Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: #Palin: Gingrich’s ‘open marriage’ will help him ‘soar even more’
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Dänk 420
Jan 21, 2012, 1:08:17 AM1/21/12
to
On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-w...
> help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> into free love. Groovy, man]
Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it
is a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife-
cheatin' is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats
entitled to a right to sexual privacy?
According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of
slavery. Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his
wives for permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man
myself, I should mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the
American gay community, so it really seems bizarre for American
leftards to try to use Newt's "open" relationships against him --
except, of course, that they are EXTREMELY worried he may win the
Republican nomination. Not that I'd vote for him, but perhaps in
spite of all his personal flaws, he really does stand a good chance of
unseating Chairman Obama.
Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, the GOP's "fingered" candidate, is a
Mormon, and "mainstream" Mormonism is absolutely fanatical about
marriage fidelity. When leftards attack Newt Gingrich for his marital
infidelity, they play right into the hands of the LDS cult, in the
same way they play into its hands by attacking it for its opposition
to Proposition 8. Since legalization of same-sex marriage WILL lead
to legalization of polygamy, the LDS must oppose same-sex marriage at
all costs, since its moral authority over the "heretical" FLDS sect
(which still practices plural marriage) stems from the fact that
polygamy is officially illegal. In practice, the "open" marriage that
Newt (allegedly) asked from his wife is no different from a polygamous
marriage. By attacking Newt for wanting multiple wives, you wind up
siding with the anti-polygamous LDS sect -- which supports Mitt
Romney. Fool.
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-w...
> help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> into free love. Groovy, man]
Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it
is a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife-
cheatin' is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats
entitled to a right to sexual privacy?
According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of
slavery. Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his
wives for permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man
myself, I should mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the
American gay community, so it really seems bizarre for American
leftards to try to use Newt's "open" relationships against him --
except, of course, that they are EXTREMELY worried he may win the
Republican nomination. Not that I'd vote for him, but perhaps in
spite of all his personal flaws, he really does stand a good chance of
unseating Chairman Obama.
Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, the GOP's "fingered" candidate, is a
Mormon, and "mainstream" Mormonism is absolutely fanatical about
marriage fidelity. When leftards attack Newt Gingrich for his marital
infidelity, they play right into the hands of the LDS cult, in the
same way they play into its hands by attacking it for its opposition
to Proposition 8. Since legalization of same-sex marriage WILL lead
to legalization of polygamy, the LDS must oppose same-sex marriage at
all costs, since its moral authority over the "heretical" FLDS sect
(which still practices plural marriage) stems from the fact that
polygamy is officially illegal. In practice, the "open" marriage that
Newt (allegedly) asked from his wife is no different from a polygamous
marriage. By attacking Newt for wanting multiple wives, you wind up
siding with the anti-polygamous LDS sect -- which supports Mitt
Romney. Fool.
2849 Dead
Jan 21, 2012, 1:15:05 AM1/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:08:17 -0800, Dänk 420 wrote:
> On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-
w...
>> help-him-soar-even-more/
>>
>> [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
>> into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it is
> a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife- cheatin'
> is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats entitled to
> a right to sexual privacy?
Who said anything about anyone other than Republicans being against it?
> On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-
w...
>> help-him-soar-even-more/
>>
>> [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
>> into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it is
> a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife- cheatin'
> is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats entitled to
> a right to sexual privacy?
I just find it amusing that when it suits their purposes, they can spin
on a dime and go from condemning it to praising it.
Wasn't Noot one of the noisiest of the Republican gasbags about Monica?
>
> According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
> rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of slavery.
> Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his wives for
> permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man myself, I should
> mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the American gay
> community, so it really seems bizarre for American leftards to try to
> use Newt's "open" relationships against him -- except, of course, that
> they are EXTREMELY worried he may win the Republican nomination. Not
> that I'd vote for him, but perhaps in spite of all his personal flaws,
> he really does stand a good chance of unseating Chairman Obama.
>
> Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, the GOP's "fingered" candidate, is a
> Mormon, and "mainstream" Mormonism is absolutely fanatical about
> marriage fidelity. When leftards attack Newt Gingrich for his marital
> infidelity, they play right into the hands of the LDS cult, in the same
> way they play into its hands by attacking it for its opposition to
> Proposition 8. Since legalization of same-sex marriage WILL lead to
> legalization of polygamy, the LDS must oppose same-sex marriage at all
> costs, since its moral authority over the "heretical" FLDS sect (which
> still practices plural marriage) stems from the fact that polygamy is
> officially illegal. In practice, the "open" marriage that Newt
> (allegedly) asked from his wife is no different from a polygamous
> marriage. By attacking Newt for wanting multiple wives, you wind up
> siding with the anti-polygamous LDS sect -- which supports Mitt Romney.
> Fool.
--
> According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
> rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of slavery.
> Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his wives for
> permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man myself, I should
> mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the American gay
> community, so it really seems bizarre for American leftards to try to
> use Newt's "open" relationships against him -- except, of course, that
> they are EXTREMELY worried he may win the Republican nomination. Not
> that I'd vote for him, but perhaps in spite of all his personal flaws,
> he really does stand a good chance of unseating Chairman Obama.
>
> Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, the GOP's "fingered" candidate, is a
> Mormon, and "mainstream" Mormonism is absolutely fanatical about
> marriage fidelity. When leftards attack Newt Gingrich for his marital
> infidelity, they play right into the hands of the LDS cult, in the same
> way they play into its hands by attacking it for its opposition to
> Proposition 8. Since legalization of same-sex marriage WILL lead to
> legalization of polygamy, the LDS must oppose same-sex marriage at all
> costs, since its moral authority over the "heretical" FLDS sect (which
> still practices plural marriage) stems from the fact that polygamy is
> officially illegal. In practice, the "open" marriage that Newt
> (allegedly) asked from his wife is no different from a polygamous
> marriage. By attacking Newt for wanting multiple wives, you wind up
> siding with the anti-polygamous LDS sect -- which supports Mitt Romney.
> Fool.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK
Dänk 420
Jan 21, 2012, 3:00:39 AM1/21/12
to
On Jan 20, 11:15 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:08:17 -0800, Dänk 420 wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-
> w...
> >> help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> >> [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> >> into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> > Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> > who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it is
> > a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife- cheatin'
> > is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats entitled to
> > a right to sexual privacy?
>
> Who said anything about anyone other than Republicans being against it?
>
> I just find it amusing that when it suits their purposes, they can spin
> on a dime and go from condemning it to praising it.
>
> Wasn't Noot one of the noisiest of the Republican gasbags about Monica?
No, that would be John Ensign, the steaming pile of Jebus-up-his-ass,
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:08:17 -0800, Dänk 420 wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-
> w...
> >> help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> >> [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> >> into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> > Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> > who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it is
> > a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife- cheatin'
> > is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats entitled to
> > a right to sexual privacy?
>
> Who said anything about anyone other than Republicans being against it?
>
> I just find it amusing that when it suits their purposes, they can spin
> on a dime and go from condemning it to praising it.
>
> Wasn't Noot one of the noisiest of the Republican gasbags about Monica?
wife-cheating dog shit Senator from Nevada. Feel free to Google my
old posts, where I express regret at having been fooled into voting
for Ensign in 1994 ("Protect Freedom, Elect Ensign"), a mistake I
tried to rectify by voting against him in 1996, and even for voting
for Harry Reid when Ensign ran against him in 1998. (Unfortunately,
Ensign won Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000, polluting American
politics for 11 years before resigning in disgrace last year).
Though you try to portray my opposition to Chairman Obama and
Democraps as support for Emperor Bush and Republiturds, in fact I find
both parties to be equally disgusting. After my Ensign mistake, the
next time I broke my policy of never voting for major parties was to
vote for Democraps in 2006, in the deluded beLIEf that they would
impeach the criminal George W. Bush if they won control of Congress.
Since they refused to, they will never get my vote again. I have also
stated that I will not vote this year UNLESS Ron Paul (the first
presidential candidate I voted for in 1988) runs as an independent.
Paul's libertarian agenda is thoroughly discredited by his association
with the criminal, theofascist Republiturd party.
Meanwhile, I sit here on the sidelines watching supporters of Hitler
and Stalin go at each other's throats. I don't like Newt Gingrich,
but of all the Republiturd candidates, he seems to worry you the
most. You would not be so worried if you truly believed he posed no
threat to Chairman Obama. Violating Godwin's Law deliberately, if
monogamy is the quality you believe to be most important in a
presidential candidate, Adolf Hitler would be the most qualified.
Even your personal hero -- Josef Stalin -- had many mistresses.
As for "spinning on a dime," you and your fellow leftards are no
better. For example, in the case of Chairman Obama, we have a
candidate who ran on a platform of opposing same-sex marriage and
increasing criminal penalties for marijuana possession -- winning the
majority of the gay and stoner votes, respectively. Hell, Chairman
Obama even extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and you bleat
support for him anyway. Rightards are no less hypocritical, of
course, which is why I do not side with them any more than I side with
leftards. The difference between you and me is that I can AFFORD to
be independent, whereas you are a slave to the Party that promises you
the most free crack money.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Lerm for Comptroller (Death to America!):
http://video.tvguide.com/Squidbillies/Lerm+For+Comptroller/2301767
2849 Dead
Jan 21, 2012, 10:32:45 AM1/21/12
to
House, where the impeachment proceedings occurred.
>
> Though you try to portray my opposition to Chairman Obama and Democraps
> as support for Emperor Bush and Republiturds, in fact I find both
> parties to be equally disgusting. After my Ensign mistake, the next
> time I broke my policy of never voting for major parties was to vote for
> Democraps in 2006, in the deluded beLIEf that they would impeach the
> criminal George W. Bush if they won control of Congress. Since they
> refused to, they will never get my vote again. I have also stated that
> I will not vote this year UNLESS Ron Paul (the first presidential
> candidate I voted for in 1988) runs as an independent. Paul's
> libertarian agenda is thoroughly discredited by his association with the
> criminal, theofascist Republiturd party.
>
There's always Bernie Sanders...
> Though you try to portray my opposition to Chairman Obama and Democraps
> as support for Emperor Bush and Republiturds, in fact I find both
> parties to be equally disgusting. After my Ensign mistake, the next
> time I broke my policy of never voting for major parties was to vote for
> Democraps in 2006, in the deluded beLIEf that they would impeach the
> criminal George W. Bush if they won control of Congress. Since they
> refused to, they will never get my vote again. I have also stated that
> I will not vote this year UNLESS Ron Paul (the first presidential
> candidate I voted for in 1988) runs as an independent. Paul's
> libertarian agenda is thoroughly discredited by his association with the
> criminal, theofascist Republiturd party.
>
> Meanwhile, I sit here on the sidelines watching supporters of Hitler and
> Stalin go at each other's throats. I don't like Newt Gingrich, but of
> all the Republiturd candidates, he seems to worry you the most. You
> would not be so worried if you truly believed he posed no threat to
> Chairman Obama. Violating Godwin's Law deliberately, if monogamy is the
> quality you believe to be most important in a presidential candidate,
> Adolf Hitler would be the most qualified. Even your personal hero --
> Josef Stalin -- had many mistresses.
>
> As for "spinning on a dime," you and your fellow leftards are no better.
> For example, in the case of Chairman Obama, we have a candidate who ran
> on a platform of opposing same-sex marriage and increasing criminal
> penalties for marijuana possession -- winning the majority of the gay
> and stoner votes, respectively. Hell, Chairman Obama even extended
> Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and you bleat support for him anyway.
> Rightards are no less hypocritical, of course, which is why I do not
> side with them any more than I side with leftards. The difference
> between you and me is that I can AFFORD to be independent, whereas you
> are a slave to the Party that promises you the most free crack money.
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Lerm for Comptroller (Death to America!):
> http://video.tvguide.com/Squidbillies/Lerm+For+Comptroller/2301767
> Stalin go at each other's throats. I don't like Newt Gingrich, but of
> all the Republiturd candidates, he seems to worry you the most. You
> would not be so worried if you truly believed he posed no threat to
> Chairman Obama. Violating Godwin's Law deliberately, if monogamy is the
> quality you believe to be most important in a presidential candidate,
> Adolf Hitler would be the most qualified. Even your personal hero --
> Josef Stalin -- had many mistresses.
>
> As for "spinning on a dime," you and your fellow leftards are no better.
> For example, in the case of Chairman Obama, we have a candidate who ran
> on a platform of opposing same-sex marriage and increasing criminal
> penalties for marijuana possession -- winning the majority of the gay
> and stoner votes, respectively. Hell, Chairman Obama even extended
> Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and you bleat support for him anyway.
> Rightards are no less hypocritical, of course, which is why I do not
> side with them any more than I side with leftards. The difference
> between you and me is that I can AFFORD to be independent, whereas you
> are a slave to the Party that promises you the most free crack money.
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Lerm for Comptroller (Death to America!):
> http://video.tvguide.com/Squidbillies/Lerm+For+Comptroller/2301767
liberal
Jan 21, 2012, 1:46:57 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 21, 1:08 am, Dänk 420 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-w...
> > help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> > [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> > into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it
> is a Republican doing the free lovin?.
My, how fast the stupid lies accumulate in a reichtard's post. TNinety-
> On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-w...
> > help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> > [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> > into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it
> is a Republican doing the free lovin?.
nine percent of the champions of "Free-Love" were 16-25 year old guys
(Newt supported the concept when he was at Tulane). BTW, this concept
has a rather long history. And became "fashionable" when TV shows
about husband and wife characters showed them sleeping in twin beds
cuz a full or queen size double occupancy bed would be "dirty." As to
this liberal's contempt, it stems from the moral hypocrisy of all
reichtards, here, the amphibian: Newt. Has the greedy ol' pervert
party's favorite amphibian ever talked up "family values"??? Did he
ever proclaim his moral outrage about a democrat who got a blowjob????
I personally don't care if the conservative amphibian prefers open
marriage....as long as he keeps his mouth shut about other people's
moral shortcomings that don't require force, small children, or
animals. i realize, for you, that eliminates three-quarters of your
sexual encounters.
> At any rate, Newt's wife-
> cheatin' is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats
> entitled to a right to sexual privacy?
>
> According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
> rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of
> slavery. Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his
> wives for permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man
> myself, I should mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the
> American gay community, so it really seems bizarre for American
> leftards to try to use Newt's "open" relationships against him --
> except, of course, that they are EXTREMELY worried he may win the
> Republican nomination. Not that I'd vote for him, but perhaps in
> spite of all his personal flaws, he really does stand a good chance of
> unseating Chairman Obama.
>
> Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, the GOP's "fingered" candidate, is a
> Mormon, and "mainstream" Mormonism is absolutely fanatical about
> marriage fidelity.
many times has Marie Osmond been married???
> When leftards attack Newt Gingrich for his marital
> infidelity, they play right into the hands of the LDS cult, in the
> same way they play into its hands by attacking it for its opposition
> to Proposition 8. Since legalization of same-sex marriage WILL lead
> to legalization of polygamy,
Explain your opposition to multiple spouse marriage.
I don't care if both are legalized. As long as all participants are
old enough and there is no physical or emotional force employed to get
consent to the weddings. But I'd want a limit on deductions for
children (max: two). And criminal penalties for failure to provide a
reasonable living standard.
Lanskee Shuru
Jan 21, 2012, 11:36:23 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 21, 1:08 am, Dänk 420 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 6:32 pm, 2849 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-w...
> > help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> > [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> > into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it
> is a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife-
> cheatin' is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats
> entitled to a right to sexual privacy?
>
> According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
> rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of
> slavery. Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his
> wives for permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man
> myself, I should mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the
> American gay community, so it really seems bizarre for American
South Carolina should be expelled from the Union, get what it
>
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/20/palin-gingrichs-open-marriage-w...
> > help-him-soar-even-more/
>
> > [Zeppnote: last week, we had socialist Republicans. This week, they're
> > into free love. Groovy, man]
>
> Not to endorse Newt Gingrich in any way, but I wonder why leftards --
> who normally champion "free love" -- are suddenly against it when it
> is a Republican doing the free lovin?. At any rate, Newt's wife-
> cheatin' is hardly worse than Bill Clinton's. Or are only Democrats
> entitled to a right to sexual privacy?
>
> According to pure leftist doctrine, marriage of any sort is a human
> rights violation, as demanding sexual exclusivity is a form of
> slavery. Newt at least had the decency to (allegedly) ask one of his
> wives for permission to break the slave contract. As a gay man
> myself, I should mention that "open" relationships are the norm in the
> American gay community, so it really seems bizarre for American
wanted in 1861; It's the most backwards state of all with its
brand of redneck English being unintelligible, no other state
comparing to its ignorance.
It's immigrant-infested yet its only goals are to crush gay-rights
and outlaw abortion.
David Weinshenker
Jan 22, 2012, 12:11:47 AM1/22/12
to
Lanskee Shuru wrote:
> South Carolina should be expelled from the Union, get what it
> wanted in 1861; It's the most backwards state of all with its
> brand of redneck English being unintelligible, no other state
> comparing to its ignorance.
>
> It's immigrant-infested yet its only goals are to crush gay-rights
> and outlaw abortion.
I've heard folks say it's all Lincoln's fault - he should have
> South Carolina should be expelled from the Union, get what it
> wanted in 1861; It's the most backwards state of all with its
> brand of redneck English being unintelligible, no other state
> comparing to its ignorance.
>
> It's immigrant-infested yet its only goals are to crush gay-rights
> and outlaw abortion.
just let the Confederacy keep the bible belt - and take Kansas
with 'em, while they were at it. (Yes, as a state, Kansas ended
up on the Northern side in the War Between the States - but,
pre-admission, it had had its own preliminary version [1], over
the question of whether to enter the Union as a "free" or a "slave"
state, and at one point there were actually two different territorial
governments making contending claims of legitimacy, like an anti-Pope
and a Pope!)
-dave w
[1] A wikipedia search on the phrase
"Bloody Kansas" will bring up the story.
Marvin the Martian
Jan 22, 2012, 10:36:56 AM1/22/12
to
sense?
> It's immigrant-infested yet its only goals are to crush gay-rights and
> outlaw abortion.
To get back to the subject, it would appear that the left wing Newt knows
he needs someone with real conservative credentials to balance the
ticket, same as the RINO McCain needed in 2008. So, he's going with
Palin. Palin wants to run, so she's saying stupid things to support Newt.
Lanskee Shuru
Jan 25, 2012, 9:47:00 PM1/25/12
to
who, if he had turned pro, could have been known as:
Abe "Legal" Langston.
866013149e
Jan 29, 2012, 9:56:52 PM1/29/12
to
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>I've heard folks say it's all Lincoln's fault - he should have
>just let the Confederacy keep the bible belt - and take Kansas
>with 'em, while they were at it. (Yes, as a state, Kansas ended
>up on the Northern side in the War Between the States - but,
>pre-admission, it had had its own preliminary version [1], over
>the question of whether to enter the Union as a "free" or a "slave"
>state, and at one point there were actually two different territorial
>governments making contending claims of legitimacy, like an anti-Pope
>and a Pope!)
During the Civil War there were also rival governments of Missouri,
>I've heard folks say it's all Lincoln's fault - he should have
>just let the Confederacy keep the bible belt - and take Kansas
>with 'em, while they were at it. (Yes, as a state, Kansas ended
>up on the Northern side in the War Between the States - but,
>pre-admission, it had had its own preliminary version [1], over
>the question of whether to enter the Union as a "free" or a "slave"
>state, and at one point there were actually two different territorial
>governments making contending claims of legitimacy, like an anti-Pope
>and a Pope!)
Kentucky, Louisiana, and Virginia. The Union-allied Virginia government
eventually declared its territory a separate state, West Virginia, which
it remains to this day.
umar
0 new messages