“That difference between secession and rebellion is not of my invention, but rather is well documented.”
Then it should be easy for you to produce a source making the distinction that you say is “well documented”. So far you haven’t produced anything.
Unlike you, donny, I don’t find it difficult to produce documentation showing that secession and rebellion are but two words for the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
“Throughout history, many different groups that opposed their governments have been called rebels. Over 450 peasant revolts erupted in southwestern France between 1590 and 1715. In the United States, the term was used for the Continentals by the British in the Revolutionary War, and for the Confederacy by the Union in the American Civil War. Most armed rebellions have not been against authority in general, but rather have sought to establish a new government in their place.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
“Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity. Threats of secession also can be a strategy for achieving more limited goals.”
“Types of secession
“Secession theorists have described a number of ways in which a political entity (city, county, canton, state) can secede from the larger or original state.”
“Secession from federation or confederation (political entities with substantial reserved powers which have agreed to join together) versus secession from a unitary state (a state governed as a single unit with few powers reserved to sub-units) Colonial aka “wars of independence” from a “mother country” or imperial state”
A distinction you could have argued that would have been valid is that secession, unlike rebellion, isn’t necessarily accompanied by violence. So you see, donny, it isn’t that tough to produce evidence. At least when the point being argued is valid. When your point is make-believe, well then you are reduced to just insisting that you are right because it’s convenient to your argument to pretend that there is a difference. Good luck with that one, donny.
“Your inadequate education or tedious misrepresentation is no reflection on me.”
The only “reflection on you” is your own writing, which reveals that you think ad hominem is a compelling argument in your favor. Bears a distinct similarity to the monkey cage whose residents regard poo throwing as a sign of cleverness.
...and then you provide "documentation" which supports donmeaker's contention, not yours. Nicely done!
The only “reflection on you” is your own writing, which reveals that you think ad hominem is a compelling argument in your favor. Bears a distinct similarity to the monkey cage whose residents regard poo throwing as a sign of cleverness.
Now, what is the term for accusing someone of the actions you yourself are guilty of? Oh yea....Liberal Projection. LOL