ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, it wasn't. Saying something is yours doesn't make it yours. The United States wasn't independent until it won. The Confederacy never won - it was never independent and consequently owned nothing.Yes it was.
Congratulations, you have just made the most incorrect statement in Debate Politics history. There is no prize, but you do get the consolation of knowing this post stood out. Thank you and good luck in your future endeavors.
Congratulations, you have just made the most incorrect statement in Debate Politics history. There is no prize, but you do get the consolation of knowing this post stood out. Thank you and good luck in your future endeavors.
Yes it was. If Cuba decides to end the lease of Guantanimo bay it is no longer U.S. territory. That is the most accurate analogy of the Fort Sumter issue, when the south said GTFO the fort was no longer within federal territory. I don't understand how people can't understand that. Or is it Won't?No it wasn't.
Why don't you address my actual arguments instead of talking to your friends?
Because it doesn't belong to them anymore.
Don't have to, you've been schooled across this forum on historical and constitutional issues. I've watched you contort your interpretations of these matters since you've been here.Perhaps you can back up your insult with a point by point analysis?
The Tenth Amendment does absolutely nothing to contradict the fact that the states committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.
So I have arguments, court rulings, the Constitutional definition of treason and presidential documents ... and you have ... snark. Thank you for your concession. This was fun.
My point stands.That's not even close to the most incorrect statement in DP history. I doubt it would even make the top 100 list this week.
Yes it was. If Cuba decides to end the lease of Guantanimo bay it is no longer U.S. territory. That is the most accurate analogy of the Fort Sumter issue, when the south said GTFO the fort was no longer within federal territory. I don't understand how people can't understand that. Or is it Won't?
Why. Every time I've tried to engage you all you've done is brush it off.Why don't you address my actual arguments instead of talking to your friends?
My point stands.
Actually, you don't, but I can see that you're more interested in posturing and insulting than actually using logic. Suit yourself.I have the founders and even the author of the paper that says you are full of ****. You have people that just fought an illegal war trying to avoid jail.
It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.Wasn't the Confederacy founded on property rights? What gave South Carolina the right to take United States military property?
Wasn't the Confederacy founded on property rights? What gave South Carolina the right to take United States military property?
I don't recall brushing you off.Why. Every time I've tried to engage you all you've done is brush it off.
The south didn't pay taxes?
It was on US land.It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.
Sure you have. I bring up points and you play this little "nuh-uh" game. I can't pinpoint how to describe it but it's something I've been picking up on.I don't recall brushing you off.
It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.
Don't have to, you've been schooled across this forum on historical and constitutional issues. I've watched you contort your interpretations of these matters since you've been here.
Not according to it's location.It was on US land.
Actually, yes. Can you show me when the United States gave up property rights? I don't recall the government ever signing that contract.Not according to it's location.
No, property rights don't mean **** if you don't OWN the property any longer.Translation: Property rights don't mean **** if we want it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?