View Poll Results: Texas secession?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Anytime they want

    69 60.00%
  • Bad times only

    2 1.74%
  • No way

    41 35.65%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • Other

    3 2.61%
Page 45 of 124 FirstFirst ... 3543444546475595 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #441
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Explain, if you can.

    Quantrill
    Don't feel like reading, or don't like what it says?

    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition
    Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.

    You want to say slavery wasn't the only issue, that's fine. You're probably correct. You want to say it wasn't an issue? Dead wrong, it was an issue.
    Last edited by rocket88; 05-20-12 at 10:16 PM.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #442
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,775

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Did you even notice his issue and mine and few others is with the accuracy of that ruling? What exactly makes you think people aren't aware of what it says?

    "the accuracy of that ruling?" Just what do you mean? Are you of the opinion that you and your friends are more knowledgeable in Constitutional law than the justices on the Supreme Court.

    Of course, a few people are aware of the ruling, that does not mean however they actually know much about the subject. Simply because you disagree does not mean it is not a valid ruling.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  3. #443
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,775

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    If you can disprove it according to history, then why don't you instead of whining about what I said.

    Quantrill
    Me "whining"? I think not.. your pattern of response seems to be attack, attack, attack but without an artillery backup, You know - exploding shells of real history and law. Instead I see frequent assertions but seldom evidence of true understanding.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #444
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Perhaps. Did the USA repay Britain for all the money spent building early America, after we seceeded from the British Empire? I've never run across any info that we did...
    The fledgling U.S. granted elite British land owners back their property after the war as if nothing had happened. The colonies were never a state of Britain, they were an outpost that Britain for all intent ignored until after it's war with France was over and it needed tax slaves to pay back it's war debt. That said, how could the colonies seceed if it wasn't a recognized state to begin with?

  5. #445
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    "the accuracy of that ruling?" Just what do you mean? Are you of the opinion that you and your friends are more knowledgeable in Constitutional law than the justices on the Supreme Court.

    Of course, a few people are aware of the ruling, that does not mean however they actually know much about the subject. Simply because you disagree does not mean it is not a valid ruling.
    Appeals to authority do not worry me, Somerville.

    If you can defend the court in their ruling and get around obvious issues with it which everyone knows by now that has been following this thread, do so. If not, and you wish to just say I'm stupid that is your right, but don't expect it will win you anything.

    Its interesting to note that Chase years after the ruling said session was legal. Then again, Chase was more of a politician than anything else and he was known to say something is this and then turn around and say it was the exact opposite.
    Last edited by Henrin; 05-21-12 at 04:05 AM.

  6. #446
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Don't feel like reading, or don't like what it says?

    Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.

    You want to say slavery wasn't the only issue, that's fine. You're probably correct. You want to say it wasn't an issue? Dead wrong, it was an issue.
    Don't want to talk to a link. Its a forum. Hopefully a certain degree of knowledge is gained by the poster so that they can offer an explanation to what they have learned. Nothing wrong with proving a point by showing its source. But I like some explanation.

    The statement made was that the South fought to preserve slavery. That was a blanket statement. Easy to say. If a man is trying to rob me and I resist, some can say I fought just for money. That money was to provide for my family. without it I couldn't. Yet I fought just for money.

    The same for the North. Was slavery an issue? Of course. But not because they were concerned about the plight of the negroe, except some who were fanatical abolishonists. It was because it fueled the Southern economy. So, the North on the whole was against the Southern slavery hoping to hinder the Souths economy. Not because they wanted to free the black man.

    The point here is, that the South was obedient to the Constitution. Regardless of what you think of slavery. The North viewed the Constitution with disdain because it protected the Souths agricultural economy by protecting slavery.

    Go ahead and whine about slavery, but don't say the South was treasoness. We were obedient to the Constitution. And if we were obedient to the Constitution, why did the North pursue war against us? Who is the traitor now?

    Quantrill

  7. #447
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,648

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Ratification by the States or else it would not exist. If it had been for the people of the Unitied States as a whole, as a Nation, then no need for ratification of the States or anyone as the delegates in Philedlphia already represented the US. And when they finally voted on the Constitution they created, then that should have been it, if we the people were we the people of the Nation as a whole. But it wasn't it because we the people were the people of the States and so the States needed to ratify.

    Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.

    Quantrill
    All that is baloney. Worse, its yesterdays digested baloney.

    We both agree that a mechanism was set up to ratify the Constitution. And we both agree that the people played the major role in this ratification. You seem to feel, that because it was done on a state by state basis, that somehow- someway, this means that the people were not the important factor by that the states were the important factor.

    A state is a man made contrivance that does not vote, does not speak, does not do anything independent of the human citizens who comprise it. The men who wrote and signed the Constitution speficied that CONVENTIONS in the states ratify the Constitution. There already were existing state governments in place and they could have been charged with the ratification process and one could argue as you do that it was STATES - through their established government - that ratified the Constitution.

    But that was not the reality of it.

    The Founders specified that CONVENTIONS made up of citizens - not the already established state government - handle this process.

    WE THE PEOPLE means just what it says. If Madison or any other Founder wanted it to read WE THE PEOPLE OF THE SOVEREIGN STATES then he should have pushed for that and got the other Founder to agree to that wording.

    But that did not happen.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #448
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,648

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Don't want to talk to a link. Its a forum. Hopefully a certain degree of knowledge is gained by the poster so that they can offer an explanation to what they have learned. Nothing wrong with proving a point by showing its source. But I like some explanation.

    The statement made was that the South fought to preserve slavery.

    Quantrill
    Every year or so on sites like this, we have these go arounds. The evidence is always the same. We have the official statements from the states who seceded and in state after state after state THEY list the preservation of slavery as one of their main motivations in seceding.

    This issue is dead and buried. The only way anyone can deny the significant and important role slavery played in causing the various states to secede is to deny the existence and authenticity of the statements from the states themselves.

    This issue was settled a century and a half ago.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #449
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,648

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Appeals to authority do not worry me, Somerville.

    If you can defend the court in their ruling and get around obvious issues with it which everyone knows by now that has been following this thread, do so. If not, and you wish to just say I'm stupid that is your right, but don't expect it will win you anything.

    Its interesting to note that Chase years after the ruling said session was legal. Then again, Chase was more of a politician than anything else and he was known to say something is this and then turn around and say it was the exact opposite.
    APPEALS TO AUTHORITY!?!?!?!?!?

    This is at least the third time you have used this phrase in the last few weeks. Each time you employ it, you do so wrongly.

    Please read this - it will explain to you what an appeal to authority actually is.

    Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

    Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
    Person A makes claim C about subject S.
    Therefore, C is true.
    This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

    This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
    You have been misusing it to mean acknowledgment of historical reality. Somebody tells you that a certain thing is legal and you say they are appealing to authority. You are telling us that a fallacy is committed by those who point out the historical reality of a Supreme Court ruling. That is silly.

    Please look at the bolded section. The fallacy is committed when the person in question - in this case the US Supreme Court - is not an expert. In our system of government, the Supreme Court is the expert. Somebody telling you that the Supreme Court decided this issue is NOT employing the fallacy of an appeal to authority. It simply is a recognition of the historical record.

    If you read further, you will discover that an Appeal to Authority is not in itself wrong or improper in debate. It can be employed usefully and properly. And when done so, there is nothing wrong with it in the least.

    The mistake you are making is one often made by people with no formal debate training. It happens. Now you can learn and avoid it in the future.
    Last edited by haymarket; 05-21-12 at 07:44 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #450
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.
    I agree that the constitution is a treaty or compact between the states, not a compact between individual people at large. The people of the states, as sovereign political societies, created the federal government to act as their agent, to perform certain specific enumerated functions. The federal government is the product of an inter-state agreement, not a broad social contract.

Page 45 of 124 FirstFirst ... 3543444546475595 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •