- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I've already disproven your claim. Agree to disagree.
You did nothing of the sort. I will not agree with inaccuracy.
I've already disproven your claim. Agree to disagree.
No, taxation isn't slavery. If you don't like the tax laws here your always free to leave.
Failed state + civil war =/= anarchy.
Half of America's water supply comes from private water utilities firms, and another 15% on top of that drink from privately owned wells.
80% of electicity in the U.S. is produced by private utilities.
I don't know what roads you've been driving on. Regardless the responsibility of road upkeep and repair is contracted out to private agencies as is the construction of roads themselves, but they are payed by the state, however, they could easily pay for the construction and upkeep of these roads through tolls. You do realize that the toll roads payed for by taxpayer money are still collecting tolls even though you've already payed for them?
Ah the state racketeering scheme at its finest, you are literally are paying the state protection money, if you don't pay these professional police forces aka gangs will come and slap handcuffs on you, if you resist you will be beaten or killed.
If this was a free society you would have a right to opt out of such "services".
According to any rational observer, the state is a legalized monopoly which has the sole authority to exercise the use of force.
Petitio Principii begging the question logical fallacy because this line of argument must pre-suppose its own conclusion that the state is legitimate:
Yes us crazy lunatics what with our crazy outrageous ideas like the contractual society, the right to self ownership, and the non-aggression principle, I mean that's way crazier than centralizing the use of force into a singular monopoly which is not only above the law but writes the law.
Statist - Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social.
Oh before I forget The Mark and Blackdog, liblady did state that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated. She said it in post #116. She asserted and you both defended, so now you have to provide proof to back up her claim.
Since she asserted that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated she had to provide proof to back up this assertation. She failed to do so. I provided proof of my statements regarding literacy in the south.
#1-liblady in post #105 stated, "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." This infers that the typical Confederate soldier was uneducated. Therefore, you are wrong that someone didn't say that Confederates were uneducated.
It's to bad...
#1 We did not defend her statements. We attacked YOUR wronngful statement about her statement:
#2 She AGAIN did not say the typical soilder was uneducated. She said "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was."
Everyone seems to know what she meant except you? Wonder why that is.
#3 Literacy according to your own source does not equate education. The South also according to YOUR source says they were less educated.
We are done here.
It's to bad...
#1 We did not defend her statements. We attacked YOUR wronngful statement about her statement:
#2 She AGAIN did not say the typical soilder was uneducated. She said "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was."
Everyone seems to know what she meant except you? Wonder why that is.
#3 Literacy according to your own source does not equate education. The South also according to YOUR source says they were less educated.
We are done here.
it's always nice when your opponent provides your source material. ;-)
Funny, but my source material shows that they were educated. You failed to show that they were uneducated.
at some point you should realize you have failed, utterly. don't worry, you'll have other opportunities.
IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.You did nothing of the sort. I will not agree with inaccuracy.
Ah -- the "love it or leave it" argument.No, taxation isn't slavery. If you don't like the tax laws here your always free to leave.
She said that they were uneducated and provided no proof. Ergo, my statement about what she said is factually correct. Try again.
Funny, but my source material shows that they were educated. You failed to show that they were uneducated.
The only person that failed in this debate would be you. No proof means your argument fails. It must be nice to not have to provide proof for ignorant statements.
Um no....
"i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." does not equate "Are you saying that all southerners were uneducated and ignorant?"
In fact her reply to your question was "no, i'm saying that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated."
according to your article this was indeed the case.
On top of that your were trying to be sarcastic because of her comment to Bicycleman about Robert E Lee.
Going to lie some more?
IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.
And while the preamble and the federalist papers maigh be used to support arguments regarding the intention of the Constitution, we all know they carry no legal force.
Question:
If it is impossible to secede from the union, then it is impossible to re-admit 'secessionist' states to the union because they never actually left said union.
HOWever, the 'secessionist' states, as part of their process for 're-admission' to the union, wre require to ratify the 13th-15th amendments.
The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?
What don't you understand about suppress insurrections?
First of, all, -I- asked a question:
The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th ratified unconstitutionally?
Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at answering it?
Second of all, nothing in anything I have posted in any way questions the federal authority to suppress insurrections.
Really, when you post, do try to not waste everyone's time.
Really.I was not answering your question because it was irrelevant because of Article 1 section 8.
...which I have fully addressed.I asked you a question...
First of, all, -I- asked a question:
The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th ratified unconstitutionally?
IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at answering it?
Second of all, nothing in anything I have posted in any way questions the federal authority to suppress insurrections.
You're taking issue with the statement that Texas v. White makes secession unconstitutional?Which he did not respond too.
He responded to your statement...
I noticed it. It doesn in any way take issue with the federal power to suppress insurrection.As I have shown, that is not true. Notice the part marked in red.
You're taking issue with the statement that Texas v. White makes secession unconstitutional?
I noticed it. It doesn in any way take issue with the federal power to suppress insurrection.