Re: 17 states may secede...
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 9:40�pm, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>> > jazzyb...@hotmail.com Cicero Venatio �says...
>>
>> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
>> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>>
>> > How patriotic!
>>
>> > �It is possible that Barack
>>
>> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
>> > > socialist utopia in the remaining 33 states. �People in the red states
>> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
>> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>>
>> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>>
>> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
>> > subsidized health care, this could cut the cost in half, easy! �Hell, it
>> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>>
>> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
>> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
>> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
>> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
>> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
>> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
>> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
>> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>
>The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
>imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
>did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
>contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
previously documented.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Where? Cite one instance...
Woof! Woof! Steve......"enriched with nourishing marrowbone jelly...."
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 1, 9:40�ｿｽpm, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>> >> > jazzyb...@hotmail.com Cicero Venatio �ｿｽsays...
>>
>> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
>> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>>
>> >> > How patriotic!
>>
>> >> > �ｿｽIt is possible that Barack
>>
>> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
>> >> > > socialist utopia in the remaining 33 states. �ｿｽPeople in the red states
>> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
>> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>>
>> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>>
>> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
>> >> > subsidized health care, this could cut the cost in half, easy! �ｿｽHell, it
>> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>>
>> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
>> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
>> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
>> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
>> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
>> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
>> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
>> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>>
>> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
>> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
>> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
>> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>>
>> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
>> previously documented.
>
>Where? Cite one instance...�ｿｽ
>
Well, there was your error in claiming that Lincoln's purpose in
issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
The fact is, Worthington, that for all your bluster and fume, you're
rather an ignorant little fool.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
>
>
>
>
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> >> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
> >> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>
> >> >> > How patriotic!
>
>
> >> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
> >> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
> >> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>
> >> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>
> >> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
> >> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>
> >> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
> >> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
> >> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
> >> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
> >> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
> >> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
> >> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
> >> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>
> >> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
> >> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
> >> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
> >> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>
> >> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
> >> previously documented.
>
> >Where? Cite one instance...
>
> issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
It freed the slaves in those States in rebellion against the Federal
Government. And what else was it intended to do?
> and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
> never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>
Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war....and ended up
being completely shafted....
> The fact is, Worthington, that for all your bluster and fume, you're
> rather an ignorant little fool.
Oh, the irony! Woof! Woof!
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>
>> >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 1, 9:40�ｿｽpm, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>> >> >> > jazzyb...@hotmail.com Cicero Venatio �ｿｽsays...
>>
>> >> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
>> >> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>>
>> >> >> > How patriotic!
>>
>> >> >> > �ｿｽIt is possible that Barack
>>
>> >> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
>> >> >> > > socialist utopia in the remaining 33 states. �ｿｽPeople in the red states
>> >> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
>> >> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>>
>> >> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>>
>> >> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
>> >> >> > subsidized health care, this could cut the cost in half, easy! �ｿｽHell, it
>> >> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>>
>> >> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
>> >> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
>> >> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
>> >> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
>> >> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
>> >> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
>> >> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
>> >> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>>
>> >> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
>> >> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
>> >> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
>> >> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>>
>> >> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
>> >> previously documented.
>>
>> >Where? Cite one instance...�ｿｽ
>>
>> Well, there was your error in claiming that Lincoln's purpose in
>> issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
>
>It freed the slaves in those States in rebellion against the Federal
>Government. And what else was it intended to do?
Like I told you before, you moron, it was designed to make slavery a
major issue of the war so as to disuade any Eurpean coiuntries from
considering an alliance with the Confederacy... and in Lincolns own
words, he was not particularly interested in freeing the slaves other
than as the political ramifications.
>> and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
>> never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>>
>
>Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
>'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
Like I told you before, Dummy, the Missouri Compromise was an attempt
at limiting the practice of Slavery.. you can look it up.. you
probably should.. maybe you can learn something although anyone dense
enough to be a socialist is probably incapable of learning anything
>The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war....and ended up
>being completely shafted....
<shrug> non sequitur anyone?
>> The fact is, Worthington, that for all your bluster and fume, you're
>> rather an ignorant little fool.
>
>Oh, the irony! Woof! Woof!
Worthington must be trying to call some of the swinger women he lusts
after...
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:07:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
>
>
>
>
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> >> >> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
> >> >> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>
> >> >> >> > How patriotic!
>
>
> >> >> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
> >> >> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
> >> >> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>
> >> >> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>
> >> >> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
> >> >> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>
> >> >> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
> >> >> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
> >> >> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
> >> >> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
> >> >> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
> >> >> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
> >> >> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
> >> >> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>
> >> >> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
> >> >> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
> >> >> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
> >> >> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>
> >> >> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
> >> >> previously documented.
>
> >> >Where? Cite one instance...
>
> >> issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
>
> >It freed the slaves in those States in rebellion against the Federal
> >Government. And what else was it intended to do?
>
> Like I told you before, you moron, it was designed to make slavery a
> major issue of the war so as to disuade any Eurpean coiuntries from
> considering an alliance with the Confederacy... and in Lincolns own
> words, he was not particularly interested in freeing the slaves other
> than as the political ramifications.
That's assigning motives. The Proclamation itself was about freeing
slaves. And who do you think was going to intervene? Lincoln was a
hero figure in Britain.
>
> >> and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
> >> never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>
> >Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
> >'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>
> Like I told you before, Dummy, the Missouri Compromise was an attempt
> at limiting the practice of Slavery.. you can look it up.. you
> probably should.. maybe you can learn something although anyone dense
> enough to be a socialist is probably incapable of learning anything
You cannot construe the Missouri Compromise as a 'stand against
slavery' by a US administration. As I understand it, it was purely an
issue relating to factions in Congress.
>
> >The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war....and ended up
> >being completely shafted....
>
> <shrug> non sequitur anyone?
>
> >> The fact is, Worthington, that for all your bluster and fume, you're
> >> rather an ignorant little fool.
>
> >Oh, the irony! Woof! Woof!
>
> Worthington must be trying to call some of the swinger women he lusts
> after...
Steve..."enriched with nourishing marrowbone jelly..."
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
It's doing so quite falsely, two. The war began two years before the
Emanicpation Proclaimation was issued.
Kurt Nicklas
Canyon is right. You DON'T know anything about the Civil War.
> > and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
> > never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>
> Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
> 'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
> The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
Matt
Generally considered to be a compromise crafted between the states,
and had little to do with any administration.
>
> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
Sorry, no. The civil war began with the declaration of secession by
the eleven slave states.
Matt
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
Oh hell no... that's a result of me knowing what Lincoln actually
said...
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not
either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by
freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do
about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps
to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more
whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V,
"Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
>The Proclamation itself was about freeing
>slaves. And who do you think was going to intervene? Lincoln was a
>hero figure in Britain.
It's not about what I think, it's about what Lincoln thought.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
"several governments in Europe were considering recognizing the
Confederacy and intervening against the Union. If Lincoln declared
this a war to free the slaves, European public opinion would
overwhelmingly back the North."
>> >> and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
>> >> never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>>
>> >Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
>> >'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>>
>> Like I told you before, Dummy, the Missouri Compromise was an attempt
>> at limiting the practice of Slavery.. � you can look it up.. �you
>> probably should.. �maybe you can learn something although anyone dense
>> enough to be a socialist is probably incapable of learning anything
>
>You cannot construe the Missouri Compromise as a 'stand against
>slavery' by a US administration. As I understand it, it was purely an
>issue relating to factions in Congress.
<ROFL> It's as I suspected.. you are incapable of learning... Oh
well...
Steve
<shrug> Non sequitur anyone?
>"3975 Dead" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> Get exposed for what you actually are. Steve here put in years trying
> to dominate other posters by claiming to be a millionaire with yachts,
Poor Zepp... his fantasies are so vivid... I've never mentioned any
level of wealth, I'm comfortably retired but my wealth is small compared to
the lady I share the condo with.
...and the boat I used to have was an old cargo schooner
that had been rotting away down in the Philippines for years until I
resurrected her... She was dandy for long cruises but got to be a pain
in the ass working her way around in the Inland waterway and for day cruises.
She's now been replaced with a modern fiberglass sloop.. and at 42 feet,
she hardly stands out among the other boats in my marina... hardly a
yacht... the other boat is a speedboat... again hardly a yacht....
> apartment complexes,
Only one... sold long ago...
>glamorous lady lawyer
My lady would be delighted to hear that she's glamorous.... although
she does still wear a bikini well.. Truth is she's pretty quiet and
down to earth... corporate lawyer... no flashy trials... no flashy
clothes... although she does keep her toenails painted...
>wives and girlfriends, and
...haven't had a wife since 1982... she died of complications related
to diabetes.... real cute, not very glamorous, though... school
teacher...
Other than my lawyer lady and my wife, I don't believe I've ever
mentioned any girlfriends.... had a few... nothing serious...
nothing special...
> of course, a big education with lots of degrees.
<shrug> one rather normal sized education... one degree...
> It all fell apart under its own absurdity, and now he knows it doesn't
> work, but can't think of anything else to do but hang around and
> snipe.
Speaking of absurdities.....
the things I have are all part of a big list of things Zeppy only
wishes he had.... but never will...... and, of course, what I have
isn't even particularly special... of course, Zepp would think them special
because he has nothing...
>As far as all that goes, he could STILL be a narcissist even though what he
>says isn't true. Unless he was displaying narcissistic tendencies that he
>didn't really have.
Zepp cannot disprove anything...
...and of course, since Fatty Jamieson and his cohorts can't even
decide on what my name is, all he can do is bluster and fume about
what he fantasies me to be... or not to be.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
The government of the day had nothing to do with the matter. It was a
Congressionanal issue.
>
> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 5 Jan, 00:38, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 2:07�ｿｽpm, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>
>> > > <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > > >On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>
>> > > >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > > >> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >> On Jan 1, 9:40�ｿｽpm, GaryDeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>> > > >> >> > jazzyb...@hotmail.com Cicero Venatio �ｿｽsays...
>>
>> > > >> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
>> > > >> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>>
>> > > >> >> > How patriotic!
>>
>> > > >> >> > �ｿｽIt is possible that Barack
>>
>> > > >> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
>> > > >> >> > > socialist utopia in the remaining 33 states. �ｿｽPeople in the red states
>> > > >> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
>> > > >> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>>
>> > > >> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
>> > > >> >> > subsidized health care, this could cut the cost in half, easy! �ｿｽHell, it
>> > > >> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>>
>> > > >> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
>> > > >> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
>> > > >> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
>> > > >> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
>> > > >> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
>> > > >> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
>> > > >> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
>> > > >> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>>
>> > > >> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
>> > > >> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
>> > > >> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
>> > > >> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>>
>> > > >> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
>> > > >> previously documented.
>>
>> > > >Where? Cite one instance...�ｿｽ
>>
>> > > Well, there was your error in claiming that Lincoln's purpose in
>> > > issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
>>
>> > It freed the slaves in those States in rebellion against the Federal
>> > Government. And what else was it intended to do?
>>
>> Canyon is right. You DON'T know anything about the Civil War.
>>
>> > > and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
>> > > never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>>
>> > Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
>> > 'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>>
>> The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
>
>The government of the day had nothing to do with the matter. It was a
>Congressionanal issue.
It had to do with federal law limiting slavery and the admission of
states into the Union... The government had quite a bit to do with
both issues, you pathetic moron.
BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
the government? The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
you ignoramous.
Kurt Nicklas
You asked for a *legislative* stand taken by the US government against
slavery prior to the Civil War. I just gave you one.
Do your students laugh at what an intellectual coward you are as much
as
Steve and I do?
>
>
> > > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> > 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> and navy yards.
'Siezed and occupied'? Doesn't really sound like much of a war to me,
bubba.
> It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
Yeah, I've been to Ft. Sumter. Have you?
Oh, that's right....Charleston doesn't have an RLD so the area
wouldn't hold much interest for you.
"Kindly state exactly where Poland and the Czech Republic share a
frontier with Russia...."
....... "Dr" Barry Worthington, 9/18/09
(Conveniently 'forgetting' about Kaliningrad Oblast)
Kurt Nicklas
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 03:07:47 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
>
>
>
>
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 5 Jan, 00:38, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> > > <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > > >On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> > > >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > > >> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> >> > > >> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
> >> > > >> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>
> >> > > >> >> > How patriotic!
>
>
> >> > > >> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
> >> > > >> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
> >> > > >> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>
> >> > > >> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>
> >> > > >> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
> >> > > >> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>
> >> > > >> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
> >> > > >> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
> >> > > >> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
> >> > > >> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
> >> > > >> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
> >> > > >> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
> >> > > >> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
> >> > > >> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>
> >> > > >> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
> >> > > >> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
> >> > > >> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
> >> > > >> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>
> >> > > >> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
> >> > > >> previously documented.
>
> >> > > >Where? Cite one instance...
>
> >> > > issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
>
> >> > It freed the slaves in those States in rebellion against the Federal
> >> > Government. And what else was it intended to do?
>
> >> Canyon is right. You DON'T know anything about the Civil War.
>
> >> > > and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
> >> > > never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>
> >> > Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
> >> > 'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>
> >> The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
>
> >The government of the day had nothing to do with the matter. It was a
> >Congressionanal issue.
>
> It had to do with federal law limiting slavery and the admission of
> states into the Union... The government had quite a bit to do with
> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>
> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> the government? The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
> you ignoramous.
I snout-slapped him and he's making for the exit on this one.
>
> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steve
Worthlesston is an admitted sociallst... that alone defines him as a
loser and a fool, but then he claims that a Congressional issue had
nothing to do with the government... which defines him as an
ignoramous.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 03:07:47 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
>
>
>
>
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 5 Jan, 00:38, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:09:13 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> > > <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > > >On 3 Jan, 02:33, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:43:40 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>
> >> > > >> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > > >> >On 2 Jan, 10:26, Christopher Helms <Chrishelms...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> >> > In article <_fmdnatlyNpt86PWnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> >> > > >> >> > > Seventeen red states could begin the process of seceding from the United
> >> > > >> >> > > States if Obama signs ObamaCare into law.
>
> >> > > >> >> > How patriotic!
>
>
> >> > > >> >> > > could support the red state secessions so that he can implement his
> >> > > >> >> > > are starting to think that secession is now the quickest way to shed
> >> > > >> >> > > themselves of the Democrats who seem hell bent on destroying the country.
>
> >> > > >> >> > > Big Sis has to be fired immediately.
>
> >> > > >> >> > Uhh.. considering the 17 red states would be the main states receiving
> >> > > >> >> > might cut the cost by 66%!
>
> >> > > >> >> The amount of money the gubmint would save on Social Security, highway
> >> > > >> >> funds, Medicare, WIC, oil industry welfare for Texas and all the other
> >> > > >> >> largesse that the red states suck down without so much as a "thank
> >> > > >> >> you" would be substantial. The south would have to have its own money,
> >> > > >> >> which would probably have people like George W Bush, Lester Maddox and
> >> > > >> >> Fred Phelps on it, which would be funny. The New Confederacy would
> >> > > >> >> also have an unstable, unsustainable economy, which wouldn't be funny
> >> > > >> >> at all, at least to the people who live there.
>
> >> > > >> >The original Confederacy was not just militarily defeated, it actually
> >> > > >> >imploded...as a consequence of the doctrine of 'states rights'. They
> >> > > >> >did not even have an integrated system of military supply. To quote a
> >> > > >> >contemporary observation, it 'died of a theory'.
>
> >> > > >> Worthington's lack of understanding of the US Civil War has been
> >> > > >> previously documented.
>
> >> > > >Where? Cite one instance...
>
> >> > > issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was simply to free the slaves
>
> >> > It freed the slaves in those States in rebellion against the Federal
> >> > Government. And what else was it intended to do?
>
> >> Canyon is right. You DON'T know anything about the Civil War.
>
> >> > > and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
> >> > > never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>
> >> > Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
> >> > 'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>
> >> The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
>
> >The government of the day had nothing to do with the matter. It was a
> >Congressionanal issue.
>
> It had to do with federal law limiting slavery and the admission of
> states into the Union... The government had quite a bit to do with
> both issues, you pathetic moron.
Actually, it didn't....
>
> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> the government? The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
> you ignoramous.
I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
administration) the executive. Even I know that, and I'm not an
American.
> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
No answer?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
If you think that, answer the points in my reply. You are the only
person showing yourself up....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<Shaking my head and smiling> ...and here's old Worthington sticking
his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
three branches of our government.
>> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
>> the government? �The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
>> you ignoramous.
>
>I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
>administration) the executive.
You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. The Congress is a very large
part of the US Government...
> Even I know that, and I'm not an
>American.
The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
the Legislative, and the Judicial. Perhaps it's time you opened a
book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>>
>> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>>
>> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
>> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
>> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
>No answer?
Your question has an incorrect premise. It's you that is obviosuly
ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
than for politics.
So here's a lesson for you
While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
state's property.. Had the US government allowed the sucession,
there would have been no US Civil War.
....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
soil.
edi...@netpath.net
seceding region can make it stick. And - with all the heating fuel,
most of the power-generation fuel, a lot of the oil, and most all the
cheap delicious food that core urban Blue Nation starves as it freezes
in the dark without CONTINUOUS delivery of - it will be very easy to
force Blue Nation to accept secession this time, any time we want it.
Prices of the above commodities will, of course, be adjusted - and we,
like the Kuwaitis, will get rich supplying Blue Nation at market
prices instead of regime-capped artificially-low prices.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Dr. Barry Worthington
The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>
> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> >> the government? The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
> >> you ignoramous.
>
> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
> >administration) the executive.
>
> You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. The Congress is a very large
> part of the US Government...
You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
administration).
>
> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
> >American.
>
> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
> the Legislative, and the Judicial. Perhaps it's time you opened a
> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
doing this deliberately?
>
> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> >No answer?
>
> Your question has an incorrect premise. It's you that is obviosuly
> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
> than for politics.
Answer my point!
>
> So here's a lesson for you
>
> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
> state's property..
It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
>there would have been no US Civil War.
The US government did nothing to stop the secession. It actually
evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
States. But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>
> ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
> soil.
After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<ROFL> Non sequitur anyone...
>> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
>> >> the government? �The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
>> >> you ignoramous.
>>
>> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
>> >administration) the executive.
>>
>> You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. �The Congress is a very large
>> part of the US Government...
>
>You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
>terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
>administration).
Here's a clue, Dummy.. the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
don't exist. The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
Government." When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
included by definition.
>> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
>> >American.
>>
>> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
>> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
>> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>
>See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
>doing this deliberately?
Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
U.S. government, Dummy.
>> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>>
>> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>>
>> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
>> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
>> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>>
>> >No answer?
>>
>> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
>> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
>> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
>> than for politics.
>
>Answer my point!
I did, see below:
>> So here's a lesson for you
>>
>> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
>> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
>> state's property..
>
>It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
No, the ownership was then in dispute.
>�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
> >there would have been no US Civil War.
>
>The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
<ROTFLMAO> Except instigate a civil war....
As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil.
The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
Confederates invaded the North.
>evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
>States.
Only because they were deemed indefensable...
> But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
Offshore forts? You must be kidding... Check out a map of
Charleston Harbor.
> The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
>brought everything that followed upon themselves.
Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
interferes in your life to be worth fighting for.
>> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
>> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
>> soil.
>
>After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
>far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
<chuckle> I've long been over it. You mistake my understanding of
the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. I was raised in
the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
comes from.
I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... if only
because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
similar reasons... though, in neither case am I happy with the
bloodletting that occured...
I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. There
was good people and bad people on both sides..
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>As a very silly person calling himself Kurt Nicklas, for reasons best
>known to himself, is once again interfering with headings so that
>replies to his posts that he doesn't like are diverted, I am reposting
>this.....
>It wasn't (a) a government inspired piece of legislation or (b) part
>of a government (administration) programme. It was an agreement
>between two factions in Congress about the admission of new States.
>It
>had nothing to do with the executive arm of government.
<LOL> Dumbass Worthington seems to think the term "U.S government"
only refers to the Executive branch....
>> Do your students laugh at what an intellectual coward you are as much
>> as
>> Steve and I do?
>
>
>My students are intelligent people. You two are just a pair of
>idiots.
I'll bet a number of Worthington's students know that the U.S.
Congress is an integral part of the U.S. Government..
Dr. Barry Worthington
My students actually know what they are talking about. When the term
'government' is used in the sense of an executive or administration,
they wouldn't change the meaning to something else, either through
stupidity or the desire to score a cheap point.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>
> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>
> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
> >> three branches of our government.
>
> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>
> <ROFL> Non sequitur anyone...
>
> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> >> >> you ignoramous.
>
> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
> >> >administration) the executive.
>
> >> part of the US Government...
>
> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
> >administration).
>
> Here's a clue, Dummy.. the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
> don't exist. The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
> Government." When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
> included by definition.
Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
administration, as was the case here. That hole you are digging is
getting larger....
>
> >> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
> >> >American.
>
> >> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
> >> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
> >> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>
> >See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
> >doing this deliberately?
>
> Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
> U.S. government, Dummy.
I seem to know more about American history than you do....but that's
not difficult, is it?
> >> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> >> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> >> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> >> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> >> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> >> >No answer?
>
> >> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
> >> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
> >> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
> >> than for politics.
>
> >Answer my point!
>
> I did, see below:
Below?
>
> >> So here's a lesson for you
>
> >> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
> >> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
> >> state's property..
>
> >It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
>
> No, the ownership was then in dispute.
It was Federal property. Even if the rest of the world recognised the
secession (which no one did, of course), in international law it would
remain Federal property unless an agreement had been made to dispose
of the assets.
I suppose that you would be quite happy if the Cuban government
invaded Guantanomo?
>
> >�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
> > >there would have been no US Civil War.
>
> >The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Except instigate a civil war....
It did nothing. Lincoln was most anxious not to be the first to
commence a war.
>
> As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil.
After the war had commenced.
>
> The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
> Confederates invaded the North.
The Union did nothing before the Confederates commenced hostilities.
> >evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
> >States.
>
> Only because they were deemed indefensable...
But they did nothing to provoke the Confederacy.
>
> > But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
>
> Offshore forts? You must be kidding... Check out a map of
> Charleston Harbor.
Fort Sumter was on a island. It was an offshore fort.
>
> > The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
> >brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>
> Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
> interferes in your life to be worth fighting for.
They were whipped. And quite rightly too.
>
> >> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
> >> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
> >> soil.
>
> >After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
> >far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
>
> <chuckle> I've long been over it. You mistake my understanding of
> the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. I was raised in
> the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
> about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
> comes from.
Idiocy, usually....
>
> I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... if only
> because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
> United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
So why are you churning out this unhistorical crap?
>
> I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
> similar reasons... though, in neither case am I happy with the
> bloodletting that occured...
>
> I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. There
> was good people and bad people on both sides..
And as some people have put it, in defence of an ignoble cause, it's
the good and honourable people who do the most damage.
You need to read a decent history book.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<ROFL> but, of course, the term "government" is NOT so used, you
hapless moron, when talking about the US government.
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> states into the Union... � �The government had quite a bit to do with
>> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>>
>> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>>
>> >> <Shaking my head and smiling> �...and here's old Worthington sticking
>> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
>> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
>> >> three branches of our government.
>>
>> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
>> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>>
>> <ROFL> �Non sequitur anyone...
>>
>> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
>> >> >> the government? �The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
>> >> >> you ignoramous.
>>
>> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
>> >> >administration) the executive.
>>
>> >> You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. �The Congress is a very large
>> >> part of the US Government...
>>
>> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
>> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
>> >administration).
>>
>> Here's a clue, Dummy.. � the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
>> don't exist. �The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
>> Government." � When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
>> included by definition.
>
>Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
>administration, as was the case here.
Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
the U.S government.
> That hole you are digging is
>getting larger....
<LOL> Your backpeddling isn't working, Dummy. "Government" is not
used in the USA to describe only the executive branch of the U.S
government.
>> >> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
>> >> >American.
>>
>> >> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
>> >> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
>> >> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>>
>> >See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
>> >doing this deliberately?
>>
>> Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
>> U.S. government, Dummy.
>
>I seem to know more about American history than you do....but that's
>not difficult, is it?
<chuckle> Worthington has been slapped upside his head about the
Missori Compromiose and about Lincoln's purpose fopr writing the
Emancipation proclamation and now all he can do is bluster.
>> >> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>>
>> >> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>>
>> >> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
>> >> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
>> >> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>>
>> >> >No answer?
>>
>> >> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
>> >> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
>> >> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
>> >> than for politics.
>>
>> >Answer my point!
>>
>> I did, see below:
>
>Below?
>
>>
>> >> So here's a lesson for you
>>
>> >> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
>> >> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
>> >> state's property..
>>
>> >It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
>>
>> No, the ownership was then in dispute.
>
>It was Federal property. Even if the rest of the world recognised the
>secession (which no one did, of course), in international law it would
<LOL> International law????
>remain Federal property unless an agreement had been made to dispose
>of the assets.
You seem to have no understanding of rebellions, Dummy.. Not
surprising since your still whimpering about how G. Washington chased
the British Army out of the here...
>I suppose that you would be quite happy if the Cuban government
>invaded Guantanomo?
They can always try....
>>
>> >�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
>> > >there would have been no US Civil War.
>>
>> >The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> �Except instigate a civil war....
>
>It did nothing. Lincoln was most anxious not to be the first to
>commence a war.
Funny then that he sent an army down to Bull Run to fight the
Confederates...
>>
>> As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil. �
>
>After the war had commenced.
Actually, the war commenced when Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott to
Bull Run.
>>
>> The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
>> Confederates invaded the North.
>
>The Union did nothing before the Confederates commenced hostilities.
The only hostilities up till then was when South forced the evacuation
of Fort Sumter on South Carolina's soil. No lives were lost in that
action, BTW.
>> >evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
>> >States.
>>
>> Only because they were deemed indefensable...
>
>But they did nothing to provoke the Confederacy.
Nothing to provoke <LOL> Except insist on maintaining a fortress
that controlled shipping through Charleston Harbor..
>> > But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
>>
>> Offshore forts? �You must be kidding... � Check out a map of
>> Charleston Harbor. �
>
>Fort Sumter was on a island. It was an offshore fort.
It was on an island well inside the Charleston harbor.
>> > The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
>> >brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>>
>> Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
>> interferes in your life to be worth fighting for. �
>
>They were whipped. And quite rightly too.
You are allowed to have that opinion...
>> >> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
>> >> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
>> >> soil.
>>
>> >After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
>> >far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
>>
>> <chuckle> �I've long been over it. � You mistake my understanding of
>> the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. �I was raised in
>> the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
>> about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
>> comes from.
>
>Idiocy, usually....
I can understand your inability to comprehend pride.. After all, you
have so little to be proud of...
Face it, Dummy, you are in way over your head trying to discuss the
Civil war... or the US government.
>>
>> I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... � if only
>> because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
>> United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
>
>So why are you churning out this unhistorical crap?
<LOL> Just trying to education you... although it's apparently a
lost cause. The things I've been telling you are facts.
Here's more
The Civil war came about because the South wanted independence from
the Federal government and the Northerners moved to prevent that
independence. There was, BTW, nothing written and agreed upon that
made succesion illegal.
Had the North not wanted a war, as you claim, they could simply have
given up the Forts that lay inside the succeded states territory, for
if that territory no longer lay within the United States, there would
be no puprose for them to have forts there. It was clear from the
very start that the Union was going to fight to keep control over the
Southern states.
Now to imagine that the reason the North was willing to fight had to
do with slavery is ridiculous. There were abolitionists, of course,
but the big money that supported the war were the industrialists who
valued the agriculture of the south and wanted that agriculture kept
within their control
>> I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
>> similar reasons... � though, in neither case am I happy with the
>> bloodletting that occured... �
>>
>> I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. �There
>> was good people and bad people on both sides..
>
>And as some people have put it, in defence of an ignoble cause, it's
>the good and honourable people who do the most damage.
As is the case in most wars, people are fighting for what they believe
in. That you believe that the causes the South was fighting for was
ignoble doesn't make it so. The vast majority of Southerners fought
because they didn't like being dictated to by the Northerners and the
vast majority not only never came close to owning slaves, had, like
the vast majority of the North's soldiers, no opinions about slaverey.
The people at that time had far more patriotic feelings toward their
states than for any federal government.
>You need to read a decent history book.
<LOL> That's from old Worthington who wants to argue about the Civil
War yet thought that Lincoln's primary puprose for issuing the
Emancipation Proclamation was something other than for politics...
>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>
> >> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>
> >> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
> >> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
> >> >> three branches of our government.
>
> >> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
> >> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>
> >> <ROFL> Non sequitur anyone...
>
> >> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> >> >> >> you ignoramous.
>
> >> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
> >> >> >administration) the executive.
>
> >> >> part of the US Government...
>
> >> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
> >> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
> >> >administration).
>
> >> Here's a clue, Dummy.. the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
> >> don't exist. The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
> >> Government." When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
> >> included by definition.
>
> >Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
> >administration, as was the case here.
>
> Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
> used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
> the U.S government.
It's used in that sense all the time, particularly by people on this
n.g. It's also clear to most people that that is the sense that I'm
using of the word. You are either too thick to realise this or you are
deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.
> > That hole you are digging is
> >getting larger....
>
> <LOL> Your backpeddling isn't working, Dummy. "Government" is not
> used in the USA to describe only the executive branch of the U.S
> government.
Of course it is! All the time.
>
> >> >> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
> >> >> >American.
>
> >> >> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
> >> >> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
> >> >> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>
> >> >See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
> >> >doing this deliberately?
>
> >> Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
> >> U.S. government, Dummy.
>
> >I seem to know more about American history than you do....but that's
> >not difficult, is it?
>
> <chuckle> Worthington has been slapped upside his head about the
> Missori Compromiose and about Lincoln's purpose fopr writing the
> Emancipation proclamation and now all he can do is bluster.
In your dreams, perhaps....
>
> >> >> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> >> >> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> >> >> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> >> >> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> >> >> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> >> >> >No answer?
>
> >> >> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
> >> >> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
> >> >> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
> >> >> than for politics.
>
> >> >Answer my point!
>
> >> I did, see below:
>
> >Below?
>
> >> >> So here's a lesson for you
>
> >> >> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
> >> >> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
> >> >> state's property..
>
> >> >It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
>
> >> No, the ownership was then in dispute.
>
> >It was Federal property. Even if the rest of the world recognised the
> >secession (which no one did, of course), in international law it would
>
> <LOL> International law????
You have a problem with that?
>
> >remain Federal property unless an agreement had been made to dispose
> >of the assets.
>
> You seem to have no understanding of rebellions, Dummy.. Not
> surprising since your still whimpering about how G. Washington chased
> the British Army out of the here...
All on his own?
>
> >I suppose that you would be quite happy if the Cuban government
> >invaded Guantanomo?
>
> They can always try....
That's not the point, but I'm not surprised at that answer. It's what
I would expect from you.
By the way, don't remove statements from their context. People can see
what you do.
> >> >�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
> >> > >there would have been no US Civil War.
>
> >> >The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
>
> >> <ROTFLMAO> Except instigate a civil war....
>
> >It did nothing. Lincoln was most anxious not to be the first to
> >commence a war.
>
> Funny then that he sent an army down to Bull Run to fight the
> Confederates...
Who were advancing upon a railway junction as prelude to trying to
capture Washington. After hostilities had started, of course.
> >> As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil.
>
> >After the war had commenced.
>
> Actually, the war commenced when Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott to
> Bull Run.
It started the moment a Confederate battery fired at the 'Star of the
West'.
Why do you wish to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity to all and
sundry?
> >> The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
> >> Confederates invaded the North.
>
> >The Union did nothing before the Confederates commenced hostilities.
>
> The only hostilities up till then was when South forced the evacuation
> of Fort Sumter on South Carolina's soil. No lives were lost in that
> action, BTW.
>
> >> >evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
> >> >States.
>
> >> Only because they were deemed indefensable...
>
> >But they did nothing to provoke the Confederacy.
>
> Nothing to provoke <LOL> Except insist on maintaining a fortress
> that controlled shipping through Charleston Harbor..
Tough.
>
> >> > But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
>
> >> Offshore forts? You must be kidding... Check out a map of
> >> Charleston Harbor.
>
> >Fort Sumter was on a island. It was an offshore fort.
>
> It was on an island well inside the Charleston harbor.
So what?
>
> >> > The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
> >> >brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>
> >> Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
> >> interferes in your life to be worth fighting for.
>
> >They were whipped. And quite rightly too.
>
> You are allowed to have that opinion...
They were whipped. And in most people's opinion, in America and
elsewhere, rightly so.
>
> >> >> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
> >> >> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
> >> >> soil.
>
> >> >After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
> >> >far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
>
> >> <chuckle> I've long been over it. You mistake my understanding of
> >> the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. I was raised in
> >> the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
> >> about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
> >> comes from.
>
> >Idiocy, usually....
>
> I can understand your inability to comprehend pride.. After all, you
> have so little to be proud of...
A thousand years of British history, perhaps....
> Face it, Dummy, you are in way over your head trying to discuss the
> Civil war... or the US government.
It must seem that way to a fool....
> >> I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... if only
> >> because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
> >> United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
>
> >So why are you churning out this unhistorical crap?
>
> <LOL> Just trying to education you... although it's apparently a
> lost cause. The things I've been telling you are facts.
>
> Here's more
>
> The Civil war came about because the South wanted independence from
> the Federal government and the Northerners moved to prevent that
> independence. There was, BTW, nothing written and agreed upon that
> made succesion illegal.
But the seizure of federal property and opening fire on Federal seaman
and soldiers.....what would you call that?
>
> Had the North not wanted a war, as you claim, they could simply have
> given up the Forts that lay inside the succeded states territory, for
> if that territory no longer lay within the United States, there would
> be no puprose for them to have forts there. It was clear from the
> very start that the Union was going to fight to keep control over the
> Southern states.
Why should they?
>
> Now to imagine that the reason the North was willing to fight had to
> do with slavery is ridiculous. There were abolitionists, of course,
> but the big money that supported the war were the industrialists who
> valued the agriculture of the south and wanted that agriculture kept
> within their control
Crap. It was a question of tarrifs and free labour.
>
> >> I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
> >> similar reasons... though, in neither case am I happy with the
> >> bloodletting that occured...
>
> >> I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. There
> >> was good people and bad people on both sides..
>
> >And as some people have put it, in defence of an ignoble cause, it's
> >the good and honourable people who do the most damage.
>
> As is the case in most wars, people are fighting for what they believe
> in. That you believe that the causes the South was fighting for was
> ignoble doesn't make it so.
But it was so.
> The vast majority of Southerners fought
> because they didn't like being dictated to by the Northerners and the
> vast majority not only never came close to owning slaves, had, like
> the vast majority of the North's soldiers, no opinions about slaverey.
> The people at that time had far more patriotic feelings toward their
> states than for any federal government.
They fought because their elite wanted them to...their economy was
dependent upon slavery. Unfortunately, 'States Rights', their
ideological justification to the common man produced an impractical
shambles that eventually imploded...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
You are a nutter....
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>
>
> >they wouldn't change the meaning to something else, either through
> >stupidity or the desire to score a cheap point.
> >Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
<LOL> Can't find that usage, eh?
Poor Worthington.. totally unable to learn.. he's the personification
of the saying, "those that can, do, those that can't, teach."
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> states into the Union... � �The government had quite a bit to do with
>> >> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>>
>> >> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>>
>> >> >> <Shaking my head and smiling> �...and here's old Worthington sticking
>> >> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
>> >> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
>> >> >> three branches of our government.
>>
>> >> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
>> >> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>>
>> >> <ROFL> �Non sequitur anyone...
>>
>> >> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
>> >> >> >> the government? �The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
>> >> >> >> you ignoramous.
>>
>> >> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
>> >> >> >administration) the executive.
>>
>> >> >> You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. �The Congress is a very large
>> >> >> part of the US Government...
>>
>> >> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
>> >> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
>> >> >administration).
>>
>> >> Here's a clue, Dummy.. � the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
>> >> don't exist. �The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
>> >> Government." � When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
>> >> included by definition.
>>
>> >Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
>> >administration, as was the case here.
>>
>> Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
>> used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
>> the U.S government.
>
>It's used in that sense all the time, particularly by people on this
>n.g.
Really?? then you should be able to find an example....
> It's also clear to most people that that is the sense that I'm
>using of the word.
WVorthington resorts to the logical fallacy, " appeal to the Masses."
I guess that signals that he knows he's lost another one...
>You are either too thick to realise this or you are
>deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.
You poor dweeb. You've been bested at every corner and yet you insist
on playing the fool....
It was you that first claimed: Your "true republic' was once loath to
interfere in the institution of slavery.
When provided with a valid contradiction, namely the Civil War, you
demanded an example from before the Civil war..
When that was provided, you try to pretend that you were only talking
about the executive branch. Since when is the "true republic" nothing
but the President, you silly fool?
>> > That hole you are digging is
>> >getting larger....
Irony anyone?
>> <LOL> Your backpeddling isn't working, Dummy. �"Government" is not
>> used in the USA to describe only the executive branch of the U.S
>> government.
>
>Of course it is! All the time.
<chuckle> ...and yet you can not provide an ecample
>> >> >> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
>> >> >> >American.
>>
>> >> >> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
>> >> >> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
>> >> >> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>>
>> >> >See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
>> >> >doing this deliberately?
>>
>> >> Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
>> >> U.S. government, Dummy.
>>
>> >I seem to know more about American history than you do....but that's
>> >not difficult, is it?
>>
>> <chuckle> �Worthington has been slapped upside his head about the
>> Missori Compromiose and about Lincoln's purpose fopr writing the
>> Emancipation proclamation and now all he can do is bluster.
>
>In your dreams, perhaps....
Apparently, the Brits issue doctorates a bit too easily. Worthington
has the intellect of a US jr high student.
>> >> >> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>>
>> >> >> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
>> >> >> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
>> >> >> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>>
>> >> >> >No answer?
>>
>> >> >> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
>> >> >> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
>> >> >> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
>> >> >> than for politics.
>>
>> >> >Answer my point!
>>
>> >> I did, see below:
>>
>> >Below?
>>
>> >> >> So here's a lesson for you
>>
>> >> >> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
>> >> >> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
>> >> >> state's property..
>>
>> >> >It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
>>
>> >> No, the ownership was then in dispute.
>>
>> >It was Federal property. Even if the rest of the world recognised the
>> >secession (which no one did, of course), in international law it would
>>
>> <LOL> �International law????
>
>You have a problem with that?
We're talking about the 1860s here you moron.
>> >remain Federal property unless an agreement had been made to dispose
>> >of the assets.
>>
>> You seem to have no understanding of rebellions, Dummy.. �Not
>> surprising since your still whimpering about how G. Washington chased
>> the British Army out of the here...
>
>All on his own?
With a little help of his friends...
>> >I suppose that you would be quite happy if the Cuban government
>> >invaded Guantanomo?
>>
>> They can always try....
>
>That's not the point, but I'm not surprised at that answer. It's what
>I would expect from you.
>
>By the way, don't remove statements from their context. People can see
>what you do.
>
<chuckle> You can't see the trees for the forest.
>> >> >�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
>> >> > >there would have been no US Civil War.
>>
>> >> >The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
>>
>> >> <ROTFLMAO> �Except instigate a civil war....
>>
>> >It did nothing. Lincoln was most anxious not to be the first to
>> >commence a war.
>>
>> Funny then that he sent an army down to Bull Run to fight the
>> Confederates...
>
>Who were advancing upon a railway junction as prelude to trying to
>capture Washington. After hostilities had started, of course.
<LOL> Total bullshit! The confederfates were massed in a defensive
position within their own territory knowing full well that the Union
was coming at them.
>> >> As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil. �
>>
>> >After the war had commenced.
>>
>> Actually, the war commenced when Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott to
>> Bull Run.
>
>It started the moment a Confederate battery fired at the 'Star of the
>West'.
Naw.. That was a defensive thing. The Union was sailing into a
confederate harbor.
>Why do you wish to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity to all and
>sundry?
Blah blah, blah.. you hav e trouble raising any real arguments,
don't you?
>> >> The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
>> >> Confederates invaded the North.
>>
>> >The Union did nothing before the Confederates commenced hostilities.
>>
>> The only hostilities up till then was when South forced the evacuation
>> of Fort Sumter on South Carolina's soil. �No lives were lost in that
>> action, BTW.
>>
>> >> >evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
>> >> >States.
>>
>> >> Only because they were deemed indefensable...
>>
>> >But they did nothing to provoke the Confederacy.
>>
>> Nothing to provoke � <LOL> � Except insist on maintaining a fortress
>> that controlled shipping through Charleston Harbor..
>
>
>Tough.
Your surrender of that point is accepted.
>> >> > But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
>>
>> >> Offshore forts? �You must be kidding... � Check out a map of
>> >> Charleston Harbor. �
>>
>> >Fort Sumter was on a island. It was an offshore fort.
>>
>> It was on an island well inside the Charleston harbor.
>
>So what?
A rather offensive position, wouldn't you say? Wopuld Gr Britain
allow a foriegn country to occupy a fortress in one of their harbors?
>> >> > The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
>> >> >brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>>
>> >> Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
>> >> interferes in your life to be worth fighting for. �
>>
>> >They were whipped. And quite rightly too.
>>
>> You are allowed to have that opinion...
>
>They were whipped. And in most people's opinion, in America and
>elsewhere, rightly so.
You are allowed to have that opinion...
>> >> >> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
>> >> >> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
>> >> >> soil.
>>
>> >> >After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
>> >> >far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
>>
>> >> <chuckle> �I've long been over it. � You mistake my understanding of
>> >> the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. �I was raised in
>> >> the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
>> >> about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
>> >> comes from.
>>
>> >Idiocy, usually....
>>
>> I can understand your inability to comprehend pride.. � After all, you
>> have so little to be proud of...
>
>A thousand years of British history, perhaps....
which suffered a couple of rather humniliating ass kickings by a rag
tag bunch of Americans...
>> Face it, Dummy, you are in way over your head trying to discuss the
>> Civil war... � or the US government.
>
>It must seem that way to a fool....
>
>> >> I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... � if only
>> >> because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
>> >> United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
>>
>> >So why are you churning out this unhistorical crap?
>>
>> <LOL> �Just trying to education you... �although it's apparently a
>> lost cause. �The things I've been telling you are facts. �
>>
>> Here's more
>>
>> The Civil war came about because the South wanted independence from
>> the Federal government and the Northerners moved to prevent that
>> independence. �There was, BTW, nothing written and agreed upon that
>> made succesion illegal.
>
>But the seizure of federal property and opening fire on Federal seaman
>and soldiers.....what would you call that?
If it were after plaesantly inviting them out of my country, I'd call
it backing up my claims of soveriegnty.
>> Had the North not wanted a war, as you claim, they could simply have
>> given up the Forts that lay inside the succeded states territory, for
>> if that territory no longer lay within the United States, there would
>> be no puprose for them to have forts there. � �It was clear from the
>> very start that the Union was going to fight to keep control over the
>> Southern states.
>
>Why should they?
There were reasons explained below, but that doesn't matter, it was
very clear that the Federals were going to try to force the South back
into the Union. Lincoln was actively raising an army.
>> Now to imagine that the reason the North was willing to fight had to
>> do with slavery is ridiculous. �There were abolitionists, of course,
>> but the big money that supported the war were the industrialists who
>> valued the agriculture of the south and wanted that agriculture kept
>> within their control
>
>Crap. It was a question of tarrifs and free labour.
Tarrifs perhaps, but the truth is that the major influences in the
North couldn't have cared less about the plight of the slaves.. In
fact, the cheaper the labor, the cheaper they could buy southern ag
products.
>> >> I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
>> >> similar reasons... � though, in neither case am I happy with the
>> >> bloodletting that occured... �
>>
>> >> I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. �There
>> >> was good people and bad people on both sides..
>>
>> >And as some people have put it, in defence of an ignoble cause, it's
>> >the good and honourable people who do the most damage.
>>
>> As is the case in most wars, people are fighting for what they believe
>> in. �That you believe that the causes the South was fighting for was
>> ignoble doesn't make it so.
>
>But it was so.
You are allowed to have that opinion... but why do you think I care
about your silly opinions? It's only your vague undersatanding of
the facts that I'll take issue with.
>�> The vast majority of Southerners fought
>> because they didn't like being dictated to by the Northerners and the
>> vast majority not only never came close to owning slaves, had, like
>> the vast majority of the North's soldiers, no opinions about slaverey.
>> The people at that time had far more patriotic feelings toward their
>> states than for any federal government.
>
>They fought because their elite wanted them to...their economy was
>dependent upon slavery. Unfortunately, 'States Rights', their
>ideological justification to the common man produced an impractical
>shambles that eventually imploded...
The typical southern soldier fought because he hated the northerners
dictating to him. The typical southerner had few opinions about
slavery itself. None of them would have risked their lives had that
been the only, or even the primary reason for the war.
As for the issue of States Rights, one cannot fathom the immensity of
that unless one realizes that in 1861, a man's state was really his
country.
Kurt Nicklas
wrote:
> of a government (administration) programme. It was an agreement
> between two factions in Congress about the admission of new States.
Again, you asked for a *legislative* stand taken by the US government
against slavery before the Civil War. I just gave you one and you're
too
much of an intellectual coward to admit you were wrong. Do you know
that
the Congress is the legislative *branch* of the government here and
the White House is the executive *branch*?
No, you apparently don't....
> It
> had nothing to do with the executive arm of government.
The Missouri Compromise was SIGNED by the PRESIDENT, you moron.
Without
that signature by the head of the "executive arm" then the bill would
not
have become law.
You don't really know how our government works, do you?
> > Do your students laugh at what an intellectual coward you are as much
> > as
> > Steve and I do?
>
> My students are intelligent people.
If they're lauging at you like we are then they're quite intelligent.
> > > > > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> > > > 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> > > It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> > > and navy yards.
>
> > 'Siezed and occupied'? Doesn't really sound like much of a war to me,
> > bubba.
>
> They were acts of aggression. Nevertheless, Lincoln did not
> repond....
Lincoln sent the US army into the South.
it was the Confederates who were stupid enough to start the
> shooting war. First, a battery opened fire on the 'Star of the West'.
...which was transporting supplies to foreign troops occupying
Southern soil.
> Not content with that, they began to bombard Fort Sumter itself.
>
>
> > > It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> > > upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> > Yeah, I've been to Ft. Sumter. Have you?
>
> No.
Make a visit. You might learn something, pinhead.
>
>
> > Oh, that's right....Charleston doesn't have an RLD so the area
> > wouldn't hold much interest for you.
>
> > "Kindly state exactly where Poland and the Czech Republic share a
> > frontier with Russia...."
> > ....... "Dr" Barry Worthington, 9/18/09
> > (Conveniently 'forgetting' about Kaliningrad Oblast)
>
> The Czech Republic has no common frontier with Russia. Neither has
> Poland...if we are talking about mainland Russia.
Which we weren't,Worthlessington.
The Kaliningrad
> Oblast (which I intend to visit this year) is an enclave, about the
> size of a large English county, and about several hundred miles
> distant from Russia itself.
...but borders on Poland. Case closed.
> You are a very silly person.
Oh, the irony!
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture, as an extension of
the 'serious leisure' concept, and its creation of 'embodied space'."
..... "Dr" Barry Worthington,6/7/07
The Chief Instigator
This is pathetically funny, coming from you...living in a state that wasn't
admitted into the Union until eleven years _after_ the end of the States
War, and forty years after my state carved a republic out of Mexico (which
took a fairly large patch of your state, and you might want to wonder
whether Texas might want its original boundaries back).
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Abbotsford 4, Houston 3 (OT, January 3)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, January 6 at Texas, 7:35
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >> >> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>
> >> >> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>
> >> >> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
> >> >> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
> >> >> >> three branches of our government.
>
> >> >> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
> >> >> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> >> >> >> >> you ignoramous.
>
> >> >> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
> >> >> >> >administration) the executive.
>
> >> >> >> part of the US Government...
>
> >> >> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
> >> >> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
> >> >> >administration).
>
> >> >> don't exist. �The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
> >> >> Government." � When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
> >> >> included by definition.
>
> >> >Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
> >> >administration, as was the case here.
>
> >> Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
> >> used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
> >> the U.S government.
>
> >It's used in that sense all the time, particularly by people on this
> >n.g.
>
> Really?? then you should be able to find an example....
How long is a piece of string?
>
> > It's also clear to most people that that is the sense that I'm
> >using of the word.
>
> WVorthington resorts to the logical fallacy, " appeal to the Masses."
> I guess that signals that he knows he's lost another one...
Well, some of us have to live in the real world....
>
> >You are either too thick to realise this or you are
> >deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.
>
> You poor dweeb. You've been bested at every corner and yet you insist
> on playing the fool....
Funny, I could say that about you.
>
> It was you that first claimed: Your "true republic' was once loath to
> interfere in the institution of slavery.
>
> When provided with a valid contradiction, namely the Civil War, you
> demanded an example from before the Civil war..
You think so?
I think that most people can follow this thread if they wish.
>
> When that was provided, you try to pretend that you were only talking
> about the executive branch. Since when is the "true republic" nothing
> but the President, you silly fool?
It was quite clear what I was talking about. To anyone with any sense.
>
> >> > That hole you are digging is
> >> >getting larger....
>
> Irony anyone?
But everyone laughs at you (apart from Kurt, perhaps) You have much in
common. You alter the content of postings, he redirects them, hoping
that they won't be read on this thread.
>
> >> <LOL> Your backpeddling isn't working, Dummy. �"Government" is not
> >> used in the USA to describe only the executive branch of the U.S
> >> government.
>
> >Of course it is! All the time.
>
> <chuckle> ...and yet you can not provide an ecample
For you?
>
> >> >> >> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
> >> >> >> >American.
>
> >> >> >> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
> >> >> >> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
> >> >> >> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>
> >> >> >See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
> >> >> >doing this deliberately?
>
> >> >> Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
> >> >> U.S. government, Dummy.
>
> >> >I seem to know more about American history than you do....but that's
> >> >not difficult, is it?
>
> >> <chuckle> �Worthington has been slapped upside his head about the
> >> Missori Compromiose and about Lincoln's purpose fopr writing the
> >> Emancipation proclamation and now all he can do is bluster.
>
> >In your dreams, perhaps....
>
> Apparently, the Brits issue doctorates a bit too easily. Worthington
> has the intellect of a US jr high student.
You can say that? With your appalling ignorance?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> >> >> >> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> >> >> >> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> >> >> >> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> >> >> >> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> >> >> >> >No answer?
>
> >> >> >> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
> >> >> >> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
> >> >> >> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
> >> >> >> than for politics.
>
> >> >> >Answer my point!
>
> >> >> I did, see below:
>
> >> >Below?
>
> >> >> >> So here's a lesson for you
>
> >> >> >> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
> >> >> >> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
> >> >> >> state's property..
>
> >> >> >It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
>
> >> >> No, the ownership was then in dispute.
>
> >> >It was Federal property. Even if the rest of the world recognised the
> >> >secession (which no one did, of course), in international law it would
>
> >> <LOL> �International law????
>
> >You have a problem with that?
>
> We're talking about the 1860s here you moron.
So?
>
> >> >remain Federal property unless an agreement had been made to dispose
> >> >of the assets.
>
> >> You seem to have no understanding of rebellions, Dummy.. �Not
> >> surprising since your still whimpering about how G. Washington chased
> >> the British Army out of the here...
>
> >All on his own?
>
> With a little help of his friends...
Who were french and Spanish, mainly....
>
> >> >I suppose that you would be quite happy if the Cuban government
> >> >invaded Guantanomo?
>
> >> They can always try....
>
> >That's not the point, but I'm not surprised at that answer. It's what
> >I would expect from you.
>
> >By the way, don't remove statements from their context. People can see
> >what you do.
>
> <chuckle> You can't see the trees for the forest.
I repeat. People can see that you are dishonest...
>
> >> >> >�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
> >> >> > >there would have been no US Civil War.
>
> >> >> >The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
>
> >> >> <ROTFLMAO> �Except instigate a civil war....
>
> >> >It did nothing. Lincoln was most anxious not to be the first to
> >> >commence a war.
>
> >> Funny then that he sent an army down to Bull Run to fight the
> >> Confederates...
>
> >Who were advancing upon a railway junction as prelude to trying to
> >capture Washington. After hostilities had started, of course.
>
> <LOL> Total bullshit! The confederfates were massed in a defensive
> position within their own territory knowing full well that the Union
> was coming at them.
They had started a war.
> >> >> As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil. �
>
> >> >After the war had commenced.
>
> >> Actually, the war commenced when Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott to
> >> Bull Run.
>
> >It started the moment a Confederate battery fired at the 'Star of the
> >West'.
>
> Naw.. That was a defensive thing. The Union was sailing into a
> confederate harbor.
They started a war. And they reaped the whirlwind....
>
> >Why do you wish to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity to all and
> >sundry?
>
> Blah blah, blah.. you hav e trouble raising any real arguments,
> don't you?
You do keep talking about yourself!
>
> >> >> The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
> >> >> Confederates invaded the North.
>
> >> >The Union did nothing before the Confederates commenced hostilities.
>
> >> The only hostilities up till then was when South forced the evacuation
> >> of Fort Sumter on South Carolina's soil. �No lives were lost in that
> >> action, BTW.
>
> >> >> >evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
> >> >> >States.
>
> >> >> Only because they were deemed indefensable...
>
> >> >But they did nothing to provoke the Confederacy.
>
> >> Nothing to provoke � <LOL> � Except insist on maintaining a fortress
> >> that controlled shipping through Charleston Harbor..
>
> >Tough.
>
> Your surrender of that point is accepted.
Why should they give up Federal property?
>
> >> >> > But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
>
> >> >> Offshore forts? �You must be kidding... � Check out a map of
> >> >> Charleston Harbor. �
>
> >> >Fort Sumter was on a island. It was an offshore fort.
>
> >> It was on an island well inside the Charleston harbor.
>
> >So what?
>
> A rather offensive position, wouldn't you say? Wopuld Gr Britain
> allow a foriegn country to occupy a fortress in one of their harbors?
The Federal Government did not represent a foreign country.
>
> >> >> > The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
> >> >> >brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>
> >> >> Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
> >> >> interferes in your life to be worth fighting for. �
>
> >> >They were whipped. And quite rightly too.
>
> >> You are allowed to have that opinion...
>
> >They were whipped. And in most people's opinion, in America and
> >elsewhere, rightly so.
>
> You are allowed to have that opinion...
I couldn't really care less about what you want to allow or not.....
>
> >> >> >> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
> >> >> >> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
> >> >> >> soil.
>
> >> >> >After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
> >> >> >far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
>
> >> >> <chuckle> �I've long been over it. � You mistake my understanding of
> >> >> the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. �I was raised in
> >> >> the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
> >> >> about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
> >> >> comes from.
>
> >> >Idiocy, usually....
>
> >> I can understand your inability to comprehend pride.. � After all, you
> >> have so little to be proud of...
>
> >A thousand years of British history, perhaps....
>
> which suffered a couple of rather humniliating ass kickings by a rag
> tag bunch of Americans...
British, you mean.
>
> >> Face it, Dummy, you are in way over your head trying to discuss the
> >> Civil war... � or the US government.
>
> >It must seem that way to a fool....
>
> >> >> I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... � if only
> >> >> because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
> >> >> United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
>
> >> >So why are you churning out this unhistorical crap?
>
> >> <LOL> �Just trying to education you... �although it's apparently a
> >> lost cause. �The things I've been telling you are facts. �
>
> >> Here's more
>
> >> The Civil war came about because the South wanted independence from
> >> the Federal government and the Northerners moved to prevent that
> >> independence. �There was, BTW, nothing written and agreed upon that
> >> made succesion illegal.
>
> >But the seizure of federal property and opening fire on Federal seaman
> >and soldiers.....what would you call that?
>
> If it were after plaesantly inviting them out of my country, I'd call
> it backing up my claims of soveriegnty.
They were not pleasant at all. They were blockading and threatening
the forts. And the silly buggers went to far and started a shooting
war. Which they lost.
>
> >> Had the North not wanted a war, as you claim, they could simply have
> >> given up the Forts that lay inside the succeded states territory, for
> >> if that territory no longer lay within the United States, there would
> >> be no puprose for them to have forts there. � �It was clear from the
> >> very start that the Union was going to fight to keep control over the
> >> Southern states.
>
> >Why should they?
>
> There were reasons explained below, but that doesn't matter, it was
> very clear that the Federals were going to try to force the South back
> into the Union. Lincoln was actively raising an army.
Most of the army was recruited after the war started. There were
hardly any troops to defend Washington at first.
>
> >> Now to imagine that the reason the North was willing to fight had to
> >> do with slavery is ridiculous. �There were abolitionists, of course,
> >> but the big money that supported the war were the industrialists who
> >> valued the agriculture of the south and wanted that agriculture kept
> >> within their control
>
> >Crap. It was a question of tarrifs and free labour.
>
> Tarrifs perhaps, but the truth is that the major influences in the
> North couldn't have cared less about the plight of the slaves.. In
> fact, the cheaper the labor, the cheaper they could buy southern ag
> products.
They didn't really buy Southern products. The cotton was mainly
exported, and the South depended on the imports it purchased. Henced
the opposition to a protective tarrif. But slave labour was perceived
as a threat to Northern production costs and a free internal American
market..........by capitalists, merchants, farmers, and ordinary
working men.
> >> >> I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
> >> >> similar reasons... � though, in neither case am I happy with the
> >> >> bloodletting that occured... �
>
> >> >> I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. �There
> >> >> was good people and bad people on both sides..
>
> >> >And as some people have put it, in defence of an ignoble cause, it's
> >> >the good and honourable people who do the most damage.
>
> >> As is the case in most wars, people are fighting for what they believe
> >> in. �That you believe that the causes the South was fighting for was
> >> ignoble doesn't make it so.
>
> >But it was so.
>
> You are allowed to have that opinion... but why do you think I care
> about your silly opinions? It's only your vague undersatanding of
> the facts that I'll take issue with.
But you live in a fantasy world!
>
> >�> The vast majority of Southerners fought
> >> because they didn't like being dictated to by the Northerners and the
> >> vast majority not only never came close to owning slaves, had, like
> >> the vast majority of the North's soldiers, no opinions about slaverey.
> >> The people at that time had far more patriotic feelings toward their
> >> states than for any federal government.
>
> >They fought because their elite wanted them to...their economy was
> >dependent upon slavery. Unfortunately, 'States Rights', their
> >ideological justification to the common man produced an impractical
> >shambles that eventually imploded...
>
> The typical southern soldier fought because he hated the northerners
> dictating to him. The typical southerner had few opinions about
> slavery itself. None of them would have risked their lives had that
> been the only, or even the primary reason for the war.
They were misled. But not all Southern people thought that way.
Especially when they saw that slave owners were exempted from military
service.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> As for the issue of States Rights, one cannot fathom the immensity of
> that unless one realizes that in 1861, a man's state was really his
> country.>Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> >You need to read a decent history book.
>
> >> <LOL> �That's from old Worthington who wants to argue about the Civil
> >> War yet thought that Lincoln's primary puprose for issuing the
> >> Emancipation Proclamation was something other than for politics... �>Dr. Barry Worthington
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> states into the Union... � �The government had quite a bit to do with
>> >> >> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>>
>> >> >> >> <Shaking my head and smiling> �...and here's old Worthington sticking
>> >> >> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
>> >> >> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
>> >> >> >> three branches of our government.
>>
>> >> >> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
>> >> >> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>>
>> >> >> <ROFL> �Non sequitur anyone...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
>> >> >> >> >> the government? �The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
>> >> >> >> >> you ignoramous.
>>
>> >> >> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
>> >> >> >> >administration) the executive.
>>
>> >> >> >> You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. �The Congress is a very large
>> >> >> >> part of the US Government...
>>
>> >> >> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
>> >> >> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
>> >> >> >administration).
>>
>> >> >> Here's a clue, Dummy.. � the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
>> >> >> don't exist. �The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
>> >> >> Government." � When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
>> >> >> included by definition.
>>
>> >> >Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
>> >> >administration, as was the case here.
>>
>> >> Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
>> >> used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
>> >> the U.S government.
>>
>> >It's used in that sense all the time, particularly by people on this
>> >n.g.
>>
>> Really?? � then you should be able to find an example....
>
>How long is a piece of string?
<LOL> Run away, loser, I knew you couldn't find an example..
>> > It's also clear to most people that that is the sense that I'm
>> >using of the word.
>>
>> �WVorthington resorts to the logical fallacy, " appeal to the Masses."
>> I guess that signals that he knows he's lost another one...
>
>Well, some of us have to live in the real world....
Tossing out logical fallacies is Worthington's idea of living in the
real world...
..but then what else can he do when I prove him wrong. He's too
immature to admit it.'
>> >You are either too thick to realise this or you are
>> >deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.
>>
>> You poor dweeb. �You've been bested at every corner and yet you insist
>> on playing the fool....
>
>Funny, I could say that about you.
You can say anything you want.. <LOL> but in that instance you've
already been proven wrong...
>> It was you that first claimed: Your "true republic' was once loath to
>> interfere in the institution of slavery.
>>
>> When provided with a valid contradiction, namely the Civil War, you
>> demanded an example from before the Civil war..
>
>You think so?
<LOL> Well the fact that I have access to your earlier statement to
that effect gives great access to my thinking.. You can read what you
wrote earlier right here, Dummy.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34?hl=en
>I think that most people can follow this thread if they wish.
I think that most people can see that you're back peddling in
desperation to try to cover your mistakes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34?hl=en
>> When that was provided, you try to pretend that you were only talking
>> about the executive branch. �Since when is the "true republic" nothing
>> but the President, you silly fool?
>
>It was quite clear what I was talking about. To anyone with any sense.
It's quite clear that you were talking about a "true republic," not
the executive branch of the government, you back peddling, dishonest,
pieces of garbage...
...and anyone can see for themselves... right here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34?hl=en
>> >> > That hole you are digging is
>> >> >getting larger....
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>But everyone laughs at you (apart from Kurt, perhaps) You have much in
>common. You alter the content of postings, he redirects them, hoping
>that they won't be read on this thread.
Sorry, but your dishonesty is right in front of everyone's eyes...
It's quite clear that you were talking about a "true republic," not
the executive branch of the government.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34?hl=en
>> >> <LOL> Your backpeddling isn't working, Dummy. �"Government" is not
>> >> used in the USA to describe only the executive branch of the U.S
>> >> government.
>>
>> >Of course it is! All the time.
>>
>> <chuckle> �...and yet you can not provide an ecample
>
>For you?
<LOL> Run away loser....
>> >> >> >> > Even I know that, and I'm not an
>> >> >> >> >American.
>>
>> >> >> >> The US government consists of three bodies, you nitwit, the Executive,
>> >> >> >> the Legislative, and the Judicial. �Perhaps it's time you opened a
>> >> >> >> book before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>>
>> >> >> >See above. You are the one with the comprehension problem. Or are you
>> >> >> >doing this deliberately?
>>
>> >> >> Take my advice and do a little research if you want to talk about the
>> >> >> U.S. government, Dummy.
>>
>> >> >I seem to know more about American history than you do....but that's
>> >> >not difficult, is it?
>>
>> >> <chuckle> �Worthington has been slapped upside his head about the
>> >> Missori Compromiose and about Lincoln's purpose fopr writing the
>> >> Emancipation proclamation and now all he can do is bluster.
>>
>> >In your dreams, perhaps....
>>
>> Apparently, the Brits issue doctorates a bit too easily. �Worthington
>> has the intellect of a US jr high student.
>
>You can say that? With your appalling ignorance?
<ROTFLMAO>
That's from old Worthington who wants to argue about the Civil War yet
thought that Lincoln's primary purpose for issuing the
Emancipation Proclamation was something other than for politics...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
>> >> >> >> >> >and navy yards. It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
>> >> >> >> >> >upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>>
>> >> >> >> >No answer?
>>
>> >> >> >> Your question has an incorrect premise. � It's you that is obviosuly
>> >> >> >> ignorant about the US Civil War as evidenced by your nonsense about
>> >> >> >> Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being issued for anything other
>> >> >> >> than for politics.
>>
>> >> >> >Answer my point!
>>
>> >> >> I did, see below:
>>
>> >> >Below?
>>
>> >> >> >> So here's a lesson for you
>>
>> >> >> >> While the first physical hostilities were executed by the South, it
>> >> >> >> was only after the federal forces refused to leave the newly suceded
>> >> >> >> state's property..
>>
>> >> >> >It wasn't their property. It was Federal property.
>>
>> >> >> No, the ownership was then in dispute.
>>
>> >> >It was Federal property. Even if the rest of the world recognised the
>> >> >secession (which no one did, of course), in international law it would
>>
>> >> <LOL> �International law????
>>
>> >You have a problem with that?
>>
>> We're talking about the 1860s here you moron.
>
>So?
<LOL> Do you actually think that there was any such thing as
international law in the 1860s? You're actually dumber than I
thought, Worthington.
>> >> >remain Federal property unless an agreement had been made to dispose
>> >> >of the assets.
>>
>> >> You seem to have no understanding of rebellions, Dummy.. �Not
>> >> surprising since your still whimpering about how G. Washington chased
>> >> the British Army out of the here...
>>
>> >All on his own?
>>
>> With a little help of his friends...
>
>Who were french and Spanish, mainly....
Actually, they were mostly Americans..
>> >> >I suppose that you would be quite happy if the Cuban government
>> >> >invaded Guantanomo?
>>
>> >> They can always try....
>>
>> >That's not the point, but I'm not surprised at that answer. It's what
>> >I would expect from you.
>>
>> >By the way, don't remove statements from their context. People can see
>> >what you do.
>>
>> <chuckle> You can't see the trees for the forest.
>
>I repeat. People can see that you are dishonest...
That's from Worthington who now denies his earlier references to the
"true repoublic."
>> >> >> >�> Had the US government allowed the sucession,
>> >> >> > >there would have been no US Civil War.
>>
>> >> >> >The US government did nothing to stop the secession.
>>
>> >> >> <ROTFLMAO> �Except instigate a civil war....
>>
>> >> >It did nothing. Lincoln was most anxious not to be the first to
>> >> >commence a war.
>>
>> >> Funny then that he sent an army down to Bull Run to fight the
>> >> Confederates...
>>
>> >Who were advancing upon a railway junction as prelude to trying to
>> >capture Washington. After hostilities had started, of course.
>>
>> <LOL> �Total bullshit! �The confederfates were massed in a defensive
>> position within their own territory knowing full well that the Union
>> was coming at them.
>
>They had started a war.
Actually, they had only started a secession. Had Lincoln not intended
to put down the secession as YOU QUIT STUPIDLY CLAIMED, he would've
ordered the evacuation of Fort Sumter, which controlled access to
Charleston harbor and could not be allowed to be controlled by a
foreign power.
>> >> >> As I said, it was the Union that first invaded their opponants soil. �
>>
>> >> >After the war had commenced.
>>
>> >> Actually, the war commenced when Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott to
>> >> Bull Run.
>>
>> >It started the moment a Confederate battery fired at the 'Star of the
>> >West'.
>>
>> Naw.. �That was a defensive thing. �The Union was sailing into a
>> confederate harbor.
>
>They started a war. And they reaped the whirlwind....
Blah, blah, blah...
>> >Why do you wish to demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity to all and
>> >sundry?
>>
>> Blah blah, blah.. � you hav e trouble raising any real arguments,
>> don't you?
>
>You do keep talking about yourself!
<chuckle> Worthington launches into his Jr. High School mode...
>> >> >> The Union attempted invasions the South several times before the
>> >> >> Confederates invaded the North.
>>
>> >> >The Union did nothing before the Confederates commenced hostilities.
>>
>> >> The only hostilities up till then was when South forced the evacuation
>> >> of Fort Sumter on South Carolina's soil. �No lives were lost in that
>> >> action, BTW.
>>
>> >> >> >evacuated its mainland naval bases and yards in the Confederate
>> >> >> >States.
>>
>> >> >> Only because they were deemed indefensable...
>>
>> >> >But they did nothing to provoke the Confederacy.
>>
>> >> Nothing to provoke � <LOL> � Except insist on maintaining a fortress
>> >> that controlled shipping through Charleston Harbor..
>>
>> >Tough.
>>
>> Your surrender of that point is accepted.
>
>Why should they give up Federal property?
Because if. as you say, the Union wasn't going to resist the
secession, they have no business there any more.. Of course, the
Union had every intention of resisting the secession as was very
apparent.
>> >> >> > But it refused to abandon its offshore forts. Why should it?
>>
>> >> >> Offshore forts? �You must be kidding... � Check out a map of
>> >> >> Charleston Harbor. �
>>
>> >> >Fort Sumter was on a island. It was an offshore fort.
>>
>> >> It was on an island well inside the Charleston harbor.
>>
>> >So what?
>>
>> A rather offensive position, wouldn't you say? �Wopuld Gr Britain
>> allow a foriegn country to occupy a fortress in one of their harbors?
>
>The Federal Government did not represent a foreign country.
<Chuckle> They would have been, if as you claim, they were not going
to resist the secession...
>> >> >> > The Confederates were stupid enough to fire the first shot. They
>> >> >> >brought everything that followed upon themselves.
>>
>> >> >> Well, you know, some people see independence from a government that
>> >> >> interferes in your life to be worth fighting for. �
>>
>> >> >They were whipped. And quite rightly too.
>>
>> >> You are allowed to have that opinion...
>>
>> >They were whipped. And in most people's opinion, in America and
>> >elsewhere, rightly so.
>>
>> �You are allowed to have that opinion...
>
>I couldn't really care less about what you want to allow or not.....
It's not just me that allows you to express your opinions,
Worthington, it's one of your rights... but the real question has to
do with why you imagine that others are interested in them.
<LOL> Perhaps you are trying to shift the argument away from your
earlier mistakes.
Yeah, that's the reason....
>> >> >> >> � ....and whereas the South did chase the federals out of Fort Sumter,
>> >> >> >> it was the North that first set out on an invasion of their opponents
>> >> >> >> soil.
>>
>> >> >> >After the war started. Look, the Confederacy lost. They were treated
>> >> >> >far better than they expected after the defeat. Get over it!
>>
>> >> >> <chuckle> �I've long been over it. � You mistake my understanding of
>> >> >> the facts as some sort of allegiance to the South. �I was raised in
>> >> >> the North and I disapprove of some southerners' insistance on waving
>> >> >> about the Confederate battle flag, although I understand where it
>> >> >> comes from.
>>
>> >> >Idiocy, usually....
>>
>> >> I can understand your inability to comprehend pride.. � After all, you
>> >> have so little to be proud of...
>>
>> >A thousand years of British history, perhaps....
>>
>> which suffered a couple of rather humniliating ass kickings by a rag
>> tag bunch of Americans...
>
>British, you mean.
Actually, it's the British that got their asses kicked out of here..
by the Americans.
>> >> Face it, Dummy, you are in way over your head trying to discuss the
>> >> Civil war... � or the US government.
>>
>> >It must seem that way to a fool....
>>
>> >> >> I fully approve of Lincoln's putting down the rebellion... � if only
>> >> >> because it ultimately outlawed slavery and ultimately led to the
>> >> >> United States becoming the most powerful country on Earth.
>>
>> >> >So why are you churning out this unhistorical crap?
>>
>> >> <LOL> �Just trying to education you... �although it's apparently a
>> >> lost cause. �The things I've been telling you are facts. �
>>
>> >> Here's more
>>
>> >> The Civil war came about because the South wanted independence from
>> >> the Federal government and the Northerners moved to prevent that
>> >> independence. �There was, BTW, nothing written and agreed upon that
>> >> made succesion illegal.
>>
>> >But the seizure of federal property and opening fire on Federal seaman
>> >and soldiers.....what would you call that?
>>
>> If it were after plaesantly inviting them out of my country, I'd call
>> it backing up my claims of soveriegnty.
>
>They were not pleasant at all. They were blockading and threatening
>the forts.
Actually, it was a reasonably pleasant request until the Union refused
to leave the seceding states territory...
...which, BTW, the union would have done if, as you claim, the Union
was not going to resist the scession...
It's pretty obvious that your claim to that effect was totally wrong.
The fact is that Lincoln publicly stated that he would not accept
secession and he said it before the Fort Sumter affair.
> And the silly buggers went to far and started a shooting
>war. Which they lost.
>
>>
>> >> Had the North not wanted a war, as you claim, they could simply have
>> >> given up the Forts that lay inside the succeded states territory, for
>> >> if that territory no longer lay within the United States, there would
>> >> be no puprose for them to have forts there. � �It was clear from the
>> >> very start that the Union was going to fight to keep control over the
>> >> Southern states.
>>
>> >Why should they?
>>
>> There were reasons explained below, but that doesn't matter, it was
>> very clear that the Federals were going to try to force the South back
>> into the Union. �Lincoln was actively raising an army.
>
>Most of the army was recruited after the war started. There were
>hardly any troops to defend Washington at first.
Lincoln began recruiting an Army within a few days after Fort Sumter
was evacuated. He also ordered a blockage of Southern ports. He was
totally committed to putting down the secession.
>>
>> >> Now to imagine that the reason the North was willing to fight had to
>> >> do with slavery is ridiculous. �There were abolitionists, of course,
>> >> but the big money that supported the war were the industrialists who
>> >> valued the agriculture of the south and wanted that agriculture kept
>> >> within their control
>>
>> >Crap. It was a question of tarrifs and free labour.
>>
>> Tarrifs perhaps, but the truth is that the major influences in the
>> North couldn't have cared less about the plight of the slaves.. �In
>> fact, the cheaper the labor, the cheaper they could buy southern ag
>> products.
>
>They didn't really buy Southern products.
Total bullshit! Where do you think the North got their cotton? The
fact is that there was even a movement in the North to impose export
taxes to make the cotton cheaper for the North.
>The cotton was mainly
>exported, and the South depended on the imports it purchased. Henced
>the opposition to a protective tarrif. But slave labour was perceived
>as a threat to Northern production costs and a free internal American
>market..........by capitalists, merchants, farmers, and ordinary
>working men.
What total nonsense.. how the heck could cheap farm labor in the
South be a threat to production costs in the North? There was only a
very small percentage of slaves working in industry competing with
Northern Industry and in 1860 there was damned little labor saving
industries anywhere that were hindered by cheap labor picking cotton.
....And regarding farmers in the North, it was the plantation
Southerners who were afraid of the competition presented by the small
independent non-slave farmers, not the other way around.
Perhaps, Worthington, you should do a little reading about our Civil
war before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
>> >> >> I also fully approve the ultimate defeat of my Indian ancestors for
>> >> >> similar reasons... � though, in neither case am I happy with the
>> >> >> bloodletting that occured... �
>>
>> >> >> I had ancestors on both sides of both those those conflicts. �There
>> >> >> was good people and bad people on both sides..
>>
>> >> >And as some people have put it, in defence of an ignoble cause, it's
>> >> >the good and honourable people who do the most damage.
>>
>> >> As is the case in most wars, people are fighting for what they believe
>> >> in. �That you believe that the causes the South was fighting for was
>> >> ignoble doesn't make it so.
>>
>> >But it was so.
>>
>> �You are allowed to have that opinion... �but why do you think I care
>> about your silly opinions? � It's only your vague undersatanding of
>> the facts that I'll take issue with.
>
>But you live in a fantasy world!
Blah, blah, blah.. ...and that's from Worthington who stupidly
said: "The US government did nothing to stop the secession."
>> >�> The vast majority of Southerners fought
>> >> because they didn't like being dictated to by the Northerners and the
>> >> vast majority not only never came close to owning slaves, had, like
>> >> the vast majority of the North's soldiers, no opinions about slaverey.
>> >> The people at that time had far more patriotic feelings toward their
>> >> states than for any federal government.
>>
>> >They fought because their elite wanted them to...their economy was
>> >dependent upon slavery. Unfortunately, 'States Rights', their
>> >ideological justification to the common man produced an impractical
>> >shambles that eventually imploded...
>>
>> The typical southern soldier fought because he hated the northerners
>> dictating to him. �The typical southerner had few opinions about
>> slavery itself. �None of them would have risked their lives had that
>> been the only, or even the primary reason for the war.
>
>They were misled.
Like I said before, pride is not something you would understand, and
being a socialist, you also have no understanding of people who do not
like being dictated to.
But not all Southern people thought that way.
>Especially when they saw that slave owners were exempted from military
>service.
Insigificant.. only a tiny number of such exemptions and only a tiny
number of those took the exemption.
>Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
Does your head ever hurt?
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> >> >> >> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>
> >> >> >> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
> >> >> >> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
> >> >> >> >> three branches of our government.
>
> >> >> >> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
> >> >> >> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
> >> >> >> >> >> you ignoramous.
>
> >> >> >> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
> >> >> >> >> >administration) the executive.
>
> >> >> >> >> part of the US Government...
>
> >> >> >> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
> >> >> >> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
> >> >> >> >administration).
>
> >> >> >> don't exist. �The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
> >> >> >> Government." � When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
> >> >> >> included by definition.
>
> >> >> >Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
> >> >> >administration, as was the case here.
>
> >> >> Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
> >> >> used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
> >> >> the U.S government.
>
> >> >It's used in that sense all the time, particularly by people on this
> >> >n.g.
>
>
> >How long is a piece of string?
>
> <LOL> Run away, loser, I knew you couldn't find an example..
>
> >> > It's also clear to most people that that is the sense that I'm
> >> >using of the word.
>
> >> I guess that signals that he knows he's lost another one...
>
> >Well, some of us have to live in the real world....
>
> Tossing out logical fallacies is Worthington's idea of living in the
> real world...
Right, you've had your outing for the time being. But, before you get
back in the cupboard with Kurt, I'll answer this screed...
>
> ..but then what else can he do when I prove him wrong. He's too
> immature to admit it.'
Well, you would know all about immaturity.....
>
> >> >You are either too thick to realise this or you are
> >> >deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.
>
> >> You poor dweeb. �You've been bested at every corner and yet you insist
> >> on playing the fool....
>
> >Funny, I could say that about you.
>
> You can say anything you want.. <LOL> but in that instance you've
> already been proven wrong...
That is an incoherent statement....
>
> >> It was you that first claimed: Your "true republic' was once loath to
> >> interfere in the institution of slavery.
>
> >> When provided with a valid contradiction, namely the Civil War, you
> >> demanded an example from before the Civil war..
>
> >You think so?
>
> <LOL> Well the fact that I have access to your earlier statement to
> that effect gives great access to my thinking.. You can read what you
> wrote earlier right here, Dummy.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34...
>
> >I think that most people can follow this thread if they wish.
>
> I think that most people can see that you're back peddling in
> desperation to try to cover your mistakes.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34...
Actually, most people will come to the conclusion that you are an
idiot...and an obsessive....
>
> >> When that was provided, you try to pretend that you were only talking
> >> about the executive branch. �Since when is the "true republic" nothing
> >> but the President, you silly fool?
>
> >It was quite clear what I was talking about. To anyone with any sense.
>
> It's quite clear that you were talking about a "true republic," not
> the executive branch of the government, you back peddling, dishonest,
> pieces of garbage...
You are incoherent...and ungrammatical....
>
> ...and anyone can see for themselves... right herehttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34...
>
> >> >> > That hole you are digging is
> >> >> >getting larger....
>
> >> Irony anyone?
>
> >But everyone laughs at you (apart from Kurt, perhaps) You have much in
> >common. You alter the content of postings, he redirects them, hoping
> >that they won't be read on this thread.
>
> Sorry, but your dishonesty is right in front of everyone's eyes...
Your dishonesty, you mean.
Well, that's yer lot.....
As Vera Lynn sang....'we'll meet again, don't know where...don't know
when...."
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington.
('Steve is waving goodye....goodbye.....goodbye....)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Kurt Nicklas
So, Harry, if you ever decide to come back and discuss the US
government with US citizens, you might have a look at the following to
avoid making a fool of yourself once again. Don't worry, the
information is presented on a level that even one of your modest
intelligence can take in:
http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_threebranches.htm
Boom! Boom!
Toodle Pip!
-----------------------------------
"My interest is the swinging sub-culture, as an extension of
the 'serious leisure' concept, and its creation of 'embodied space'."
............"Dr" Barry Worthington,6/7/07
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
No, I do laugh hard at fools like you, but not hard enough to make my
head hurt.
>Goodbye,
I'll be right here if you need another US history lesson, Dummy.
Steve
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> states into the Union... � �The government had quite a bit to do with
>> >> >> >> >> >> both issues, you pathetic moron.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Actually, it didn't....
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <Shaking my head and smiling> �...and here's old Worthington sticking
>> >> >> >> >> his ignorant face into US politics and he doesn't even know that
>> >> >> >> >> federal laws come into being by virtue of the balance of powers of all
>> >> >> >> >> three branches of our government.
>>
>> >> >> >> >The executive may have ratified the Missouri Compromise, but it didn't
>> >> >> >> >originate it. You clearly don't understand these things.
>>
>> >> >> >> <ROFL> �Non sequitur anyone...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> BTW, how the heck could a Congressional issue have nothing to do with
>> >> >> >> >> >> the government? �The Congress is a pretty large part the government,
>> >> >> >> >> >> you ignoramous.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >I always understood it to be the legislature, and the government (or
>> >> >> >> >> >administration) the executive.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You understood wrong, you pathetic fool. �The Congress is a very large
>> >> >> >> >> part of the US Government...
>>
>> >> >> >> >You are moving the goalposts. We are not talking about 'government' in
>> >> >> >> >terms of a governmental system but in terms of an executive (or
>> >> >> >> >administration).
>>
>> >> >> >> Here's a clue, Dummy.. � the ridiculous straws you're grasping at
>> >> >> >> don't exist. �The U.S. Congress cannot be divorced from the term "U.S.
>> >> >> >> Government." � When you talk about the US government, the Congress is
>> >> >> >> included by definition.
>>
>> >> >> >Not when you are using the term to talk about the executive/
>> >> >> >administration, as was the case here.
>>
>> >> >> Of course you can't find a single case where the term "Government" is
>> >> >> used by a reputable entity to reference only the executive branch of
>> >> >> the U.S government.
>>
>> >> >It's used in that sense all the time, particularly by people on this
>> >> >n.g.
>>
>> >> Really?? � then you should be able to find an example....
>>
>> >How long is a piece of string?
>>
>> <LOL> �Run away, loser, I knew you couldn't find an example..
>>
>> >> > It's also clear to most people that that is the sense that I'm
>> >> >using of the word.
>>
>> >> �WVorthington resorts to the logical fallacy, " appeal to the Masses."
>> >> I guess that signals that he knows he's lost another one...
>>
>> >Well, some of us have to live in the real world....
>>
>> Tossing out logical fallacies is Worthington's idea of living in the
>> real world...
>
>Right, you've had your outing for the time being. But, before you get
>back in the cupboard with Kurt, I'll answer this screed...
<LOL> Run away quick, Worthingto... but be sure to come back when
you need another history lesson.
>> ..but then what else can he do when I prove him wrong. �He's too
>> immature to admit it.'
>
>Well, you would know all about immaturity.....
I know it when I see it... But then, you being a socialist, you are
immature by definition. Only immature people want a nanny government
to take care of them...
>> >> >You are either too thick to realise this or you are
>> >> >deliberately misunderstanding my meaning.
>>
>> >> You poor dweeb. �You've been bested at every corner and yet you insist
>> >> on playing the fool....
>>
>> >Funny, I could say that about you.
>>
>> You can say anything you want.. <LOL> �but in that instance you've
>> already been proven wrong...
>
>That is an incoherent statement....
Only to those with reading problems..
>> >> It was you that first claimed: Your "true republic' was once loath to
>> >> interfere in the institution of slavery.
>>
>> >> When provided with a valid contradiction, namely the Civil War, you
>> >> demanded an example from before the Civil war..
>>
>> >You think so?
>>
>> <LOL> �Well the fact that I have access to your earlier statement to
>> that effect gives great access to my thinking.. �You can read what you
>> wrote earlier right here, Dummy.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34...
>>
>> >I think that most people can follow this thread if they wish.
>>
>> I think that most people can see that you're back peddling in
>> desperation to try to cover your mistakes.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34...
>
>Actually, most people will come to the conclusion that you are an
>idiot...and an obsessive....
<LOL> Another appeal to the Masses is the only reply...
>> >> When that was provided, you try to pretend that you were only talking
>> >> about the executive branch. �Since when is the "true republic" nothing
>> >> but the President, you silly fool?
>>
>> >It was quite clear what I was talking about. To anyone with any sense.
>>
>> It's quite clear that you were talking about a "true republic," not
>> the executive branch of the government, you back peddling, dishonest,
>> pieces of garbage...
>
>You are incoherent...and ungrammatical....
Worthington still has no reply... well, what can he say when he's
denied saying something I've shown him to have said?
>> ...and anyone can see for themselves... �right herehttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd095bfdd4012b34...
>>
>> >> >> > That hole you are digging is
>> >> >> >getting larger....
>>
>> >> Irony anyone?
>>
>> >But everyone laughs at you (apart from Kurt, perhaps) You have much in
>> >common. You alter the content of postings, he redirects them, hoping
>> >that they won't be read on this thread.
I never alter other's postings.. Poor Worthington is spinning that
nonsense because I've shown him to be a fool.
>> Sorry, but your dishonesty is right in front of everyone's eyes...
>
>Your dishonesty, you mean.
>
...and yet nobody can show any example of my "dishonesty."
>
>Well, that's yer lot.....
>
>As Vera Lynn sang....'we'll meet again, don't know where...don't know
>when...."
<LOL> Run away, little man....
Kurt Nicklas
wrote:
> term to suit yourself. It must be very crowded in that cupboard!
No, I am using the term as an American would use it. Why are you so
stupid that you can't understand that?? Are you really so small-minded
that you can't wrap your little mind around the concept? Why don't you
learn about our system of government before you stumble around in here
making a fool of yourself?
>
>
> > No, you apparently don't....
>
> > > It
> > > had nothing to do with the executive arm of government.
>
> > The Missouri Compromise was SIGNED by the PRESIDENT, you moron.
> > Without
> > that signature by the head of the "executive arm" then the bill would
> > not
> > have become law.
>
> > You don't really know how our government works, do you?
>
> More than you. The President signed it because that is your
> constitutional practice.
And he could just as easily have vetoed it, as has happened very many
times.
You don't really get this thing about American government, do you?
> But neither he, or his administration,
> originated what he was signing....it originated in Congress.
All bills originate in Congress, poopy. Read our Constitution.
Sheesh.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Do your students laugh at what an intellectual coward you are as much
> > > > as
> > > > Steve and I do?
>
> > > My students are intelligent people.
>
> > If they're lauging at you like we are then they're quite intelligent.
>
> > > > > > > The fact is, the Confederacy actually started the war...
>
> > > > > > 'Twas the North that invaded the South, bubba.
>
> > > > > It was the Confederates that siezed and occupied Federal installations
> > > > > and navy yards.
>
> > > > 'Siezed and occupied'? Doesn't really sound like much of a war to me,
> > > > bubba.
>
> > > They were acts of aggression. Nevertheless, Lincoln did not
> > > repond....
>
> > Lincoln sent the US army into the South.
>
> After Federal forces and installations were attacked..... You are an
> idiot.
LOL
You just got through saying that "Lincoln did not respond"!
Read what you wrote, stupe.
>
>
> > it was the Confederates who were stupid enough to start the
>
> > > shooting war. First, a battery opened fire on the 'Star of the West'.
>
> > ...which was transporting supplies to foreign troops occupying
> > Southern soil.
>
> A Federal base. Constructed by the U.S. Army, and financed by the U.S.
> taxpayer.
And on the soil of a sovereign nation after South Carolina secceeded.
> Why do you actually care about this? Is it to legitmise in your mind
> the actions (correction, fantasies) of a current group of American
> fruitcakes?
You're an idiot. You should know that by now.
>
> > > Not content with that, they began to bombard Fort Sumter itself.
>
> > > > > It was the Confederates that started the war by firing
> > > > > upon Fort Sumter. Why are you so ignorant about your own history?
>
> > > > Yeah, I've been to Ft. Sumter. Have you?
>
> > > No.
>
> > Make a visit. You might learn something, pinhead.
>
> You evidently didn't
The issue is your ignorance here, titsucker. Can you deal
with it?
> > > > Oh, that's right....Charleston doesn't have an RLD so the area
> > > > wouldn't hold much interest for you.
>
> > > > "Kindly state exactly where Poland and the Czech Republic share a
> > > > frontier with Russia...."
> > > > ....... "Dr" Barry Worthington, 9/18/09
> > > > (Conveniently 'forgetting' about Kaliningrad Oblast)
>
> > > The Czech Republic has no common frontier with Russia. Neither has
> > > Poland...if we are talking about mainland Russia.
>
> > Which we weren't,Worthlessington.
>
> I was.
It wasn't reflected in what you wrote. Mature people don't expect
others to be able to read their minds.
Grow up.
> Let's face it, you probably never heard of the place prior to
> the original exchange.
Certainly I knew about it. That's why I could point out that you were
wrong in asserting that Russia didn't border on Poland, goofy.
>
>
> > The Kaliningrad
>
> > > Oblast (which I intend to visit this year) is an enclave, about the
> > > size of a large English county, and about several hundred miles
> > > distant from Russia itself.
>
> > ...but borders on Poland. Case closed.
>
> Kaliningrad may, but Russia itself does not.
The Kaliningrad Oblast, being part of Russia and bordering Poland,
proves you don't know shit.
>
>
> > > You are a very silly person.
>
> > Oh, the irony!
>
> > "My interest is the swinging sub-culture, as an extension of
> > the 'serious leisure' concept, and its creation of 'embodied space'."
> > ..... "Dr" Barry Worthington,6/7/07
>
> And you still don't know what it means.
As I've told you before,it means you take your degenerate punting
experiences around Europe and package them into some
pseudointellectual tripe.
Simple enough for you?
> And now to something more serious.
>
> IF YOU ARE POSTING IN A NEWSGROUP, YOU DO NOT REMOVE THAT NEWSGROUP
> FROM YOUR HEADER, SO THAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S REPLY WILL NOT APPEAR.
> ONLY DISGUSTING SAD LITTLE PEOPLE WHO ARE DISHONEST, LIKE YOURSELF, DO
> THIS.
>
> If you do this again, I may report you for net abuse...
Don't like my posts? Don't respond.
I laugh at your whining and pathetic threats,Harry.
Hahaha.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:28:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 4 Jan, 23:52, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:07:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
>>>>> never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>>>> Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
>>>> 'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>>> at limiting the practice of Slavery.. you can look it up.. you
>>> probably should.. maybe you can learn something although anyone dense
>>> enough to be a socialist is probably incapable of learning anything
>> You cannot construe the Missouri Compromise as a 'stand against
>> slavery' by a US administration. As I understand it, it was purely an
>> issue relating to factions in Congress.
>
> <ROFL> It's as I suspected.. you are incapable of learning... Oh
> well...
You went to one of those lousy Confederate schools, didn't you? The
Missouri Compromise was a compromise - it wasn't a stand against
slavery. Slavery was expressly permitted in just about any area of the
west where cotton could possibly grow. Slavery wouldn't have been
economically feasible in any non-slave areas laid out in the Compromise.
--Jeff
--
Is man one of God's blunders or
is God one of man's?
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Steve
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 16:28:49 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On 4 Jan, 23:52, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:07:12 -0800 (PST), "Dr. Barry Worthington"
>>>> <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 3 Jan, 12:44, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> and before that you erroniously claimed that the US government had
>>>>>> never taken a stand against slavery prior to the Civil War.
>>>>> Legally (and I mean legislatively), give me one instance of this.
>>>>> 'stand' prior to the outbreak of the war.
>>>> Like I told you before, Dummy, the Missouri Compromise was an attempt
>>>> at limiting the practice of Slavery.. you can look it up.. you
>>>> probably should.. maybe you can learn something although anyone dense
>>>> enough to be a socialist is probably incapable of learning anything
>>> You cannot construe the Missouri Compromise as a 'stand against
>>> slavery' by a US administration. As I understand it, it was purely an
>>> issue relating to factions in Congress.
>>
>> <ROFL> It's as I suspected.. you are incapable of learning... Oh
>> well...
>
>You went to one of those lousy Confederate schools, didn't you?
Actually, I did 1-12 in Montana..
>The
>Missouri Compromise was a compromise - it wasn't a stand against
>slavery.
Bullshit: It expressly prohibited slavery and a large part of the US
territory.
> Slavery was expressly permitted in just about any area of the
>west where cotton could possibly grow. Slavery wouldn't have been
...and expressly prohibited in other places...
Kurt Nicklas
Jeffrey thinks that slavery wouldn't have paid in any way that didn't
involve cotton. He forgets that slaves were first used to tend rice
and indigo.
Poor, ignorant Jeffy.
growing.
Paladin
and continued to be so after cotton growers began to
buy slaves. Is that you point?
> Poor, ignorant Jeffy.
> growing.
Too bad your emotional growth stagnated in the second
grade.
Jeffrey Turner
Rice needs warm and wet conditions. It would have been as impossible to
grow in the northern states of the Missouri Compromise as cotton. While
indigo can be grown as an annual in colder climes, and was grown in
South Carolina as late as 1873, it wasn't commercially successful enough
in the 19th century to sustain a slave economy in the South, much less
the north. You're knowledge of useless trivia might do you some good if
you would only learn how to reason and apply an understanding to it.
Kurt Nicklas
My point, dear little pinko, was to disprove your implication that
slavery
was only good for the cotton industry.
Your point is disproven.
Jeffrey Turner
That wasn't my point at all, you ignoramus. Dive under your covers,
Stalin and the terrists are coming for you. LMAO.
Kurt Nicklas
Yeah, since it's disproven then it no longer becomes your "point".
I've
seen how you operate here before, you cowardly, closed-minded
northeastern
bigot.
"Slavery was expressly permitted in just about any area of the
west where cotton could possibly grow. Slavery wouldn't have been
economically feasible in any non-slave areas laid out in the
Compromise."
So what IS your point if not that which I've just disproved, pinhead??
> Dive under your covers,
> Stalin and the terrists are coming for you. LMAO.
The "terrists"(sic) are you, Jeffy.
<snickers>
*us*
those who are progressive.
Kurt Nicklas
> Good riddance to them. They're just a drain on
> those who are progressive.
The Left is oppressive, not progressive.
Gandalf Grey
"Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
<nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:82b54100-e37b-4108...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 12, 8:20 am, * US * wrote:
> Good riddance to them. They're just a drain on
> those who are progressive.
^ The Left is oppressive,
Just toward fascists like you, Dickless.
Poetic Justice
It was my understanding that you Libs say they tried to leave once and
the Northern Liberals refused and commenced to burning the South.
Maybe you can clear that up for us, were the South all mean, nasty
conservative slave owners that you NOW want to leave the union but back
then were willing to kill 50% of them to keep them in the union?
Gandalf Grey
"Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
news:xJ83n.5353$ap2....@newsfe18.iad...
> On 1/12/2010 7:07 PM, Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> "Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
>> <nick...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:82b54100-e37b-4108...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 12, 8:20 am, * US * wrote:
>>> Good riddance to them. They're just a drain on
>>> those who are progressive.
>>
>> ^ The Left is oppressive,
>>
>> Just toward fascists like you, Dickless.
>>
>>
> How can we get the loser red states to leave sooner?
>
> It was my understanding that you Libs say they tried to leave once and
> the Northern Liberals refused and commenced to burning the South.
You'll leave when we say you'll leave. And we're close to that right now.
Kurt Nicklas
> "Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
>
> news:xJ83n.5353$ap2....@newsfe18.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/12/2010 7:07 PM, Richard Louis Hanson wrote:
> >> "Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
> >>news:82b54100-e37b-4108...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 12, 8:20 am, * US * wrote:
> >>> Good riddance to them. They're just a drain on
> >>> those who are progressive.
>
> >> ^ The Left is oppressive,
>
> >> Just toward fascists like you, Dickless.
>
> > How can we get the loser red states to leave sooner?
>
> > It was my understanding that you Libs say they tried to leave once and
> > the Northern Liberals refused and commenced to burning the South.
>
> You'll leave when we say you'll leave. And we're close to that right now.
Be careful, all! Ricki's got a big Japanese sword that he'll wave in
your face if you don't behave!
Hahaha.
Poetic Justice
Gandalf Grey
news:232b1d79-a4bf-4407...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> I have Two thumbs way up my ass!
Kurt Nicklas
> "Kurtis T. Nicklas of 1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"<nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:232b1d79-a4bf-4407...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I have Two thumbs way up my ass!
Too late.....
Gandalf Grey
GaryDeWaay
dog...com Poetic Justice says...
Awesome.
We can finally rid the USA of the titty-sucking states such as
Mississippi, and can start charging "Redneckistan" hundreds of billions
of dollars a year for defense. The USA will be in the black in 5 years!
Unless of course they want to try and build up their own defense from
scratch.
I wonder if they have an extra trillion dollars laying around somewhere?
--
One guy is talking, perhaps inelegantly, about why he's wholeheartedly
supporting our first black president; the other is wishing the country
had elected a racist. That's exactly the same thing!
-Joan Walsh
*us*
those who are progressive.
"So, the next time all you angry right-wing ideologs start railing against what you
perceive to be Obama�s socialist agenda, please remember that it is you who are largely
dependent on it. It is you who collect the majority of the money that is paid out through
the entitlement system you are crazy enough to want to destroy. It is you whose wages are
so repressed by the corporate masters whose asses you kiss on a daily basis that could not
survive without the kindness of the liberal elites who reside in the donor states.
Ironically, the welfare states of this nation are its red ones."
http://americanreality.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/red-states-are-welfare-states/