As Stupid Immigrants head to the Polls America Barrels Toward Civil War (Page 13): Snip>> The US Supreme Court ruled that the Texas secession of 1861 was unconstitutional, and had...

PeterS

Loki wrote:

I'll try to keep this to a level someone of your obviously limited intelligence can comprehend. Try and keep up. He was treated as a hero by the Union because the Union won. Can you understand that concept, Colonoscopy? Had Lee ordered his troops to l**t and burn civilian homes and farms when his army was in the North, the Confederacy would have treated him as a hero. Instead, he had rapists and thieves shot rather than rewarded. Sheridan's destruction of the Shenandoah ruined the lives and livelihoods of quite a few Union sympathizers who lived there.
Understand one more thing, (if you can count to one, that is.) The Union was an invading Army. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, secession was perfectly legal in 1861.
Tell you what, slick. You have such a high opinion of yourself; (you are so informed about history and geography that you put Sherman, rather than Sheridan destroying the Shenandoah, and the Shenandoah in Georgia; way to go, Einstein).
As I was saying, show everyone how smart you are and how ignorant I am. I will pay you $50 if you can show me one place in the Constitution or in US statutory law as it existed in 1861 that prohibited secession. Wanna back up your opinion? However, if you cannot find any such prohibition, YOU can pay ME.
How about it, pendejo?
To answer your other questions, in language someone of your Lilliputian intelligence and gnat-like attention span can comprehend....
Bombing Germany was not a war crime. It was at directed mostly at military targets and was at least in part retaliation for German bombing of London. Pearl Harbor, while it was a despicable sneak attack, was directed against a military target with few civilian casualties. What the Germans did to people in their concentration camps, and the deliberately barbaric treatment of civilians by Japanese Army troops in conquered areas were war crimes.
Troops in the Army of Northern Virginia were punished for committing crimes against civilians. Union troops in Sherman's and Sheridan's armies were encouraged to commit those crimes. Perhaps Lee should have turned his army loose to burn, pillage, rape and murder in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Would he have been a hero?
You should probably think things through, at least as much as your limited intelligence allows, before you expose your ignorance in public.
By the way, you seem to know so much about war, mind telling us which branch of the Armed Forces you served in?
I'm an Army vet myself. I sometimes kick myself for defending the Constitution which gives assholes the right to fart their ignorant opinions.
Ooops! I meant to say anal orifices the right to flatulate their poorly informed pseudo-opinions.
I believe you called me "an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense!!!"
Your command of the written language leaves a great deal to be desired. I am not an atheist and I think we have established who the windbag spouting nonsense here really is.

I'll try to keep this to a level someone of your o... (show quote)

Snip>> The US Supreme Court ruled that the Texas secession of 1861 was unconstitutional, and had never been valid. ... Since the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, one could argue that it has no such authority, and therefore states cannot legally secede.
law - Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal ...
https://history.stackexchange.com/.../was-the-secession-of-the-confederate-states-illegal

I know you probably don't care what the supreme court has to say but since that is the reason it is there I thought I would just point out what they had to say. And are you upset that Sherman burned down the south? If the north had lost you might be able to make a case for brutality but it was the Souths fault for succeeding so all they can do is blame themselves.

And I do love how you seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with the latest conservative know-it-all to join the board though no one can denigrate your fellow man better than you. Rush Limbaugh would be sooooo proud....snif, snif...

Loki Loc: Georgia

PeterS wrote:

Snip>> b The US Supreme Court ruled that th... (show quote)

The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Every single one of the majority was a Lincoln appointee. As such this decision is questionable at best. A post war court justifying the Union aggression. You are quick enough to take this viewpoint when it comes to the Mexican War, and to our forays into the mideast. What I said was that in 1861 (You CAN say 1861, and you DO realize that comes before 1869, right?) there was no law whatsoever prohibiting secession. Three of the last four states to ratify the Constitution, NY, RI, and VA) did so with a proviso that they reserved the right to secede. They were admitted to the Union nonetheless, ergo; secession was legal. A kangaroo SCOTUS justifying Northern aggression after the fact notwithstanding. SCOTUS decisions are not written in stone; the Court has reversed itself around 130 times.
In 1861, there was no law preventing secession. There was not a single state admitted between 1789 and 1860 with any precondition about secession obtaining. When VA seceded, they did so initially as an independent Republic, and did not join the Confederacy until invaded by a Union Army. For those of you who claim that the Confederacy started the war by shelling Fort Sumter, explain why in spite of VA's lawful secession and desire to remain neutral, Lincoln sent an Army to force them back into the Union before they had committed a single act of violence against the US. As a matter of fact, SC, who started it, remained untouched for quite some time.
I noticed that at no time was the statement made that s***ery had never been legal. Doubtless because the winners had themselves engaged in the practice. During the War, four states that remained loyal to the Union still permitted s***ery, and not one s***e purportedly freed by the Emancipation Proclamation was included in that number. The wife of Ulysses S Grant owned four s***es and kept them in bondage until forced to free them.
As for secession never having been legal, that is a falsehood that has somehow never been addressed. It is unconstitutional to pass an ex post facto law. You cannot punish someone for doing something that was legal when they did it. Although I digress, this is why the gun bans of Colorado and Illinois recently enacted will never stand. They provide criminal penalties for an action that was lawful at the time it was undertaken. They may or may not be able to ban future purchases but they cannot make it illegal retroactively. It is the same principle as secession. You cannot criminalize something that was lawful until you said it was not.
I don't agree with secession or s***ery, but there are a great many things that are/were wrong-headed that are/were also lawful. Saying something that was legal has always been illegal is bulls**t.
By the way, you said it was the South's fault for "succeeding." Had they "succeeded," there would not be a United States today. You may not like the fact that I own semi auto firearms, but they are legal, and no Court can lawfully say in the future that it is illegal for me to do so and has always been illegal.
I disagree with almost everything you say, but it is legal for you to say it, and no court at a future time can criminalize your actions if they were legal at the time you took them.
One more thing, Mr. Legal Scholar.... have you ever read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution? It says

: 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.
Since the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, that was reserved to the states and the people.
Or the Ninth Amendment, which states that
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I realize that as a Liberal you pick and choose which laws and rights should apply and which should not, but your druthers don't mean a lot in the grander scheme of things.

One more point about the brutality of Union troops in Georgia... a great deal of that brutality was visited on the b****s they were supposed to be freeing. When Lee's army was in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Confederate troops who committed acts of murder, rape and robbery were shot or hung. Sherman encouraged brutality toward civilians. When Sheridan laid waste to the Shenandoah his troops destroyed almost as many pro Union homes and farms as they did those of Southern sympathizers.
You should do something about those sniffles. Perhaps some nice tofu and herbal tea, and a good snort of Hobbit farts. I would provide you with new crayons for your coloring books, but they have those nasty old sharp points. I know how you h**e assault crayolas.

teabag09

I have no fricking idea where they get the assumption that they aren't going to get b***h slapped down, which you do very well, when they try to revise History.

Well done, Loki. Mike

Loki wrote:

The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Every single one of the majority was a Lincoln appointee. As such this decision is questionable at best. A post war court justifying the Union aggression. You are quick enough to take this viewpoint when it comes to the Mexican War, and to our forays into the mideast. What I said was that in 1861 (You CAN say 1861, and you DO realize that comes before 1869, right?) there was no law whatsoever prohibiting secession. Three of the last four states to ratify the Constitution, NY, RI, and VA) did so with a proviso that they reserved the right to secede. They were admitted to the Union nonetheless, ergo; secession was legal. A kangaroo SCOTUS justifying Northern aggression after the fact notwithstanding. SCOTUS decisions are not written in stone; the Court has reversed itself around 130 times.
In 1861, there was no law preventing secession. There was not a single state admitted between 1789 and 1860 with any precondition about secession obtaining. When VA seceded, they did so initially as an independent Republic, and did not join the Confederacy until invaded by a Union Army. For those of you who claim that the Confederacy started the war by shelling Fort Sumter, explain why in spite of VA's lawful secession and desire to remain neutral, Lincoln sent an Army to force them back into the Union before they had committed a single act of violence against the US. As a matter of fact, SC, who started it, remained untouched for quite some time.
I noticed that at no time was the statement made that s***ery had never been legal. Doubtless because the winners had themselves engaged in the practice. During the War, four states that remained loyal to the Union still permitted s***ery, and not one s***e purportedly freed by the Emancipation Proclamation was included in that number. The wife of Ulysses S Grant owned four s***es and kept them in bondage until forced to free them.
As for secession never having been legal, that is a falsehood that has somehow never been addressed. It is unconstitutional to pass an ex post facto law. You cannot punish someone for doing something that was legal when they did it. Although I digress, this is why the gun bans of Colorado and Illinois recently enacted will never stand. They provide criminal penalties for an action that was lawful at the time it was undertaken. They may or may not be able to ban future purchases but they cannot make it illegal retroactively. It is the same principle as secession. You cannot criminalize something that was lawful until you said it was not.
I don't agree with secession or s***ery, but there are a great many things that are/were wrong-headed that are/were also lawful. Saying something that was legal has always been illegal is bulls**t.
By the way, you said it was the South's fault for "succeeding." Had they "succeeded," there would not be a United States today. You may not like the fact that I own semi auto firearms, but they are legal, and no Court can lawfully say in the future that it is illegal for me to do so and has always been illegal.
I disagree with almost everything you say, but it is legal for you to say it, and no court at a future time can criminalize your actions if they were legal at the time you took them.
One more thing, Mr. Legal Scholar.... have you ever read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution? It says

: 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.
Since the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, that was reserved to the states and the people.
Or the Ninth Amendment, which states that
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I realize that as a Liberal you pick and choose which laws and rights should apply and which should not, but your druthers don't mean a lot in the grander scheme of things.

The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Eve... (show quote)

Texas Truth Loc: Behind Enemy Lines

Sicilianthing wrote:

>>>>

Ha... I fell over !

Nice laugh... great post... Thank You

Kevin sucks. I know he's not paying any attention to his mama. What do you want to bet after he gets spanked on this site he rips the heads off his Barbie dolls and blames them. I'm glad I don't know where he lives. I would be afraid to drive past his house. Real horror movie s**t. You know the kind of movie what was mom has been sitting in the rocking chair for the last 30 years without a pulse.

Endoscopy Loc: Florida

Sicilianthing wrote:

>>>>

The Greatest Propaganda WAR in Human History is now underway

Are you saying that the Goebbles method of propaganda is being surpassed? In case you don't know when Joseph Goebbles was he was Hitler's minister of propaganda and close personal friend.

Joseph Goebbles Quotes

The t***h is the greatest enemy of the State.

If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the t***h.

The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.

If you tell a lie, tell a big one.

Man is and remains an animal. Here a beast of prey, there a housepet, but always an animal.

Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.

Propaganda is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. If the means achieves the end then the means is good... the new Ministry has no other aim than to unite the nation behind the ideal of the national revolution.

That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

Crisis is the path to happiness. Decay and disintegration do not spell doom, but ascent and beginning. The powerful forces of a new creation operate in the hush beyond the noise of the day.

Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the t***h. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the t***h. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the t***h to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.

I'm looking for the teacher who is simple enough to be great, and great enough to be simple.

Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.

If the day should ever come when we must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction."

If we have power, we'll never give it up again unless we're carried out of our offices as corpses.

Endoscopy Loc: Florida

Loki wrote:

The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Every single one of the majority was a Lincoln appointee. As such this decision is questionable at best. A post war court justifying the Union aggression. You are quick enough to take this viewpoint when it comes to the Mexican War, and to our forays into the mideast. What I said was that in 1861 (You CAN say 1861, and you DO realize that comes before 1869, right?) there was no law whatsoever prohibiting secession. Three of the last four states to ratify the Constitution, NY, RI, and VA) did so with a proviso that they reserved the right to secede. They were admitted to the Union nonetheless, ergo; secession was legal. A kangaroo SCOTUS justifying Northern aggression after the fact notwithstanding. SCOTUS decisions are not written in stone; the Court has reversed itself around 130 times.
In 1861, there was no law preventing secession. There was not a single state admitted between 1789 and 1860 with any precondition about secession obtaining. When VA seceded, they did so initially as an independent Republic, and did not join the Confederacy until invaded by a Union Army. For those of you who claim that the Confederacy started the war by shelling Fort Sumter, explain why in spite of VA's lawful secession and desire to remain neutral, Lincoln sent an Army to force them back into the Union before they had committed a single act of violence against the US. As a matter of fact, SC, who started it, remained untouched for quite some time.
I noticed that at no time was the statement made that s***ery had never been legal. Doubtless because the winners had themselves engaged in the practice. During the War, four states that remained loyal to the Union still permitted s***ery, and not one s***e purportedly freed by the Emancipation Proclamation was included in that number. The wife of Ulysses S Grant owned four s***es and kept them in bondage until forced to free them.
As for secession never having been legal, that is a falsehood that has somehow never been addressed. It is unconstitutional to pass an ex post facto law. You cannot punish someone for doing something that was legal when they did it. Although I digress, this is why the gun bans of Colorado and Illinois recently enacted will never stand. They provide criminal penalties for an action that was lawful at the time it was undertaken. They may or may not be able to ban future purchases but they cannot make it illegal retroactively. It is the same principle as secession. You cannot criminalize something that was lawful until you said it was not.
I don't agree with secession or s***ery, but there are a great many things that are/were wrong-headed that are/were also lawful. Saying something that was legal has always been illegal is bulls**t.
By the way, you said it was the South's fault for "succeeding." Had they "succeeded," there would not be a United States today. You may not like the fact that I own semi auto firearms, but they are legal, and no Court can lawfully say in the future that it is illegal for me to do so and has always been illegal.
I disagree with almost everything you say, but it is legal for you to say it, and no court at a future time can criminalize your actions if they were legal at the time you took them.
One more thing, Mr. Legal Scholar.... have you ever read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution? It says

: 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.
Since the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, that was reserved to the states and the people.
Or the Ninth Amendment, which states that
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I realize that as a Liberal you pick and choose which laws and rights should apply and which should not, but your druthers don't mean a lot in the grander scheme of things.

One more point about the brutality of Union troops in Georgia... a great deal of that brutality was visited on the b****s they were supposed to be freeing. When Lee's army was in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Confederate troops who committed acts of murder, rape and robbery were shot or hung. Sherman encouraged brutality toward civilians. When Sheridan laid waste to the Shenandoah his troops destroyed almost as many pro Union homes and farms as they did those of Southern sympathizers.
You should do something about those sniffles. Perhaps some nice tofu and herbal tea, and a good snort of Hobbit farts. I would provide you with new crayons for your coloring books, but they have those nasty old sharp points. I know how you h**e assault crayolas.

The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Eve... (show quote)

What a bunch of drivel. The oath the president takes includes protecting the Constitution. You ignore the simple fact that in wars civilians take it in the neck. Especially when the military has to take a town. Also one method of fighting the enemy is to take away its resources to continue the fight and reduce their willingness to fight. This was done by the Romans and continued down through history. WWII is a great example of this. When Russia retreated from Germany thy wiped out with a scorched earth policy to remove any resources that Germany could use. Germany was the first to just bomb cities and also sent the V1 and V2 rockets to indiscriminately bomb the city of London. They mistakenly thought that would cause Britain to sue for peace. It had the opposite reaction. In WWII the bombing of important sites at times went to the extreme of incendiary bombing whole cities to make the workers at the war manufacturing plants not have a home. They did this in both Germany and Japan. To end the war with Japan we dropped 2 nuclear bombs wiping out 2 entire cities. Facts after the war was over and we had the Japanese plan for defense showed the bombs saved lives. They correctly guessed where we would invade and were telling the population how to k**l invading troops. All would have been k**led doing this.

Sherman had it right. "War is hell!!"

Loki Loc: Georgia

Endoscopy wrote:

What a bunch of drivel. The oath the president tak... (show quote)

We did not start the war with Germany and Japan, slick. I suppose you think the Japanese atrocities committed on civilians in China, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, and their treatment of prisoners was perfectly reasonable. How about the concentration camps in Germany?
Your knowledge of history is both pathetic and parochial. You excuse one criminal act and condone another.
So how about it? If bombing Germany was an acceptable act of war, why wasn't the rape of Nanking equally acceptable? What the N**is did in their concentration camps, according to you, was just peachy keen, same as bombing Dresden.
You apparently lack the wit to distinguish between acts of war such as bombing, and crimes such as rape, murder and robbery.

Sicilianthing

Texas T***h wrote:

Kevin sucks. I know he's not paying any attention to his mama. What do you want to bet after he gets spanked on this site he rips the heads off his Barbie dolls and blames them. I'm glad I don't know where he lives. I would be afraid to drive past his house. Real horror movie s**t. You know the kind of movie what was mom has been sitting in the rocking chair for the last 30 years without a pulse.

>>>>

Well noted and at this point I think he’s possibly a Created character of sorts by the many Eyes watching the pulse of this site.

He’s like the voice of a group of viewers or something of the Far left and worse...

Going back years since I’ve been here I can pull up some of his replies and see then compared to what he replies today...

So I’m not so convinced it’s an individual so much as a group of people that collectively compose replies, who knows.

Sicilianthing

Endoscopy wrote:

Are you saying that the Goebbles method of propaga... (show quote)

>>>>

I’m aware of some of it but you need to answer my question:

Who Bankrolled Hitler’s rise to power, Propaganda and all ?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Sicilianthing wrote:

>>>>

Well noted and at this point I think he’s possibly a Created character of sorts by the many Eyes watching the pulse of this site.

He’s like the voice of a group of viewers or something of the Far left and worse...

Going back years since I’ve been here I can pull up some of his replies and see then compared to what he replies today...

So I’m not so convinced it’s an individual so much as a group of people that collectively compose replies, who knows.

He are Legion?

Sicilianthing

Loki wrote:

He are Legion?

>>>>

Ha... now that’s funny but is he really solo ?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Sicilianthing wrote:

>>>>

Ha... now that’s funny but is he really solo ?

Who cares?

Sicilianthing

Loki wrote:

Who cares?

>>>>

I understand

cold iron Loc: White House

Endoscopy wrote:

What a bunch of drivel. The oath the president tak... (show quote)

You sound like a N**i lover!

Sicilianthing

Endoscopy wrote:

What a bunch of drivel. The oath the president tak... (show quote)

>>>>

Uhhh, Trump has not taken the true oath of office either, he has been shown the real one and afforded to take it but still hasn’t because the Bankster Families would assassinate him if he did... do you understand this dilemma ?

In Fact no President has taken the real oath of office for the Republic since Lincoln was assassinated but they don’t teach you that in school for a reason, you see ?