Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

The term "narcissistic personality disorder" comes to mind. If it is any consolation, ChoomCzar has it even worse and he combines it with Tourette's.
Originally Posted by ExMan

The term "sissy" comes to mind when discussing you........

You're a dumb-ass jackass, Assup. You spout bullshit about "ignoring" and "not caring"; yet, your dumb-ass suborns your stupid-ass post when you stupidly admit you read everything you said you didn't care about. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

assup caught a case of dumbass while swapping spit with bigmex......

[QUOTE=Old-farT;1051907718]

You never cease to amaze me ChoomCzar.usually it the ladies who tell me I'm amazing....LOL! I never realized you could open your mouth and be even MORE stupid sounding than normal, but you did it. There is no such racial connotation, only in your demented mind.if by stupid you mean someone who states correct facts and makes accurate analysis, then I'm guilty.....I happen to have a working knowledge of the alcoholic beverage industry and can say with certainty you are wrong....like large bottles of malt liquor with high alcohol content, MD is marketed to the minority communities.....all one needs to do is survey the stores that sell it and those that don't.....if you find it in your local store, I suggest you get a better job and move to a better neighborhood.....Old-farT is a typical liberal who will lie to support what he EMOTIONALLY believes to be true.....Old-farT, you lie to yourself when you say you're not a racist......

MD is associated with underaged HS kids and others with small incomes--those who value quantity over quality.blah blah blah blah....and they like rap music too! Like you. I mentioned no racial group.true I impled no racial group.false I used no code word for any racial group.other than MD20/20 LOL! See: http://www.bumwine.com/md2020.html and maybe learn something (though that is questionable).God you're stupid and closed-minded

Only in your limited, lieing, sick mind, ChoomCzar. Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Typical liberal......he never read anything about the beverage industry before making his original post regarding MD20/20.....bumwine.com! I'm sure they follow that one in the beverage industry! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

There's a liberal for you, he doesn't read and he doesn't think......he only feels....liberal beliefs aren't based on objective facts because to them facts are subjective, but FEELINGS are real! They FEEL good about their masters/owners so they believe whatever their masters/owners tell them to believe.....you don't reason with liberals, you can only ridicule them or defeat them........

LOL

Good luck with that.

You asked for an expert legal opinion of someone who held that the action directly contravened the Constitution: Attorney General Bates was that man (and there others).

To what section of the Constitution was he referring? Because I never saw him mention Article IV , Section 3. Just a flat assessment that it violated the Constitution. And his own letter stated that it was a quick judgement as he did not have time to give it proper consideration since Lincoln wanted a fast answer. That's not exactly a legal opinion. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But I asked for a legal opinion from a REAL constitutional scholar, like Lawrence Tribe or Cass Sunstein. And you gave me a back-of-the-envelope by Bates. Which brings up another point. Attorney Generals are quite often political appointments. And it was worse in the 1800s than it is now. AGs are not often expert legal scholars. And before you come back and say, "yes they are", please explain why you think the following AGs are Constitutional experts: Eric Holder, Janet Reno, Alberto Gonzalez, and John Ashcroft. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You asked for evidence from a professional historian who held that the action violated the tenets of the Constitution, and you were given two: Randall and McPherson (and there are more).

I did NOT ask for anything from an historian. In fact, when you kept bringing up these 2 historians, I rejected them and said that you should cite a Constitutional scholar. And you came back with an AG.

The answer to one simple question resolves the entire issue. Did creating the state of West Virginia out of the state of Virginia violate Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution? The answer is an unequivocal "yes". By definition that means the action was "unconstitutional".

No, it didn't. That's your opinion. And I gave you mine that once VA left the Union, it could no longer rely on Article IV, Section 3 any more that Canada or Mexico could. But you apparently believe that former states can still bind existing states using the Constitution. Nice double standard that. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Whatever

BTW, ExNYer, New York was slave state until 1827, and your New York City banks continued to finance the slave trade in the U.S. for another generation afterwards: so slavery and the slave trade was a corner stone in the foundation your “Big Apple”.
[/FONT] Originally Posted by I B Hankering;1051909624[FONT=Comic Sans MS

More utterly irrelevant BS designed to change the subject. Do you really think that pointing out the history of slavery in NY in any way strengthens your case?

But, finally, we are getting down to your real hang-up. At the end of the day, despite all of your BS about what a tyrant Lincoln was and how terribly victimized the South was by being deprived of its precious states rights by the Union, it isn't about Contitutional issues, is it. You're really just seeking to deflect criticism of your slave-holding ancestors.

No one can criticize the south because some northern states once had slaves? Apparently, two wrongs DO make a right in your opinion.

At one time, EVERY nation/society had slavery or something like it. You just have to trace back far enough. NY was no different.

But that doesn't excuse the South for clinging with its dying breath to slavery. If the Northern states had long before realized it was an inhuman barbarity, why didn't the South? What took them so long and why did they put up such a fight to postpone the inevitable? Why did they INSIST on being on the wrong side of history?

And my family history in this country began just after WWII, so no, those weren't "my" NY banks in the 1800s.

And it isn't "my" Big Apple any more than this is "your" Texas.

So you can take your pretentiousness -- like you've done with 'you history' -- and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine, ExNYer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering;1051909624[FONT=Comic Sans MS

Let's see. That would mean I have to shove it into your mind, wouldn't it?

Psychologically, you would be much better off if you just give up on the whole Civil War revisionism nonsense. JUST. LET. IT. GO. Look in the mirror and admit to yourself you ancestors did something terrible and move on. It was not your fault, so stop trying to defend it like you are embarrassed about something you did.

The South will NOT rise again. At least not the one you are thinking of.

The New South doesn't make excuses for the Civil War. it will be a white plurality, not a white majority. It will be more secular. It willsupport gay marriage, sooner rather than later. Hallelujah.

And all of the old school segregationists will be relegated to the trailer parks. And there is nothing they can do about it unless they plan on having like 5 kids per family.

To what section of the Constitution was he referring? Because I never saw him mention Article IV , Section 3. Just a flat assessment that it violated the Constitution. And his own letter stated that it was a quick judgement as he did not have time to give it proper consideration since Lincoln wanted a fast answer. That's not exactly a legal opinion. Your argument is disingenuous because you are arguing Lincoln’s “rush to judgment” didn’t allow for further, more proper consideration. Bates sustained that admitting West Virginia at Virginia's expense violated the Constitution: unconstitutional. It's very much a legal opinion. In fact, there is now a special counsel within the Attorney General's office that drafts such "legal opinions" for the Attorney General. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Legal_Counsel

I did NOT ask for anything from an historian. In fact, when you kept bringing up these 2 historians, I rejected them and said that you should cite a Constitutional scholar. And you came back with an AG. Attorney General Bates was a Constitutional scholar.

No, it didn't. That's your opinion. And I gave you mine that once VA left the Union, it could no longer rely on Article IV, Section 3 any more that Canada or Mexico could. But you apparently believe that former states can still bind existing states using the Constitution. Nice double standard that. You need to produce a Declaration of War from Congress to sustain your POV, and you cannot do that, because Lincoln was insistent that the states DID NOT leave the union which is counter to your "opinion" that it did. Your POV requires the the application of a "Double Standard" in several instances: 1) You have to accept the "legal fiction" that the citizens were allowed to cast their vote without fear of bodily harm and ignore the armed troops that manned the polls that intimidated voters. 2) You have to accept the "legal fiction" that armed soldiers did not cast illegal votes. 3) You have to accept the "legal fiction" that the opportunistic politicians that petitioned for statehood represented the citizens they claimed to represent: both during the Wheeling Conventions and after the referendum. 4) Finally, you then must completely ignore Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution which clearly proclaims that no state can be carved out of land belonging to an existing state: and that is what Attoreny General Bates argues. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The bill giving the consent of Congress, to the formation of this new State was rushed through precipitately. The friends of the bill thought delay dangerous -- any little accident, any revival among the Members of Congress, of a sense of justice and decency would, probably defeat it: And so, it was pressed through without any of the ordinary care and caution which is due to every legislative enactment -- and, in fact, the bill was full of the most glaring blunders. But the friends of the bill dared not attempt to amend it, lest delay and the scrut[in]y of debate might expose its absurdity and defeat its passage -- And so it was passed in all its deformity." Howard K. Beale, editor, The Diary of Edward Bates,(October 12, 1865), p. 508.

[SIZE=3]
More utterly irrelevant BS designed to change the subject. Do you really think that pointing out the history of slavery in NY in any way strengthens your case?

But, finally, we are getting down to your real hang-up. At the end of the day, despite all of your BS about what a tyrant Lincoln was and how terribly victimized the South was by being deprived of its precious states rights by the Union, it isn't about Contitutional issues, is it. You're really just seeking to deflect criticism of your slave-holding ancestors. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your pretentious assumption regarding my family's allegiance is as worthless as the rest of your "opinions". BTW, these remarks are relevant because they completely deflate the basis for your pretentiousness, ExNYer. FACE YOUR HISTORY, ExNYer!!!

New York Doesn’t Care to Remember the Civil War
By SAM ROBERTS
It was anything but civil. On Jan. 7, 1861, Mayor Fernando Wood exhorted New York’s Board of Aldermen to declare the city’s independence from Albany and from Washington — a bold stroke of self-preservation that he maintained “would have the whole and united support of the Southern States.”

. . . . Mayor Wood unabashedly embraced the South initially because its cotton merchants were financed by New York banks and protected from loss by New York insurers, and it transported its harvest in New York ships.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-civil-war/

“In addition to the Bank of America, U.S. Bank. J.P. Morgan and Wachovia, research revealed four other major companies that disclosed ties to the slave trade through slavery-disclosure laws in various jurisdictions: insurers Aetna, New York Life and AIG and financial-service companies ABN AMRO (p8).

http://sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocumen...documentid=860

Your pretentious assumption regarding my family's allegiance is as worthless as the rest of your "opinions". BTW, these remarks are relevant because they completely deflate the basis for your pretentiousness, ExNYer. FACE YOUR HISTORY, ExNYer!!! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have faced my history. It began in the British Isles many centuries ago and came to the US in late 1940s.

Have you faced your history?

BTW, I don't see how "these remarks" (about NY history) completely deflate the basis for my alleged pretentiousness. Just what does that mean anyway? Could you be any more vague?

I have faced my history. It began in the British Isles many centuries ago and came to the US in late 1940s.

Have you faced your history?

BTW, I don't see how "these remarks" (about NY history) completely deflate the basis for my alleged pretentiousness. Just what does that mean anyway? Could you be any more vague? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Perhaps it's your "ExNYer" handle that is vague!?! Your remarks regarding Southerners are "pretentious", and so is your desire to obfuscate the real history of New York and many of its wealthy scions who continued to profit from slavery and the slave trade for a full generation after they "pretentiously claim" to have shunned the institution.

Furthermore, if you are of Anglo-Saxon stock, you are a hypocrite who is in no position to lecture others on an ancestral legacy of moral depravity as it pertains to the evils of slavery.

Perhaps it's your "ExNYer" handle that is vague!?! Your remarks regarding Southerners are "pretentious", and so is your desire to obfuscate the real history of New York and many of its wealthy scions who continued to profit from slavery and the slave trade for a full generation after they "pretentiously claim" to have shunned the institution. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yup. Keep saying "Johnny did it, too!" That'll convince folks the old South wasn't so bad.

And what's this about "my desire" to obfuscate the real history of NY? Are you a mind reader now?

I never said anything about NY or its history. You did.

In fact, NYers were definitely wrong for profiting from it. There! See how easy it was for me to say that?

But at least those old NYers quit it early and fought against it - not FOR slavery.

You should try admitting the South was wrong to fight to maintain slavery and their cause was unjust. See how easy that was for me? Soon it will be that easy for you.

Furthermore, if you are of Anglo-Saxon stock, you are a hypocrite who is in no position to lecture others on an ancestral legacy of moral depravity as it pertains to the evils of slavery. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nice try, knucklehead. But I'm not Anglo-Saxon stock. In fact, the folks from Ould Sod were on the receiving end of Anglo-Saxon brutality.

BTW, in one of my posts above, I asked a group of questions. I noticed that you did not answer them, but did cut and pastel around them.

So, I'll give you another bite of the apple.

Here are the questions again:

"...But that doesn't excuse the South for clinging with its dying breath to slavery. If the Northern states had long before realized it was an inhuman barbarity, why didn't the South? What took them so long and why did they put up such a fight to postpone the inevitable? Why did they INSIST on being on the wrong side of history?"

Can you answer any of those questions? Or are you going to change the subject to NY or some other state again?

ExNY, Quid Sod? Really? We should be having our arguments drunk, just like in the Old Country, brother!

Yup. Keep saying "Johnny did it, too!" That'll convince folks the old South wasn't so bad.

And what's this about "my desire" to obfuscate the real history of NY? Are you a mind reader now?

I never said anything about NY or its history. You did.

In fact, NYers were definitely wrong for profiting from it. There! See how easy it was for me to say that?

But at least those old NYers quit it early and fought against it - not FOR slavery.

You should try admitting the South was wrong to fight to maintain slavery and their cause was unjust. See how easy that was for me? Soon it will be that easy for you.


Nice try, knucklehead. But I'm not Anglo-Saxon stock. In fact, the folks from Ould Sod were quite the opposite.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Face you history, ExNYer!!!

New York City rioters turned against black people as their scapegoats and the primary target of their anger. Many immigrants and the poor viewed free black men as competition for scarce jobs, and worried about more slaves being emancipated and coming to New York for work. Some rioters thought slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The mob beat, tortured and/or killed numerous black people, including one man who was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then lynched—hanged from a tree and set alight.

The Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which then provided shelter for 233 children, was attacked by a mob about 4 in the afternoon. It was a "symbol of white charity to blacks and of black upward mobility." A mob of several thousand, including many women and children, looted the building of its food and supplies, but spared the children, who were led to safety. The mob burned the building to the ground, destroying it in 20 minutes.

Throughout the areas of rioting, mobs attacked and killed at least 100 black people, and destroyed their known homes and businesses, such as James McCune Smith's pharmacy at 93 West Broadway, believed to be the first owned by a black man in the United States. While removed from the midtown area of the riots, white longshoremen used the chaos of events to "remove all evidence of a black and interracial social life from the area near the docks. White dockworkers attacked and destroyed brothels, dance halls, boarding houses, and tenements that catered to blacks. . . .

The exact death toll during the New York Draft Riots is unknown, but according to historian James M. McPherson (2001), at least 120 civilians were killed. At least eleven black men were lynched. Violence by longshoremen against black men was especially fierce in the docks area.

The most reliable estimates indicate that at least 2,000 people were injured. Herbert Asbury, the author of the 1928 book Gangs of New York, upon which the 2002 film was based, puts the figure much higher, at 2,000 killed and 8,000 wounded, but this figure is not widely accepted and is considered myth. Total property damage was about $1–5 million ($15 – $75 million in 2011, adjusted for inflation). The city treasury later indemnified one-quarter of the amount. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote that the riots were "equivalent to a Confederate victory". Fifty buildings, including two Protestant churches and the Colored Orphan Asylum, burned to the ground.

During the riots, landlords had driven blacks from their residences, as they feared their buildings being destroyed. As a result of the violence against blacks, hundreds left New York . . . By 1865 the total black population had dropped to under 10,000, the lowest it had been since 1820. The white working class riots had changed the demographics of the city and exerted their control in the workplace; they became "unequivocally divided" from blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

BTW, in one of my posts above, I asked a group of questions. I noticed that you did not answer them, but did cut and pastel around them.

So, I'll give you another bite of the apple.

Here are the questions again:

"...But that doesn't excuse the South for clinging with its dying breath to slavery. If the Northern states had long before realized it was an inhuman barbarity, why didn't the South? What took them so long and why did they put up such a fight to postpone the inevitable? Why did they INSIST on being on the wrong side of history?"

Can you answer any of those questions? Or are you going to change the subject to NY or some other state again? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your questions were answered, ExNYer. Your New York banker elite continued to prosper from slaves and the slave trade while giving lip-service to emancipation.


New York Doesn’t Care to Remember the Civil War
By SAM ROBERTS
It was anything but civil. On Jan. 7, 1861, Mayor Fernando Wood exhorted New York’s Board of Aldermen to declare the city’s independence from Albany and from Washington — a bold stroke of self-preservation that he maintained “would have the whole and united support of the Southern States.”

. . . . Mayor Wood unabashedly embraced the South initially because its cotton merchants were financed by New York banks and protected from loss by New York insurers, and it transported its harvest in New York ships.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-civil-war/

“In addition to the Bank of America, U.S. Bank. J.P. Morgan and Wachovia, research revealed four other major companies that disclosed ties to the slave trade through slavery-disclosure laws in various jurisdictions: insurers Aetna, New York Life and AIG and financial-service companies ABN AMRO (p8).

http://sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocumen...documentid=860