Posted on 04/21/2007 7:44:44 AM PDT by BnBlFlag
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?pollId=44465
He was a different Al Gore then. Prolife progun antigay good old boy. He did a complete 160 when he got the vice presidency. He is a deranged lunatic now.
thus, i conclude that the DYs who say that repeatedly, are either STUPID or intentionally LYING, like the BIGOTED, DIMocRAT, extremists that most DYs are.
as i said in #118, IF you don't want to be thought to be a DY, don't act/think like one.
free dixie,sw
Anyone who doesn't believe that the Battle Flag's placement in SC is NOT race related must be smoking some of Willie Nelson's stash, not that there's anything wrong with it...
Still waiting for the gays to adopt the confederate flag as their own.
we traditional southerners call that area "up there", "Yankee-occupied Virginia".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Mormons were against slavery, although they did not allow people of color into their church for several decades.
free diixe,sw
free dixie,sw
You are so full of it. The south didn't want the norths land. They just wanted to keep their own land from the hands of the north. It was all about the right to secede from the union. The north didn't care about slavery. They needed our cotton and tobacco. Of course that fact stopped being taught years ago when history was rewrote.
I don't always agree with you, watie, but darned if you didn't hit the nail on the head with this description!
On the contrary.
The “Southern Strategy” revitalized the GOP and led to its many victories from 1968 on.
as i frequently say to my beloved, "You have to be patient with me. God isn't though with me yet." my faults are LEGION, but i'm 100% right about DAMNyankee BIGOTS; they are ARROGANT,UNthinking, south-HATERS, who are NO BETTER than racists.
free dixie,sw
You are still here? I thought Mr. Robinson got rid of all the liberal Rudy pukes. How’d he miss you?
However, any state would have been able to end slavery on its own. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural, the Corwin amendment only made explicit the idea that slavery was a state matter implicit in the Constitution ("holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."). What made the Corwin amemdment acceptable and the Crittenden compromise unacceptable is that the latter also guaranteed slavery in the territories. But just to understand your position better, are you saying that slavery WAS a matter for the federal government over the states, or do you agree with Lincoln's position?
So, are we going to hear from your friend about that Yankees burning the Alexandria synagogue? I can't wait to forward the information to the congregation and tell them that they have their own history wrong.
me thinks. Miss Kathy that you are a little
tizzy from your afternoon kickapoo
Bullfrog
“Who said the fort no longer belonged to them?”
SC and the Confereracy.
“What rule of law will transfer ownership without the owners consent and without compensation?”
The same one that allowed the U.S. to keep everything in the colonies after they took it from Great Britain. But I suppose you would argue that we should give that back, too.
“Refusing to sit back and allow the South to steal whatever federal property they could get their mitts on is not an act of aggression.”
I agree. The South did not steal it, they assumed possession. (See above.)
One mildly humorous reply in response to massive insult by stand, and I get all kinds of ridicule and name calling by the big thinkers.
In other words, beating the other side in a war. For the record, Britain ceded all it's holdings in the United States in the Treaty of Paris, so there was a legal basis there.
"Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty ... relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.Article 7: ... his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same;
No rule of law, huh? I thought not.
The same one that allowed the U.S. to keep everything in the colonies after they took it from Great Britain. But I suppose you would argue that we should give that back, too.
That was called the Treaty of Paris, agreed to by both sides. The proper term for what the South did was grand theft.
I agree. The South did not steal it, they assumed possession. (See above.)
So if I get mugged in the near future, the mugger is not stealing my wallet and watch but merely assuming posession?
Change ‘North’ to ‘South’ and you’ve just described yourself down to a tee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.