wrote:
On 7/01/2024 4:35 am, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
On 1/5/2024 7:33 PM, Fran wrote:
On 4/01/2024 5:52 pm, Pipewrench Peterson wrote:
You did, Fat Fran — just as you always lost back in misc.rural and >>>>>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. Go dig them up, Fat Fran — you always lost
(and you never denied being fat/obese, either).
Snort. I don't deny being Idid Amin or Donald Trump either.
No one ever called you those, Fat Fran.
Only a moron would call me either of those things and only a moron would call
me Fat Fran in a text only newsgroup.
You're fat.
Prove it.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,as they were legally welcome
to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2g9gdr1jbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,as they were legally welcome
to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
Just like there is no provision in the constitution
for landing a man on the moon, or putting people
into space, but its perfectly legal to do that anyway.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.2haibtw1byq249@pvr2.lan...
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
Just like there is no provision in the constitution
for landing a man on the moon, or putting people
into space, but its perfectly legal to do that anyway.
Rod, I can destroy Swill's entire argument in 2 words
"Tenth" and "Amendment"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly call it a
crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
On 1/9/2024 9:54 AM, Scout wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.2haibtw1byq249@pvr2.lan...
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
Just like there is no provision in the constitution
for landing a man on the moon, or putting people
into space, but its perfectly legal to do that anyway.
Rod, I can destroy Swill's entire argument in 2 words
"Tenth" and "Amendment"
No, scooter.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
No, scooter. See Texas v. White, scooter.
There is no state power of secession from a perpetual union, scooter,
any more than your left arm could secede from your decrepit body (and
still remain a functioning limb).
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2g9gdr1jbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,as they were legally welcome
to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2haqualkbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in news:n4gnN.81143$RCGb.25117@fx10.ams1:
On 1/9/2024 9:54 AM, Scout wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.2haibtw1byq249@pvr2.lan...
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
Just like there is no provision in the constitution
for landing a man on the moon, or putting people
into space, but its perfectly legal to do that anyway.
Rod, I can destroy Swill's entire argument in 2 words
"Tenth" and "Amendment"
No, scooter.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
No, scooter. See Texas v. White, scooter.
There is no state power of secession from a perpetual union, scooter,
any more than your left arm could secede from your decrepit body (and
still remain a functioning limb).
I read somewhere
that the only legal way for a State to secede would
require the consent of every other State in the nation,
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Yes, they did. It's called the Supreme Court of theUnited States. For
good or ill, what they say is law.
Like hell it is when there is no basis for their claim in the
constitution.
The supremes do not write the law, ALL
they get to do is interpret the constitution.
And as Scout has rubbed your ignorant
nose in, that ruling flouts the Tenth.
And as Scout has rubbed your ignorant nose
in, pity about the declaration of independence.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Yes, they did. It's called the Supreme Court of theUnited States. For >>>> good or ill, what they say is law.
Like hell it is when there is no basis for their claim in the
constitution.
You can believe any bullshit you want to. Bottom line is, what SCOTUS
says is the LAW.
Wrong, as always.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:24:43 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:n4gnN.81143$RCGb.25117@fx10.ams1:
On 1/9/2024 9:54 AM, Scout wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.2haibtw1byq249@pvr2.lan...
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
The idiot doesn't know how the Law works.
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
Just like there is no provision in the constitution
for landing a man on the moon, or putting people
into space, but its perfectly legal to do that anyway.
Rod, I can destroy Swill's entire argument in 2 words
"Tenth" and "Amendment"
No, scooter.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
No, scooter. See Texas v. White, scooter.
There is no state power of secession from a perpetual union, scooter,
any more than your left arm could secede from your decrepit body (and
still remain a functioning limb).
I read somewhere that the only legal way for a State to secedewould
require the consent of every other State in the nation,
Just more mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
I'm not a lawyer,
That's obvious.
so I don't know how valid that is -
It isnt.
but obviously those Confederate States didnot have the permission of
the rest of the nation.
Irrelevant given the claim is mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:24:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
I'm not a lawyer,
That's obvious.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message news:w0inN.164734$woU1.124056@fx13.ams1...
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
All Revolution is a result of secession. They want to leave and and
others are fighting them to keep it from happening.
After all.. that's why WE had a revolution with the UK...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:unm88k$2guu5$13@dont-email.me:
Oh, did we want to leave?
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message
news:w0inN.164734$woU1.124056@fx13.ams1...
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
All Revolution is a result of secession. They want to leave and and
others are fighting them to keep it from happening.
After all.. that's why WE had a revolution with the UK...
Where were we going?
Seems to me that we
wanted the British to go away and leave us alone.
And conservaturds keep
talking revolution,
not to leave but to establish a dictatorship and make Dems/Liberals/immigrants/Blacks/etc leave.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:unl1tc$2bpkn$1@dont-email.me...
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
scooter lied:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Since revolution is the result of secession..
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hba4vpnbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:24:43 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
You seem to imagine yourself one - and an expert in a foreign country's
I'm not a lawyer,
That's obvious.
law
to boot.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hba00b9byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" = "Supreme Court of the United States"?
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message news:w0inN.164734$woU1.124056@fx13.ams1...
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly call it
a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
All Revolution is a result of secession.
On 1/10/2024 5:23 AM, scooter lied:
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message
news:w0inN.164734$woU1.124056@fx13.ams1...
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
All Revolution is a result of secession.
Wrong, scooter.
Revolution is never secession, scooter.
It's self-administered regime change.
That's why it's incorrect to refer to the "Revolutionary war." We didn't replace the monarchy and government *in* Great Britain. George III still
sat on the throne after 1781.
You're stupid, scooter. It's because you work at being stupid.
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message news:ocznN.49568$TSTa.40579@fx47.iad...
On 1/10/2024 5:23 AM, scooter lied:
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message
news:w0inN.164734$woU1.124056@fx13.ams1...
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly call >>>>>> it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
All Revolution is a result of secession.
Wrong, scooter.
On the Contrary,
I'm right as usual.
Revolution is never secession, scooter.
Sure it is.
What is the Purpose [sic] of revolution? To secede from the current government.
It's self-administered regime change.
Exactly.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
So by definition
You don't even know what the words mean
That's why it's incorrect to refer to the "Revolutionary war." We didn't
replace the monarchy and government *in* Great Britain. George III still sat >> on the throne after 1781.
Yes, but
Did we overthrow the King's government here
You're stupid, scooter. It's because you work at being stupid.
Where as
On 1/10/2024 8:22 AM, scooter, ignorant fuckwit, lied:
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message
news:ocznN.49568$TSTa.40579@fx47.iad...
On 1/10/2024 5:23 AM, scooter lied:
"Derek LeHousse" <kyk.wieber.ass@always.forever> wrote in message
news:w0inN.164734$woU1.124056@fx13.ams1...
On 1/9/2024 12:21 PM, Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly >>>>>>> call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
Complete bullshit. Revolution and secession are not comparable.
All Revolution is a result of secession.
Wrong, scooter.
On the Contrary,
A scooterism — empty wheeze.
I'm right as usual.
You're wrong as always, scooter.
Revolution is never secession, scooter.
Sure it is.
No, scooter, it is not.
What is the Purpose [sic] of revolution? To secede from the currentNo, scooter. You cannot "secede" from a government.
government.
Secession is departure from a nation, scooter.
Revolution is the *replacement* of a government while remaining a part of
the nation.
The French people did not "secede" from France, scooter. They replaced the monarchy.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
States"?BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" = "Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Half Speed, drunken wallaby fucker, lied:
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United States"?
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hcc7vcqbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
States"?
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" = "Supreme Court of the United
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yep.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Hmmm. What Swill seems to be trying to assert is thatthe WHOLE nation
is ACTUALLY controlled and ruledover by the 9 people in the Supreme
Court that havethe power to do anything they want.
In effect, yes.
Then you are just plain wrong, as always.
ALL the supremes EVER get to do is interpret the constitution.
They do NOT get to write new law.
They can not for example decide that Congress in no longer
useful and abolish it. Same with the presidential office.
You have never ever had a fucking clue about the SCOTUS or anything else either
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
I'm not a lawyer,
That's obvious.
You seem to imagine yourself one
Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
- and an expert in a foreign country's law to boot.
Ditto.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.2hc4kbckbyq249@pvr2.lan...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Hmmm. What Swill seems to be trying to assert is thatthe WHOLE nation is >>>> ACTUALLY controlled and ruledover by the 9 people in the Supreme Court >>>> that havethe power to do anything they want.
In effect, yes.
Then you are just plain wrong, as always.
ALL the supremes EVER get to do is interpret the constitution.
They do NOT get to write new law.
They can not for example decide that Congress in no longer
useful and abolish it. Same with the presidential office.
You have never ever had a fucking clue about the SCOTUS or anything else either
But
isn't it nice how he will totally destroy his creditability
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:unnn0b$2rqrd$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hcc7vcqbyq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
States"?
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" = "Supreme Court of the United
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yep.
Tell us, where exactly in the Constitution do you see where SCOTUS has the power
to rewrite the Constitution
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.2hc93qy0byq249@pvr2.lan...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United States"?
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Well,
trusted. He has no idea of what he's talking about.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Word.
Turd in your case, a steaming one.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteState?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can >>>>>> hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Word.
Turd in your case, a steaming one.
Could Coos Bay unilaterally secede from Oregon and become its own
Could Hornsby Shire unilaterally secede from Sydney and become its own
State/Territory?
Irrelevant to whether a US state can seceeded from the union and
whetherthe US colonys could and did seceed from the England.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hebdyulbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Word.
Turd in your case, a steaming one.
Could Coos Bay unilaterally secede from Oregon and become its own State? Could Hornsby Shire unilaterally secede from Sydney and become its own State/Territory?
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2heh54m3byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteState?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You can >>>>>>> hardly
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Word.
Turd in your case, a steaming one.
Could Coos Bay unilaterally secede from Oregon and become its own
Could Hornsby Shire unilaterally secede from Sydney and become its own
State/Territory?
Irrelevant to whether a US state can seceeded from the union and
whetherthe US colonys could and did seceed from the England.
That wasn't my question.
We have counties in Oregon that want to secede, and I understand Western Australia talks about secession frequently.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteState?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed,
as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.You >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not.
Pity about the Tenth.
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Word.
Turd in your case, a steaming one.
Could Coos Bay unilaterally secede from Oregon and become its own
Could Hornsby Shire unilaterally secede from Sydney and become its
own State/Territory?
Irrelevant to whether a US state can seceeded from the union and
whetherthe US colonys could and did seceed from the England.
That wasn't my question.
You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.
Any question of yours in spades.
We have counties in Oregon that want to secede, and I understand
Western Australia talks about secession frequently.
You are just plain wrong about that last.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteState?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteStates"?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrotehardly
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Nope, the confederacy chose to seceed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as they were legally welcome to do.
SCOTUS ruled secession illegal.
They had no legal basis for doing that.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence
sometime.You can
Pity about the Tenth.call it a crime when we had already done it.
Spot on.
SCOTUS said Revolution was legal - secession was not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The SCOTUS decided that didn't apply.
They don't get to do that.
Yes, they do. That is their entire purpose.
Wrong, as always.
BTW - you do know that "SCOTUS" ="Supreme Court of the >>>>>>>>>>>> United
Yep.
Clearly your knowledge of SCOTUS is deficient.
Yours in spades.
Word.
Turd in your case, a steaming one.
Could Coos Bay unilaterally secede from Oregon and become its own
Could Hornsby Shire unilaterally secede from Sydney and become
its own State/Territory?
Irrelevant to whether a US state can seceeded from the union and
whetherthe US colonys could and did seceed from the England.
That wasn't my question.
You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.
Any question of yours in spades.
We have counties in Oregon that want to secede, and I understand
Western Australia talks about secession frequently.
You are just plain wrong about that last.
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
===========
Secessionism in Western Australia
Secessionism has been a recurring feature of Western Australia's
political landscape since shortly after Federation in 1901.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessionism_in_Western_Australia
=============
That's nor FREQUENTLY, fuckwit child.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is notnearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authorityon interpreting the Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed [sic] or not.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal.
And had no basis for claiming that.
On 1/12/2024 12:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is notnearly as clear-cut as this postÂ
asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authorityon interpreting theÂ
Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed [sic] or not.
There is no such word as "seceed." The word is *secede*.
The tenth amendment does not say that states have the power to secede.
That's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede. You
might think that that's a defect of the Constitution, but it's a fact
whether or not you like it.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal.
And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did. The court looked at the history of the formation of
the country, starting with the separation from Great Britain and
through the Articles of Confederation era up to the adoption of the Constitution, and including the writings of the founders about the
topic of secession, and concluded that there is no power or right for
states to secede. Note that the court saying there is no power to
secede is not what "made" secession unconstitutional; it always was.
That's just the first time it was explicitly stated.
Unilateral secession by one or more states is unconstitutional.
There is no power under the constitution to put a man
on the moon either, so anyone is free to do that.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
and through the Articles of Confederation era
Which doesnt mention secession either.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
 Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
 And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not say that states have the power to secede.
No one ever said it did.
It does however spell out what the feds
get to regulate and given it says nothing abount secession, that
means that the states are free do secede or not as they choose.
That's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede.
There is no power under the constitution to put a man
on the moon either
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal.
 And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did.
Bullshit it did
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
 And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not saythat states have the power to secede.
 No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
and you swooned in toady agreement with him.
Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs.
It does however spell out what the feds get to regulateand given it says >>> nothing abount secession, that meansthat the states are free do secede or not
as they choose.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Yes it does.
The amendment says that powers not delegatedto the federal government are >> "reserved" to thestates or to the people.
And that includes secession because
that is not delegated to the feds.
But there *is* no power to secede.
Then america is still a Great Britain colony.
That's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede.
There is no power under the constitutionto put a man on the moon either
That's an absurd comparison.
It isnt a comparison.
Putting a man on the moon is not a state power. It was done pursuant to a
state power.
Mindless waffle.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal.
 And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did.
 Bullshit it did
Absolutely it did.
Bullshit it did
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
 And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not saythat states have the power to secede.
 No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
 He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
Yes, that's exactly what he said. Here's how it went:
You are lying.
   You (dummy):
Your shit flushed where it belongs.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
and through the Articles of Confederation era
Which doesnt mention secession either.
On the contrary - the very name "Articles of Confederation
andPerpetual Union" says once joined, no secession is possible.
It's been flushed where it belongs once it passed its useby date.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not saythat states have the power to
secede.
No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
and you swooned in toady agreement with him.
Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs.
It does however spell out what the feds get to regulateand given it
says nothing abount secession, that meansthat the states are free
do secede or not as they choose.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Yes it does.
The amendment says that powers not delegatedto the federal
government are "reserved" to thestates or to the people.
And that includes secession because
that is not delegated to the feds.
But there *is* no power to secede.
Then america is still a Great Britain colony.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is notnearly as clear-cut as this postÂ
asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authorityon interpreting theÂ
.Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed [sic] or not.
There is no such word as "seceed." The word is *secede*.
The tenth amendment does not say that states have the power to secede
uThat's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede. Yo
might think that that's a defect of the Constitution, but it's a fact
.whether or not you like it.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal
f
And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did. The court looked at the history of the formation o
the country, starting with the separation from Great Britain and
through the Articles of Confederation era up to the adoption of the
Constitution, and including the writings of the founders about the
topic of secession, and concluded that there is no power or right for
states to secede. Note that the court saying there is no power to
secede is not what "made" secession unconstitutional; it always was.
That's just the first time it was explicitly stated.
Unilateral secession by one or more states is unconstitutional.
Hell, even Scalia said there is no Right to Secede.
No one made him Pope.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
 And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not say
that states have the power to secede.
 No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
That is the lie.
 He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
Yes, that's exactly what he said. Here's how it went:
 You are lying.
I'm not. I copied those from your posts.
Which said nothing like what you claim they said.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
there IS the power of Revolution.
Doesnt have to be a revolution, the states are
free to do that peacefully if they choose to.
It's called the Revolutionary War - not BritishCivil War, or War of
Secession - REVOLUTIONARY War.
Doesnt have to be a war. There have been plenty
of secessioins which have not involved a war,
most obviously most recently with Czechoslovakia
and when Singapore chose to leave Malaysia.
Revolution is not secession.
Secession doesnt have to be by revolution.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
But no supreme gets to rule alone on anything.
and SCOTUS is final word on these matters.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about constitutional law
or anything else at all either.
SCOTUS certainly gets to interpret the constitution,
but the problem is that the constitution doesnt even
mention secession, so SCOTUS does not not get to
rule on secession.
And SCOTUS is not the final word on anything,
they are free to change their mind when SCOTUS
has been stacked with other supremes, as
happened with Roe v Wade.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgw5wypbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
But no supreme gets to rule alone on anything.
The full SCOTUS did rule on the issue in the late 1800's and said there
is no Right to Secede.
and SCOTUS is final word on these matters.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about constitutional law
or anything else at all either.
SCOTUS certainly gets to interpret the constitution,
but the problem is that the constitution doesnt even
mention secession, so SCOTUS does not not get to
rule on secession.
So you'r trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Gawd you're an idiot.
And SCOTUS is not the final word on anything,
they are free to change their mind when SCOTUS
has been stacked with other supremes, as
happened with Roe v Wade.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is
the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteof
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
there IS the power of Revolution.
Doesnt have to be a revolution, the states are
free to do that peacefully if they choose to.
So?
So you are mindlessly rabbiting on about an irrelevancy, as always.
It's called the Revolutionary War - not BritishCivil War, or War
Secession - REVOLUTIONARY War.
Doesnt have to be a war. There have been plenty
of secessions which have not involved a war,
most obviously most recently with Czechoslovakia
and when Singapore chose to leave Malaysia.
Revolution is not secession.
Secession doesnt have to be by revolution.
You can't secede if you're not part of the nation/government.
Wrong, as always.
The Colonies were not part of the British government
Didnt need to be.
- they had no representation. England chose warwhen the Colonies
announced their independance.
And Abe chose war when the southern states chose to secede.
No news.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is the >>>> Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - so
that decision stands and is the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
 Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
Wrong,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hh0f2etbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteof
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
there IS the power of Revolution.
Doesnt have to be a revolution, the states are
free to do that peacefully if they choose to.
So?
So you are mindlessly rabbiting on about an irrelevancy, as always.
It's called the Revolutionary War - not BritishCivil War, or War
Secession - REVOLUTIONARY War.
Doesnt have to be a war. There have been plenty
of secessions which have not involved a war,
most obviously most recently with Czechoslovakia
and when Singapore chose to leave Malaysia.
Revolution is not secession.
Secession doesnt have to be by revolution.
You can't secede if you're not part of the nation/government.
Wrong, as always.
The Colonies were not part of the British government
Didnt need to be.
- they had no representation. England chose warwhen the Colonies
announced their independance.
And Abe chose war when the southern states chose to secede.
No news.
Fucking Lost Cause twaddle. The South promoted the bullshit Right to
Secede in hopes of getting other nations to recognize them as an
independent nation - didn't work -- NOBODY recognized the Confederacy as
an independant nation.
It was entirely different when the US declared our independence
even Great Britain recognized us as an independent nation.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - so
that decision stands and is the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
 Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
Wrong, as always.
On 1/13/2024 6:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is
the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
On 1/13/2024 7:50 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Secession is unconstitutional. This is settled, and you are wrong.
On 1/13/2024 11:22 PM, Alan Bond wrote:
On 1/13/2024 7:50 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Secession is unconstitutional. This is settled, and you are wrong.
Kicking my ass again, Rudy.
On 1/13/2024 9:23 PM, Alan Bond wrote:
On 1/13/2024 6:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is the >>>>>> Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
Is that why we are called *United States of America** or in other words the States United of America*. *Or American States United*.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution >>>>>>> doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - so
that decision stands and is the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
 Wrong, as always.
No, *right*. There is not and never was anypower under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or
The states, which *only* ever had extremely limited sovereignty,
Wrong, as always.
never had that power. Never. This is settled.
Wrong,
When the Supreme Court said in 1869 in Texas v. White that secessionwas
unconstitutional, they were not "writing" new law and they werenot "changing"
the Constitution. The power to secede was never there.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or
The states were never sovereign nations — never.
Don't need to be to be able to secede,
Same with Czechoslovakia etc.
A sovereign nation can withdraw, or "secede," from a treaty,
And so can a state or colony or part of a sovereign nation.
but the Constitution is not and never was seen as a treaty.
It was
When the states acceded to it they *permanently*gave up and forswore the >> power to secede.
Wrong,
Secession is unconstitutional.
Can't be
This is settled
Nope.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they seceded from Great
Britain.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is
the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession, so the 5 fools who decided
that secession was illegal had no basis for doing that.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 17:05:44 +1100, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net>
wrote:
Neither were the american colonys, or the czech replublic.
They seceded anyway,
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
No, *right*. There is not and never was anypower under the
Constitution to secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom Great
Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moonwould have
been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Even sillier than you usually manage given that
the american colonys had seceded from Britain.
Paul Jackson <pj@costco.con> wrote in news:XlVoN.179$c1y8.20@fx15.ams1:
On 1/14/2024 9:26 AM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which
is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
Not sure what Half Speed's interest in this is. He's a wallaby-fucking
Aussie, and he doesn't have enough knowledge about the U.S. to be
running his mouth about the American civil war.
Gotta wonder why he's so desperate to support Lost Cause propaganda.
Perhaps he's a secessionist crackpot from Western Australia? Desperately looking for a "right" to secede? There is no "right" only Power and justification. He can try to show us where a "right to secession" was ever encoded anywhere, any time.
On 1/14/2024 9:26 AM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which
is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
Not sure what Half Speed's interest in this is. He's a wallaby-fucking Aussie, and he doesn't have enough knowledge about the U.S. to be
running his mouth about the American civil war.
On 1/14/2024 12:18 PM, Baxter wrote:
Paul Jackson <pj@costco.con> wrote in
news:XlVoN.179$c1y8.20@fx15.ams1:
On 1/14/2024 9:26 AM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which
is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
Not sure what Half Speed's interest in this is. He's a
wallaby-fucking Aussie, and he doesn't have enough knowledge about
the U.S. to be running his mouth about the American civil war.
Gotta wonder why he's so desperate to support Lost Cause propaganda.
Australia has its share of racist white supremacists. Half Speed is
one. Racist white supremacists stick together.
Perhaps he's a secessionist crackpot from Western Australia?
Desperately looking for a "right" to secede? There is no "right"
only Power and justification. He can try to show us where a "right
to secession" was ever encoded anywhere, any time.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom Great
Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
- you have to be a member to secede, and the colonies were not members.
Wrong, as always.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaimthat secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why?
Because that is the ONLY power SCOTUS actually has
apart from a few other irrelevant things, it ONLY gets
to interpret the constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
It does NOT get any say on what a US state can
do when that isnt specified in the constitution.
It can ONLY do that with stuff that is specified in the constitution
and secession isnt even mentioned in the constitution.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? Last I
heard their secession failed.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 07:18:17 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Paul Jackson <pj@costco.con> wrote in
news:XlVoN.179$c1y8.20@fx15.ams1:
On 1/14/2024 9:26 AM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which
is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
Not sure what Half Speed's interest in this is. He's a
wallaby-fucking Aussie, and he doesn't have enough knowledge about
the U.S. to be running his mouth about the American civil war.
Gotta wonder why he's so desperate to support Lost Cause propaganda.
I'm not. I JUST rub your stupid pig ignorant nose in the
fact that you have never had a fucking clue about what
the role of SCOTUS is or what secession is either.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they seceded
from Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
- you have to be a member to secede,and the colonies were not
members.
Wrong, as always.
I'm guessing you're using the British version of the word "secede" -
No such animal. 1
it's a bit different from the American version of "secede".
Wrong, as always
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hinnk0nbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian - you have to be a member to
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they seceded from Great
Britain.
secede, and the colonies were not members.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hjujmedbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteLike Humpty Dumpty you make up your own meanings for words.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom Great
Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
OK, The Colonies had the POWER to separate from Britain and did, the South did not have the POWER to secede and failed.
There was never any RIGHT to secede in the Constitution nor any of the previous documents that the South agreed to -- nor did they have the POWER
to secede
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hjusohqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why? because you said so? What makes your glorious self the arbiter of
all?
The Colonies had power, the South did not.
When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moonwould have
been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Even sillier than you usually manage given that
the american colonys had seceded from Britain.
On 1/13/2024 9:42 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/13/2024 9:23 PM, Alan Bond wrote:
On 1/13/2024 6:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and >>>>>>> is the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
Is that why we are called *United States of America** or in other
words the States United of America*. *Or American States United*.
It's a nation. There is no power to secede from it. The states are not sovereign.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of Americalocated? Last I
heard their secession failed.
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
On 1/14/2024 1:53 PM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hjujmedbyq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteLike Humpty Dumpty you make up your own meanings for words.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom
Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
OK, The Colonies had the POWER to separate from Britain and did, the
South did not have the POWER to secede and failed.
There was never any RIGHT to secede in the Constitution nor any of
the previous documents that the South agreed to -- nor did they have
the POWER to secede
You, sir are an ignorant uneducated fool about the very country that
you live in. I suggest that a simpleton like yourself visit *Knotts
Berry Farm* in Buena Park Calif. It has a freedom Hall based on true
History of the founding of America.
https://yesterland.com/independence.html
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they seceded
from Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
- you have to be a member to secede,
and the colonies were not members.
Wrong, as always.
I'm guessing you're using the British version of the word "secede" -
No such animal. 1
it's a bit different from the American version of "secede".
Wrong, as always
'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
============
secede in American English
(s?'sid)
intransitive verbWord forms: -ceded, -ceding
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association,as
from a political union, a religious organization, etc
And that includes an empire, fuckwit.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any powerunder the Constitution to
secede.
That is clearly not talking about the power in the sense of success,
foiol.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
LSo SCOTUS does not get to proclaimthat secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONA
Why?
Because that is the ONLY power SCOTUS actually has
apart from a few other irrelevant things, it ONLY gets
to interpret the constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
It does NOT get any say on what a US state can
do when that isnt specified in the constitution.
It can ONLY do that with stuff that is specified in the constitution
and secession isnt even mentioned in the constitution.
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
On 1/14/2024 1:54 PM, Baxter wrote:of
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hjusohqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why? because you said so? What makes your glorious self the arbiter
haveall?
When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moonwould
The Colonies had power, the South did not.been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Even sillier than you usually manage given that
the american colonys had seceded from Britain.
The massive number of dead on both sides disputes that statement.
On 1/14/2024 12:05 AM, Alan Bond wrote:in
On 1/13/2024 9:42 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/13/2024 9:23 PM, Alan Bond wrote:
On 1/13/2024 6:56 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution >>>>>>> doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and >>>>>>>> is the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!!
Doesnt take any of that to notice that the constitution has
NOTHING to say about secession,
There is no right or power to secede.
Is that why we are called *United States of America** or in other
words the States United of America*. *Or American States United*.
It's a nation. There is no power to secede from it. The states are not
sovereign.
By inalienable Voting rights. The people did not vote for Unification
the first place
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:36:15 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj6lyxcbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 07:18:17 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Paul Jackson <pj@costco.con> wrote in
news:XlVoN.179$c1y8.20@fx15.ams1:
On 1/14/2024 9:26 AM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda -
which is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
Not sure what Half Speed's interest in this is. He's a
wallaby-fucking Aussie, and he doesn't have enough knowledge about
the U.S. to be running his mouth about the American civil war.
Gotta wonder why he's so desperate to support Lost Cause
propaganda.
I'm not. I JUST rub your stupid pig ignorant nose in the
fact that you have never had a fucking clue about what
the role of SCOTUS is or what secession is either.
IOW you have no rational response to the issues I've raised.
You never could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
Liar
Nope.
or can you provide a link to the actual text of the ruling?
Yep,
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote"secede" -
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they seceded
from Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
- you have to be a member to secede,
and the colonies were not members.
Wrong, as always.
I'm guessing you're using the British version of the word
No such animal.
it's a bit different from the American version of "secede".
Wrong, as always
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
============
secede in American English
(s?'sid)
intransitive verbWord forms: -ceded, -ceding
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association,as
from a political union, a religious organization, etc
And that includes an empire, fuckwit.
Where does it say "empire"?
Its included in the ETC, fuckwit.
And did they say it was "empire" at the time?
It clearly was, fuckwit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hf0gt0ubyq249@pvr2.lan:
Fake lawyer "Rod Speed" is an idiot.
============
Our rating: False
The argument for secession is not nearly as clear-cut as this post
asserts. The Supreme Court is the final authority on interpreting the Constitution,
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is
illegal.
Historians and legal experts say the Civil War also established
there is no "right" to secede.
Legal, historical precedents block secession
The question of whether Texas could secede has been largely academic for years, but the Texas State Republican Convention adopted a platform in
June that called for a referendum "to determine whether or not the State
of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation." State Rep. Bryan Slayton on March 6 introduced a bill to put the referendum on the November 2023 ballot.
In his video and an email to USA TODAY, Miller focused on two parts of
the U.S. Constitution he says show indirectly that Texas has an "right"
to secede.
He notes Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists acts that states cannot undertake, and secession is not on that list.
He then notes
that the 10th Amendment says the federal government only has powers
spelled out in the Constitution or delegated by the states, which he says means the right to decide if a state would remain part of the U.S. is
left up to each state.
But the issue of secession was more directly addressed elsewhere
and has
been settled for more than 150 years
according to legal historians and
constitutional experts. The experts USA TODAY spoke to all said they did
not see a right to secede in the Constitution,
but most found historical
and legal precedents that say there is no such right.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgesf13byq249 @pvr2.lan:
There is no power under the constitution to put a manThere is Treaty obligations that might cover that.
on the moon either, so anyone is free to do that.
https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/moon-
agreement.html
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgg0xzgbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
and through the Articles of Confederation era
Which doesnt mention secession either.
On the contrary - the very name "Articles of Confederation
andPerpetual Union" says once joined, no secession is possible.
It's been flushed where it belongs once it passed its useby date.
Yeah, it kills your claims - so you want to handwave it away.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgesf13byq249 @pvr2.lan:
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
On the contrary - the very name "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" says once joined, no secession is possible. Or perhaps you are
and through the Articles of Confederation era
Which doesnt mention secession either.
unable to understand the words "Perpetual Union"?
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not saythat states have the power to secede.
No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
and you swooned in toady agreement with him.
Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs.
It does however spell out what the feds get to regulateand given it
says nothing abount secession, that meansthat the states are free do
secede or not as they choose.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Yes it does.
The amendment says that powers not delegatedto the federal government
are "reserved" to thestates or to the people.
And that includes secession because
that is not delegated to the feds.
But there *is* no power to secede.
Then america is still a Great Britain colony.
That's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede.
There is no power under the constitutionto put a man on the moon either
That's an absurd comparison.
It isnt a comparison. Its a fact that just because something
isnt mentioned in the constitution does NOT mean that
there is no power for a state or the people to do that.
Putting a man on the moon is not a state power. It was done pursuant to
a state power.
Mindless waffle.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal.
And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did.
Bullshit it did
Absolutely it did.
Bullshit it did
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hggwegdbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote.
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is notnearly as clear-cut as this postÂ
asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authorityon interpreting theÂ
Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed [sic] or not.
There is no such word as "seceed." The word is *secede*.
The tenth amendment does not say that states have the power to secede
uThat's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede. Yo
.might think that that's a defect of the Constitution, but it's a fact
whether or not you like it.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal
f
And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did. The court looked at the history of the formation o
the country, starting with the separation from Great Britain and
through the Articles of Confederation era up to the adoption of the
Constitution, and including the writings of the founders about the
topic of secession, and concluded that there is no power or right for
states to secede. Note that the court saying there is no power to
secede is not what "made" secession unconstitutional; it always was.
That's just the first time it was explicitly stated.
Unilateral secession by one or more states is unconstitutional.
Hell, even Scalia said there is no Right to Secede.
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
and SCOTUS is final word on
these matters.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote in
news:B5ioN.4225$Um93.675@fx13.ams1:
On 1/12/2024 12:49 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is notnearly as clear-cut as this postÂ
asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authorityon interpreting theÂ
Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed [sic] or not.
There is no such word as "seceed." The word is *secede*.
The tenth amendment does not say that states have the power to secede.
That's because there is no power under the Constitution to secede. You
might think that that's a defect of the Constitution, but it's a fact
whether or not you like it.
and an 1869 Supreme Court ruling held that secession is illegal.
And had no basis for claiming that.
Absolutely it did. The court looked at the history of the formation of
the country, starting with the separation from Great Britain and
through the Articles of Confederation era up to the adoption of the
Constitution, and including the writings of the founders about the
topic of secession, and concluded that there is no power or right for
states to secede. Note that the court saying there is no power to
secede is not what "made" secession unconstitutional; it always was.
That's just the first time it was explicitly stated.
Unilateral secession by one or more states is unconstitutional.
Hell, even Scalia said there is no Right to Secede.
The Right to Secede is entirely imaginary and thus cannot be "Reserved to
the States". Might as well be talking about the Right to Ride Unicorns
on Tuesdays.
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not say
that states have the power to secede.
No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
That is the lie.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
Which said nothing like what you claim they said.He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
Yes, that's exactly what he said. Here's how it went:
You are lying.
I'm not. I copied those from your posts.
It did. Here it is again:
You (dummy):
You are that idiot with your earlier stupid claim you
made twice where you stupidly proclaimed that there
is no provision for secession in the constitution.
There doesn't need to be for secession to be legal.
Just like there is no provision in the constitution
for landing a man on the moon, or putting people
into space, but its perfectly legal to do that anyway.
scooter (even more of a dummy):
Rod, I can destroy Swill's entire argument in 2 words
"Tenth" and "Amendment"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus by a STRICT reading of the Constitution, the power
to secede from the United State is a power reserved to
the States and/or the people. As there is nothing
delegating such power to the United States nor is there
any such prohibition against it.
You (dummy):
Even better and no prohibition would be legally valid anyway.
So your idiot pal scooter *did* say that the tenth amendment reserves to
the states the power to secede, and you *did* fawningly agree with him.
And you're both wrong: there is no such power.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hggsga6byq249@pvr2.lan:
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrotethere IS the power of Revolution. It's called the Revolutionary War -
Rod Speed wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The argument for secession is not
nearly as clear-cut as this post asserts.
Just as true of the shit below.
The Supreme Court is the final authority
on interpreting the Constitution,
And it says NOTHING about secession and in fact
the Tenth clearly states that the feds get no say
what so ever on whether a state can seceed or not.
The tenth amendment does not saythat states have the power to
secede.
No one ever said it did.
Your pal scooter (drunken Virginia camper) did,
He never ever said that the Tenth said that.
and you swooned in toady agreement with him.
Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs.
It does however spell out what the feds get to regulateand given it
says nothing abount secession, that meansthat the states are free
do secede or not as they choose.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Yes it does.
The amendment says that powers not delegatedto the federal
government are "reserved" to thestates or to the people.
And that includes secession because
that is not delegated to the feds.
But there *is* no power to secede.
Then america is still a Great Britain colony.
not British Civil War, or War of Secession - REVOLUTIONARY War.
Revolution is not secession.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgwv6nfbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
there IS the power of Revolution.
Doesnt have to be a revolution, the states are
free to do that peacefully if they choose to.
So?
You can't secede if you're not part of the nation/government.It's called the Revolutionary War - not BritishCivil War, or War of
Secession - REVOLUTIONARY War.
Doesnt have to be a war. There have been plenty
of secessioins which have not involved a war,
most obviously most recently with Czechoslovakia
and when Singapore chose to leave Malaysia.
Revolution is not secession.
Secession doesnt have to be by revolution.
Colonies were not part of the British government
- they had no
representation. England chose war when the Colonies announced their independance.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgw5wypbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
But no supreme gets to rule alone on anything.
The full SCOTUS did rule on the issue in the late 1800's and said there
is no Right to Secede.
and SCOTUS is final word on these matters.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about constitutional law
or anything else at all either.
SCOTUS certainly gets to interpret the constitution,
but the problem is that the constitution doesnt even
mention secession, so SCOTUS does not not get to
rule on secession.
So you'r trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
And SCOTUS is not the final word on anything,Gawd you're an idiot.
they are free to change their mind when SCOTUS
has been stacked with other supremes, as
happened with Roe v Wade.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in news:unubff$3vv27$2@dont- email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgw5wypbyq249A SCOTUS decision can be overruled by two means:
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
But no supreme gets to rule alone on anything.
The full SCOTUS did rule on the issue in the late 1800's and said there
is no Right to Secede.
and SCOTUS is final word on these matters.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about constitutional law
or anything else at all either.
SCOTUS certainly gets to interpret the constitution,
but the problem is that the constitution doesnt even
mention secession, so SCOTUS does not not get to
rule on secession.
So you'r trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Gawd you're an idiot.
And SCOTUS is not the final word on anything,
they are free to change their mind when SCOTUS
has been stacked with other supremes, as
happened with Roe v Wade.
1 - a later SCOTUS ruling
2 - a Constitutional Amendment
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal, and neither of those have occured - so that decision stands and is the Last Word.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hh0uhrvbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is
the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!! Oh!
You're such a legend.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which is
part
of the Russian disinformation campaign,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hiu9yqpbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
So? When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moon would
No, *right*. There is not and never was anypower under the
Constitution to secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
have
been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Paul Jackson <pj@costco.con> wrote in news:XlVoN.179$c1y8.20@fx15.ams1:
On 1/14/2024 9:26 AM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hi1q0evbyq249@pvr2.lan:
"Rod Speed" is a provocateur spouting Lost Cause propaganda - which
is part of the Russian disinformation campaign,
Not sure what Half Speed's interest in this is. He's a wallaby-fucking
Aussie, and he doesn't have enough knowledge about the U.S. to be
running his mouth about the American civil war.
Gotta wonder why he's so desperate to support Lost Cause propaganda.
Perhaps he's a secessionist crackpot from Western Australia? Desperately looking for a "right" to secede? There is no "right" only Power and justification. He can try to show us where a "right to secession" was
ever
encoded anywhere, any time.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hjusohqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why? because you said so? What makes your glorious self the arbiter of
all?
The Colonies had power, the South did not.When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moonwould have
been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Even sillier than you usually manage given that
the american colonys had seceded from Britain.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hj6b4umbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteDid you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaimthat secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why?
Because that is the ONLY power SCOTUS actually has
apart from a few other irrelevant things, it ONLY gets
to interpret the constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
It does NOT get any say on what a US state can
do when that isnt specified in the constitution.
It can ONLY do that with stuff that is specified in the constitution
and secession isnt even mentioned in the constitution.
Your favorite reference:
==============
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal Constitution "in all its provisions looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States."
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any powerunder the Constitution to
secede.
That is clearly not talking about the power in the sense of success,
foiol.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaimthat secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why?
Because that is the ONLY power SCOTUS actually has
apart from a few other irrelevant things, it ONLY gets
to interpret the constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
It does NOT get any say on what a US state can
do when that isnt specified in the constitution.
It can ONLY do that with stuff that is specified in the constitution
and secession isnt even mentioned in the constitution.
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
Your favorite reference:
==============
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commentedthat the
federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to anindestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States.â€
The constitution never ever says anything even remotely like that.
And there is no such animal as an indestructible state anyway.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
Liar
Nope.
Yep ...
Nope, dope.
or can you provide a link to the actual text of the ruling?
Yep,
... else you would have provided the link.
Nope, dope. I don't play childish games.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hkifddnbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
Liar
Nope.
Yep ...
or can you provide a link to the actual text of the ruling?
Yep,
... else you would have provided the link.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hkefjnkbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteLiar - or can you provide a link to the actual text of the ruling?
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any powerunder the Constitution to
secede.
That is clearly not talking about the power in the sense of success,
foiol.
LThere is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaimthat secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONA
Why?
Because that is the ONLY power SCOTUS actually has
apart from a few other irrelevant things, it ONLY gets
to interpret the constitution, you pig ignorant clown.
It does NOT get any say on what a US state can
do when that isnt specified in the constitution.
It can ONLY do that with stuff that is specified in the constitution
and secession isnt even mentioned in the constitution.
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
Vincent <Vine@Letuci.org> wrote in news:uo2280$lg8v$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/14/2024 1:54 PM, Baxter wrote:of
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hjusohqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why? because you said so? What makes your glorious self the arbiter
haveall?
When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moonwould
The Colonies had power, the South did not.been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Even sillier than you usually manage given that
the american colonys had seceded from Britain.
The massive number of dead on both sides disputes that statement.
No. What you guys are missing in trying to apply the 10th is that every colony/State had their own constitution that detailed their Rights.
So
the 10th is refering to those documents and not some imaginary "right"
made up long after.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hi089dubyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 17:05:44 +1100, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net>
wrote:
Neither were the american colonys, or the czech replublic.
They seceded anyway,
Again - you have to be a member in order to secede - the Colonies were not members of Great Britain - they had no representation in Parliment.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hinnk0nbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian - you have to be a member to
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they seceded from Great
Britain.
secede, and the colonies were not members.
Vincent <Vine@Letuci.org> wrote in news:uo2280$lg8v$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/14/2024 1:54 PM, Baxter wrote:of
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hjusohqbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Why? because you said so? What makes your glorious self the arbiter
haveall?
When the Constitution was written putting a man on the moonwould
The Colonies had power, the South did not.been entirely imaginary - just like secession.
Even sillier than you usually manage given that
the american colonys had seceded from Britain.
The massive number of dead on both sides disputes that statement.
No. What you guys are missing in trying to apply the 10th is that every colony/State had their own constitution that detailed their Rights. So
the 10th is refering to those documents and not some imaginary "right"
made up long after.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? Last I
heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't actually
have the power to secede.)
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
prior to the Treaty of Paris, ...
there was no empire before that date
Wrong, as always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1837801
Just because some fool claims something...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Did you read the SCOTUS ruling?
Yep.
Liar
Nope.
Yep ...
Nope, dope.
or can you provide a link to the actual text of the ruling?
Yep,
... else you would have provided the link.
Nope, dope. I don't play childish games.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hki8gqnbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Non sequiteur - the two references speak to different things.
prior to the Treaty of Paris, ...
there was no empire before that date
Wrong, as always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1837801
Just because some fool claims something...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:unvhlb$60ps$2@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hh0uhrvbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal,
But had no legal basis for doing that given that the constitution
doesnt even mention secession, let alone banning it.
and neither of those have occured - sothat decision stands and is
the Last Word.
That decision remains just another SCOTUS stupidity
So you're smarter and more knowledgable than the whole SCOTUS?!! Oh!
You're such a legend.
Yes, he is.
You are the one asserting that SCOTUS is infallible
even in the fact of overwhelming evidence they were wrong.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:unuf81$jgq$1@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in news:unubff$3vv27$2@dont-
email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgw5wypbyq249A SCOTUS decision can be overruled by two means:
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
But no supreme gets to rule alone on anything.
The full SCOTUS did rule on the issue in the late 1800's and said there
is no Right to Secede.
and SCOTUS is final word on these matters.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a fucking clue about constitutional law
or anything else at all either.
SCOTUS certainly gets to interpret the constitution,
but the problem is that the constitution doesnt even
mention secession, so SCOTUS does not not get to
rule on secession.
So you'r trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Gawd you're an idiot.
And SCOTUS is not the final word on anything,
they are free to change their mind when SCOTUS
has been stacked with other supremes, as
happened with Roe v Wade.
1 - a later SCOTUS ruling
2 - a Constitutional Amendment
Or we can simply ignore it.
All I can say is just because SCOTUS says it.. doesn't make it law.
The SCOTUS ruled in 1869 that secession was illegal, and neither of those
have occured - so that decision stands and is the Last Word.
So SCOTUS was wrong.
Oh, that's right, according to you SCOTUS is infallible and
utterly perfect.
But ok.. show us within the Constitution where the federal government (which included SCOTUS) was granted any power to deny, regulate or legislation matters
on secession.
Because I'm not aware of any power granted to SCOTUS to change the Constitution
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? Last I heard >> their secession failed.
Baxter admits they did, in fact, secede...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:unubff$3vv27$2@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hgw5wypbyq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
No one made him Pope.
But they did make in Supreme Court Justice
But no supreme gets to rule alone on anything.
The full SCOTUS did rule on the issue in the late 1800's and said there
is no Right to Secede.
They have neither the power nor the authority to do so.
I will note that other than SCOTUS every other part of government apparently had
no issues with that.. they exchanged ambassadors .
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...actually
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? Last I
heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the federal government may take steps to prevent it.
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to secede. >>>There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the federal
government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Secession is not mentioned.
Vincent <Vine@Letuci.org> wrote in news:uo20in$l9u0$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/14/2024 1:53 PM, Baxter wrote:Oh, yeah, and while you're at it visit the Noah's Ark. Similar factual basis.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hjujmedbyq249
@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteLike Humpty Dumpty you make up your own meanings for words.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom
Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
OK, The Colonies had the POWER to separate from Britain and did, the
South did not have the POWER to secede and failed.
There was never any RIGHT to secede in the Constitution nor any of
the previous documents that the South agreed to -- nor did they have
the POWER to secede
You, sir are an ignorant uneducated fool about the very country that
you live in. I suggest that a simpleton like yourself visit *Knotts
Berry Farm* in Buena Park Calif. It has a freedom Hall based on true
History of the founding of America.
https://yesterland.com/independence.html
On 1/15/2024 2:20 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:35 PM, Baxter wrote:
Vincent <Vine@Letuci.org> wrote in news:uo20in$l9u0$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/14/2024 1:53 PM, Baxter wrote:Oh, yeah, and while you're at it visit the Noah's Ark. Similar factual >>> basis.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hjujmedbyq249 >>>>> @pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteLike Humpty Dumpty you make up your own meanings for words.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom
Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
OK, The Colonies had the POWER to separate from Britain and did, the >>>>> South did not have the POWER to secede and failed.
There was never any RIGHT to secede in the Constitution nor any of
the previous documents that the South agreed to -- nor did they have >>>>> the POWER to secede
You, sir are an ignorant uneducated fool about the very country that
you live in. I suggest that a simpleton like yourself visit *Knotts
Berry Farm* in Buena Park Calif. It has a freedom Hall based on true
History of the founding of America.
https://yesterland.com/independence.html
In other words, you choose freely to remain vastly ignorant.
You calling someone ignorant is really factual.
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
On 1/14/2024 8:35 PM, Baxter wrote:news:op.2hjujmedbyq249
Vincent <Vine@Letuci.org> wrote in news:uo20in$l9u0$1@dont-email.me:
On 1/14/2024 1:53 PM, Baxter wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
factualOh, yeah, and while you're at it visit the Noah's Ark. Similar@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wroteLike Humpty Dumpty you make up your own meanings for words.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
The south actually seceded so they got to decide policy for
themselves, just like the colonists did when they secededfrom
Great Britain.
The Colonies didn't secede from Britian
Corse they did.
OK, The Colonies had the POWER to separate from Britain and did, the
South did not have the POWER to secede and failed.
There was never any RIGHT to secede in the Constitution nor any of
the previous documents that the South agreed to -- nor did they have
the POWER to secede
You, sir are an ignorant uneducated fool about the very country that
you live in. I suggest that a simpleton like yourself visit *Knotts
Berry Farm* in Buena Park Calif. It has a freedom Hall based on true
History of the founding of America.
https://yesterland.com/independence.html
apologizebasis.
In other words, you choose freely to remain vastly ignorant. I
for trying to bring the light of knowledge to a block of cement likeyou.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad:
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, While
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say "the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes secession.
It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:uo3934 $u2vb$19@dont-email.me:
actually
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? Last I
heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
They LOST, idiot. If they had had the power they would have won, and thehave the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
CSA would exist today.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 04:00:38 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:uo3934
$u2vb$19@dont-email.me:
actually
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? Last I >>>>> heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
They LOST, idiot. If they had had the power they would have won, and thehave the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
CSA would exist today.
Different power, you illiterate fool.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad:
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, While
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say "the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad:
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, While
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say "the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.2hmif3iybyq249@pvr2.lan...
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad:It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the ConstitutionSo?
to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway. >>>>>>>
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, While >>> the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say "the >>> Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes secession. >>
Yep, if it was perpetual.... that perpetuity ended when the Articles were eliminated.
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?Â
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uo3obl$10j4k$1@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:uo3934 $u2vb$19@dont-email.me:
actually
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
They LOST, idiot. If they had had the power they would have won, andhave the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
the CSA would exist today.
I see.. so if I punch you in the face and beat you up.. then the fact
you lost the fight makes my actions legal?
Further, proof, BTW that the south was correct to try to secede from
the oppressive North.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:54:45 +1100, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2024 8:51 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter
ad:<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.i
on to
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constituti
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
ile
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, Wh
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say
"the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
No, it isn't.
Corse it is.
The Articles defined a perpetual union,
That doesn't legally bind the union to anything forever.
and the preamble of the Constitution expresslystates the intent to make
a *more perfect union*.
And made no mention of secession or perpetuity.
This is exactly the point Chase made in Texas v. White.
And that was just more mindless bullshit.
Secession is not allowed.
Wrong, as always and it did happen
This is settled.
Wrong, as always.
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers detailed in
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to be
reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
the various State constitutions.
On 2024-01-16, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>
wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers detailed in >>> the various State constitutions.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?ÂLast I >>>>>>> heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to be >>>> reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Here is a good explanation of states rights and The Constitution.
<https://constitution.laws.com/states-rights>
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers detailed in
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?ÂLast I >>>>>> heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to be
reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:uo5uap$1ehdd$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo3obl$10j4k$1@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:uo3934 $u2vb$19@dont-email.me:
actually
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
They LOST, idiot. If they had had the power they would have won, andhave the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
the CSA would exist today.
I see.. so if I punch you in the face and beat you up.. then the fact
you lost the fight makes my actions legal?
Not a correct comparison
Further, proof, BTW that the south was correct to try to secede fromSo the South was correct to defend their Slavery? And were the Nazis
the oppressive North.
correct in their use of gas chambers?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung <junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad: >>>>Sure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any implication
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway. >>>>>>>>So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, While >>>> the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say
"the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
of "perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect" by
the Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
There is no power to secede reserved to the states.
But the states are legally free to secede and did so
and even the North recognised that when they kicked
their elected representatives out of Congress and
both sides appointed ambassadors to each other.
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers detailed in
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?Â
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to be
reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
the various State constitutions.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hmsruqmbyq249 @pvr2.lan:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:54:45 +1100, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2024 8:51 PM, Rod Speed wrote:ad:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.i
on to
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constituti
ilesecede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, Wh
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say
"the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
No, it isn't.
Corse it is.
The Articles defined a perpetual union,
That doesn't legally bind the union to anything forever.
and the preamble of the Constitution expresslystates the intent to make
a *more perfect union*.
And made no mention of secession or perpetuity.
This is exactly the point Chase made in Texas v. White.
And that was just more mindless bullshit.
Secession is not allowed.
Wrong, as always and it did happen
This is settled.
Wrong, as always.
Slavery is and was wrong. And any yapping about States Rights/Powers is
just an attempt to put lipstick on that slavery pig.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.2hngb80pbyq249@pvr2.lan...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung <junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:
 "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad: >>>>>Â Sure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any implication of
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution to >>>>>>>>>>>> secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal anyway. >>>>>>>>>So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, While >>>>> the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say "the >>>>> Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
"perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect" by the >>> Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
Yep, I think it would be classified as a "term of arm" not a legally binding condition.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote inst I
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?ÂLa
eheard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
b
inreserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
detailed
the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Baxter wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung
<junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
ad:news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.i
on to
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constituti
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal
anyway.
ile
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the
federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation,
Wh
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say
on"theSure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
implicati
of "perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect" by
the Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
There is no power to secede reserved to the states.
But the states are legally free to secede and did so
and even the North recognised that when they kicked
their elected representatives out of Congress and
both sides appointed ambassadors to each other.
On 2024-01-16, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America
located?ÂLast I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Here is a good explanation of states rights and The Constitution.
<https://constitution.laws.com/states-rights>
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 03:52:50 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hmsruqmbyq249e:
@pvr2.lan:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:54:45 +1100, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net>
wrot
.i
On 1/15/2024 8:51 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03
tiad:
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitu
y.on to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal >>>>>>>>>>>> anywa
Wh
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation,
yile
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does
sa
ma
"the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
No, it isn't.
Corse it is.
The Articles defined a perpetual union,
That doesn't legally bind the union to anything forever.
and the preamble of the Constitution expresslystates the intent to
ke
a *more perfect union*.
And made no mention of secession or perpetuity.
This is exactly the point Chase made in Texas v. White.
And that was just more mindless bullshit.
Secession is not allowed.
Wrong, as always and it did happen
This is settled.
Wrong, as always.
Slavery is and was wrong.
Irrelevant to whether secession is legal.
On 1/16/2024 11:13 AM, Scout wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.2hngb80pbyq249@pvr2.lan...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung
<junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:
 "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in Sure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.iad:
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the
Constitution to secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of
Confederation, While the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in
any variation, it does say "the Union was solemnly declared to
'be perpetual'" - which precludes secession.
implication of "perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect"
by the Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
Yep, I think it would be classified as a "term of arm" not a legally
binding condition.
That's called a term of *art*, you stupid fuck, not "arm." For fuck's
sake, scooter, the 'm' and 't' keys are nowhere close to one another
on any keyboard, so you can't even claim it was a typo. What it is is
another example of your stupidity.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:58:32 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote inti
news:op.2hngb80pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung
<junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:ad:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.i
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitu
yon to
ilesecede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation,
Wh
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does
sa
y
on"theSure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
implicati
of "perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect"
b
the Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
There is no power to secede reserved to the states.
But the states are legally free to secede and did so
and even the North recognised that when they kicked
their elected representatives out of Congress and
both sides appointed ambassadors to each other.
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:59:32 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Go ahead and show otherwise.
We have, repeatedly.
Just what are those "rights reserved to the States"?
YOU were the one pig ignorantly rabbiting
on about "rights reserved to the States"?
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:04:10 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Any claim that the Civil War was about States Rights is Lost Cause
propaganda. States Rights don't exist as a separate thing
Wrong, as always.
- they only exist in conjunction with specific rights.
Wrong, as always.
Just like "felony" is not separate from the specific crime(s)
Nothing like.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:57:38 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote inLa
news:op.2hnf5kc0byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?Â
st I
heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede
to
eb
inreserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
detailed
the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Putting a man on the moon is not a Right, nor is it a political
Power.
Constitutions arent just about rights and political power, you
ignorant fool.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:37:38 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnue4kdbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:57:38 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnf5kc0byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America
located?Â
'tLa
st I
heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede >>>>>>> to
eb
inreserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
detailed
the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Putting a man on the moon is not a Right, nor is it a political
Power.
Constitutions arent just about rights and political power, you
ignorant fool.
yes they are,
They are also about the detail of how congress is
elected, how the constitution is amended and all
sorts of other stuff, you pig ignorant clown.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:38:40 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
If you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal.
The states did not get caught doing anything illegal, fuckwit.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:43:20 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnuo61pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:04:10 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Any claim that the Civil War was about States Rights is Lost Cause
propaganda. States Rights don't exist as a separate thing
Wrong, as always.
- they only exist in conjunction with specific rights.
Wrong, as always.
Just like "felony" is not separate from the specific crime(s)
Nothing like.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
- if someone violates your Civil Rights, you're goingto have to
specify the exact right violated in court -
No court was ever involved in deciding that the
confederacy had no right to seceded.
Have fun
explaining why both sides appointed ambassadors,
the south had to apply to rejoin the union,
and no
court ever applied any penalty for seceding.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:58:32 +1100, BaxterIf you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal. Idiot
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote inti
news:op.2hngb80pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung
<junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:ad:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.i
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitu
yon to
ilesecede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation, >>>>>>> Wh
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does
sa
y
on"theSure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes >>>>>>> secession.
implicati
of "perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect"
b
the Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
There is no power to secede reserved to the states.
But the states are legally free to secede and did so
and even the North recognised that when they kicked
their elected representatives out of Congress and
both sides appointed ambassadors to each other.
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hngb80pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 01:59:50 +1100, David Hartung
<junk@lcms_shitbags.org> wrote:
On 1/16/2024 4:52 AM, scooter lied:ad:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo4smm$19j29$2@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03.i
on to
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constituti
ilesecede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal
anyway.
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation,
Wh
onthe AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does say
"theSure.. and since the AoC no longer applies nether does any
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
implicati
of "perpetual union".
The perpetual union established in the AoC was made "more perfect" by
the Constitution. Chase expressly noted that in Texas v. White.
It was made more perfect by the elimination of
the word perpetual, because no agreement can
ever be binding forever and be unchangeable.
There is no power to secede reserved to the states.
But the states are legally free to secede and did so
and even the North recognised that when they kicked
their elected representatives out of Congress and
both sides appointed ambassadors to each other.
The CSA lost - get over it.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hnf5kc0byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote inst I
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?ÂLa
eheard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
b
inreserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
detailed
the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Putting a man on the moon is not a Right, nor is it a political Power.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hnue4kdbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:57:38 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote inLa
news:op.2hnf5kc0byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?Â
st I
heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede
to
eb
inreserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
detailed
the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Putting a man on the moon is not a Right, nor is it a political
Power.
Constitutions arent just about rights and political power, you
ignorant fool.
yes they are, you ignoramus.
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Baxter wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise. Just what are those "rights reserved to the States"?
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hnjosjybyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 03:52:50 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hmsruqmbyq249e:
@pvr2.lan:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:54:45 +1100, Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net>
wrot
.i
On 1/15/2024 8:51 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:20:55 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:AwipN.41336$5Hnd.16546@fx03
tiad:
On 1/15/2024 2:38 PM, Vincent wrote:
On 1/14/2024 8:54 PM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On 1/14/2024 10:25 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Alan Bond <bondrock@ifx.net> wrote
There is not and never was any power under the Constitu
y.on to
secede.
There is not and never was any power under the Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>> to put a man on the moon or into space and it is legal >>>>>>>>>>>>> anywa
Wh
So?
So SCOTUS does not get to proclaim that secession is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It does and it did. Secession is unconstitutional, meaning the >>>>>>>>>> federal government may take steps to prevent it.
What an ignorant statement by a fool.
Irrelevant.
Secession is not mentioned.
Precisely.
The Constitution is a revision of the Articles of Confederation,
yile
the AoC doesn't use the word "secede" in any variation, it does
sa
ma
"the
Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual'" - which precludes
secession.
It was replaced so what it says is legally irrelevant.
No, it isn't.
Corse it is.
The Articles defined a perpetual union,
That doesn't legally bind the union to anything forever.
and the preamble of the Constitution expresslystates the intent to
ke
a *more perfect union*.
And made no mention of secession or perpetuity.
This is exactly the point Chase made in Texas v. White.
And that was just more mindless bullshit.
Secession is not allowed.
Wrong, as always and it did happen
This is settled.
Wrong, as always.
Slavery is and was wrong.
Irrelevant to whether secession is legal.
Nope. Absolutely relavent as to why the Southern States tried and failed
to secede.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uo6u84$1kjac$3@dont-email.me...
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Baxter wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 Â nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly: their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't >>>>>>> actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise. Just what are those "rights reserved to the >> States"?
Simple.
Everything NOT granted to the Federal government.. such as the right to secede.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:43:20 +1100, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnuo61pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:04:10 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Any claim that the Civil War was about States Rights is Lost Cause
propaganda. States Rights don't exist as a separate thing
Wrong, as always.
- they only exist in conjunction with specific rights.
Wrong, as always.
Just like "felony" is not separate from the specific crime(s)
Nothing like.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
- if someone violates your Civil Rights, you're goingto have to specify
the exact right violated in court -
No court was ever involved in deciding that the
confederacy had no right to seceded. Have fun
explaining why both sides appointed ambassadors,
the south had to apply to rejoin the union, and no
court ever applied any penalty for seceding.
<reams of your irrelevancys flushed where they belong>
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:uo6iob$1i9la$7@dont-email.me:
On 2024-01-16, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:Any claim that the Civil War was about States Rights is Lost Cause propaganda.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 02:50:24 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
Ã, nor did they have theÃ, POWERÃ, to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America
located?Ã,Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Ã, their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't >>>>>>> actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you hsve
never had a fucking clue what a constitution is about.
They are NOT and never have been a complete
list of what a state or nation can legally do.
That should be obvious from the fact that there is no mention
of putting a man on the moon or into space. It is perfectly
legal to do that ANYWAY. Same with secessiom.
Here is a good explanation of states rights and The Constitution.
<https://constitution.laws.com/states-rights>
States Rights don't exist as a separate thing
- they only
exist in conjunction with specific rights.
Just like "felony" is not
separate from the specific crime(s)
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Baxter wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede to
be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise.
Technically as the first people there, they could lay legal claim
to ownership of the entirety of the moon.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:36:05 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
What you're describing are political power and rights.
Wrong as always with the detail of the number of seats
each state gets, when elections are held, etc etc etc.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:37:13 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hobs5c8byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:38:40 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
If you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal.
The states did not get caught doing anything illegal, fuckwit.
Yeah, the did, that's what the Civil War was about
Thats not legally caught, fool.
On 1/16/2024 1:59 PM, Baxter wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Baxter wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located?
Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't
actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede
to be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise.
You have to show it to be true,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:49:23 +1100, Baxter.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same terminology.
Nothing like.
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:4GTpN.171272$Ama9.45857@fx12.iad:
On 1/16/2024 1:59 PM, Bugster lied:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Bugster lied:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? >>>>>>>>> Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't >>>>>>>> actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede
to be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise.
You have to show it to be true,
Already shown to be true by that SCOTUS decision
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hob2saobyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:43:20 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnuo61pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:04:10 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Any claim that the Civil War was about States Rights is Lost Cause
propaganda. States Rights don't exist as a separate thing
Wrong, as always.
- they only exist in conjunction with specific rights.
Wrong, as always.
Just like "felony" is not separate from the specific crime(s)
Nothing like.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same terminology.
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:4GTpN.171272$Ama9.45857@fx12.iad:
On 1/16/2024 1:59 PM, Bugster lied:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Bugster lied:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? >>>>>>>>> Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't >>>>>>>> actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede
to be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise.
You have to show it to be true,
Already shown to be true by that SCOTUS decision
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hobs5c8byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:38:40 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Yeah, the did, that's what the Civil War was about and THEY LOST.
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
If you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal.
The states did not get caught doing anything illegal, fuckwit.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hpf31a6byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:49:23 +1100, Baxter.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
yes, LIKE. You want it to be different only because "civil rights" means black people are legally equal to you, and if the South had "states
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same terminology.
Nothing like.
rights" then that justified slavery.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hpfx4htbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:37:13 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hobs5c8byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:38:40 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
If you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal.
The states did not get caught doing anything illegal, fuckwit.
Yeah, the did, that's what the Civil War was about
Thats not legally caught, fool.
Poor half-wit - his shitty world would fall apart if he couldn't pretend
the slaver South was justified in starting the Civil war.
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in news:4GTpN.171272$Ama9.45857@fx12.iad:
On 1/16/2024 1:59 PM, Baxter wrote:
Lou Bricano <lb@cap.con> wrote in
news:9tzpN.62436$TSTa.47481@fx47.iad:
On 1/16/2024 7:50 AM, Baxter wrote:
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:YRwpN.192996$c3Ea.177012@fx10.iad:
On 1/15/2024 4:35 AM, scooter lied:And the powers that the 10th was referring to were the powers
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uo1q0n$kfqq$2@dont-email.me...
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:uo1prs$kfqq$1@dont-email.me:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hj53otjbyq249@pvr2.lan:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote
 nor did they have the POWER to secede
Wrong, as always.
Strange - where is the Confederate States of America located? >>>>>>>>> Last I heard their secession failed.
More properly:Â their ATTEMPT at secession failed (they didn't >>>>>>>> actually have the power to secede.)
Actually they did. 10th Amendment
No, scooter. You tried that already. There is no power to secede
to be reserved to the states. The power doesn't exist.
detailed in the various State constitutions.
That is completely wrong.
Go ahead and show otherwise.
You have to show it to be true,
Already shown to be true by that SCOTUS decision
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uoa6nn$2dj4c$3@dont-email.me...
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hpfx4htbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:37:13 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hobs5c8byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:38:40 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>Â wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
If you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal.
The states did not get caught doing anything illegal, fuckwit.
Yeah, the did, that's what the Civil War was about
Thats not legally caught, fool.
Poor half-wit - his shitty world would fall apart if he couldn't pretend
the slaver South was justified in starting the Civil war.
Are you suggesting they weren't?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:42:47 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hpfx4htbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:37:13 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hobs5c8byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:38:40 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnug1ofbyq249@pvr2.lan:
The CSA lost
Irrelevant to whether it is legal to secede, fool
If you try and get caught/punished then it's not legal.
The states did not get caught doing anything illegal, fuckwit.
Yeah, the did, that's what the Civil War was about
Thats not legally caught, fool.
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:40:58 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hpfwhl0byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:36:05 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
What you're describing are political power and rights.
Wrong as always with the detail of the number of seats
each state gets, when elections are held, etc etc etc.
That's all politics,
But not POWER, fuckwit.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:45:07 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hpf31a6byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:49:23 +1100, Baxter.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
yes, LIKE.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same terminology.
Nothing like.
Nope, dope
You want it to be different only because "civil rights"means black
people are legally equal to you,
Nope, dope
and if the South had "states rights" then that justified slavery.
Even more pathetic than you usually manage.
On 1/17/2024 7:49 AM, Bugster lied::
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hob2saobyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:43:20 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hnuo61pbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:04:10 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Any claim that the Civil War was about States Rights is Lost
Cause propaganda. States Rights don't exist as a separate thing
Wrong, as always.
- they only exist in conjunction with specific rights.
Wrong, as always.
Just like "felony" is not separate from the specific crime(s)
Nothing like.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same terminology.
Not connected in any way, Bugster, you fucking idiot. Civil rights are
rights of individual persons. So-called "states' rights" are supposed
powers, mislabeled "rights," held by American states to engage in
state action. There is no connection between the two, Bugster, you
fucking idiot.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:40:35 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hp6cwfnbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:45:07 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hpf31a6byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:49:23 +1100, Baxter.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
yes, LIKE.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same
terminology.
Nothing like.
Nope, dope
You want it to be different only because "civil rights"means black
people are legally equal to you,
Nope, dope
and if the South had "states rights" then that justified slavery.
Even more pathetic than you usually manage.
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:op.2hraw7u4byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:40:35 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hp6cwfnbyq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:45:07 +1100, Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:op.2hpf31a6byq249@pvr2.lan:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 02:49:23 +1100, Baxter.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
yes, LIKE.
Just like "Civil Rights"
Nothing like.
"States Rights", "Civil Rights" - absolutely the same
terminology.
Nothing like.
Nope, dope
You want it to be different only because "civil rights"means black
people are legally equal to you,
Nope, dope
and if the South had "states rights" then that justified slavery.
Even more pathetic than you usually manage.
<reams of your shit any 3 year old could leave for dead flushed where
it belongs>
A 3 year old would have better grasp of truth that you do.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:18:07 |
| Calls: | 6,661 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,403 |
