Is the intention a Civil War ?

[Uncensored2008]

So I was wrong about Lee by being right. An interesting perspective.

I am sure you do guarantee. However, I think I will simply make my judgment based upon your lack of understanding shown in your posts rather than your guarantees.

Your "judgement" based on your prejudice rather than any sort of evidence...

Thus the reason you are a leftist.

You are the one who said we learned a lesson. Apparently the lesson is that if you break the law you will suffer the consequences. As to the rest, you certainly do have a rich imagination. Do you always think in bumper stickers?

We did learn a lesson. The fiction that has been promoted is that of an invincible force, that resistance if futile. What we see is entirely different, that far from invincible, the police forces are rather fragile and exist ONLY at the sufferance of the people. And this is how it should be.

 

[candycorn]

Its not 1865 anymore.

Officers and senior enlisted owe their allegiance not to states, I'm afarid to tell you.

So when the rebs attacked Fort Sumpter, they were firing on other rebels? Who knew?

Um, what are you talking about?

The southern military did not follow the commands of the Union army! If anything, the Civil War demonstrated that the military would absolutely divide. The southern soldiers did not remain loyal to the Union.

If the southern soldiers were rebels as well, what/who were the Confederates firing on at Fort Sumpter?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the southern soldiers were rebels as well, what/who were the Confederates firing on at Fort Sumpter?

You've had way too many paint chips for one day.

Like most leftists, you know nothing of history, and even less about the Constitution.

Ft. Sumter was decommissioned in the 1830's. It was recommissioned right before the incident and Union Troops were moved into it, essentially an occupying force. President Buchanan had dispatched U.S. Major Robert Anderson to "quell the situation." The real issue was the blockade of Charleston Harbor. The Confederates did not engage the occupying forces, but rather interdicted supply ships. Buchanan did nothing to provoke the situation, but incoming President Abraham Lincoln notified the state that he was sending supplies accompanied by gun ships. Thus started the war.

So sparky, the force in Ft. Sumter was a Union force.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Judging by your posts, you wouldn't know the constitution if it smacked you upside the head.

What a clever retort, for a leftist

As for the rest, I can't take any supposed adult seriously who resorts to calling people "retards." Sorry.

Try to grow up a little bit, mature, graduate high school, the whole nine, and maybe we can discuss these things in a few years.

Another leftist retard who thinks demeaning anyone who isn't loyal to his ruler is "winning."

You're dismissed.

Acting like a petulant child certainly isn't winning. Of course I seriously doubt its an act, so there;s that.

I do love it though when folks of limited intelligence are getting dismantled in a debate, they always seem to resort to lashing out and personal attacks. Just like little children.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

So when the rebs attacked Fort Sumpter, they were firing on other rebels? Who knew?

Um, what are you talking about?

The southern military did not follow the commands of the Union army! If anything, the Civil War demonstrated that the military would absolutely divide. The southern soldiers did not remain loyal to the Union.

If the southern soldiers were rebels as well, what/who were the Confederates firing on at Fort Sumpter?

They were firing at union Soldiers.

Of course I didn't make the post you linked to there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Acting like a petulant child certainly isn't winning. Of course I seriously doubt its an act, so there;s that.

I do love it though when folks of limited intelligence are getting dismantled in a debate, they always seem to resort to lashing out and personal attacks. Just like little children.

I was going to ignore you as just another mewling demagogue spewing talking points from the hate sites; but....

What exactly is it that you think is "dismantling" anyone? You've yet to offer anything even approaching a rational or reasoned argument.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Acting like a petulant child certainly isn't winning. Of course I seriously doubt its an act, so there;s that.

I do love it though when folks of limited intelligence are getting dismantled in a debate, they always seem to resort to lashing out and personal attacks. Just like little children.

I was going to ignore you as just another mewling demagogue spewing talking points from the hate sites; but....

What exactly is it that you think is "dismantling" anyone? You've yet to offer anything even approaching a rational or reasoned argument.

Thank you for once again proving my point.