marjorie taylor greene wants a "National Divorce"

Good question. We were NOT automatically at war the last time the country split. The South hoped to leave peaceably. But when they finally sent troops to fight south of Washington at Bull Run, we were at war.

No, if the leftwing part of the country accepts the secession, we would not be at war. I suppose there could be other reasons to boycott sales of food to the North, such as them not accepting poor blacks from our cities running north if we wouldn't give them free food or housing anymore.

Sounds like you'd try to start a war.

Unfortunately for you, the number of liberals in Red States is far greater than you think. Without Gerrymandering and voter suppression, the GOP wouldn't control the Red States. That's why they'd need to make it a one party state quickly. It's more likely that the Red states would face a mass revolution very, very soon. The blue states could just sit back and laugh.

BTW - Who exactly would the red states sell their food to if not the blue states? Would they just let it rot?
 
What are the odds of XXX? You take something that is so isolated, and run that as your fact? :auiqs.jpg:
Does a person with XXX fit your definition of a woman being a person with XX?

But really, I should have known you'd run like a red stater as soon as your supposed unbreakable simplistic definition was shown to be simple to break.
 
Does a person with XXX fit your definition of a woman being a person with XX?

But really, I should have known you'd run like a red stater as soon as your supposed unbreakable simplistic definition was shown to be simple to break.
This one with triple X was pretty hot.
iu
 
And you still don't have an answer for your definition of woman.
Well it's true you haven't yet answered my query as to whether a person with XXX fits your definition of a woman as XX.

Be that as it may, I've never asserted I can define a woman. That was you, saying it's simple.

Well, we've seen how simple you are.
 
Does a person with XXX fit your definition of a woman being a person with XX?

But really, I should have known you'd run like a red stater as soon as your supposed unbreakable simplistic definition was shown to be simple to break.
It is simple from my side. But, we all know it's not so simple from your side.
In fact, it's complicated, right? :eusa_whistle:

XX simple
 
I love MTG! She just SAYS it! She says what everyone is thinking but no one else will say. A true radical ---------- and on my side.
Sure glad Mighty Tough Girl is on your side and not ours!!! Bigly!!!
 
There is something completely feral about Marjorie. I bet she fucks like a dog in heat!!
 
Well it's true you haven't yet answered my query as to whether a person with XXX fits your definition of a woman as XX.

Be that as it may, I've never asserted I can define a woman. That was you, saying it's simple.

Well, we've seen how simple you are.
Yeah, defining a woman is complicated for you.
How often does XXX come up in say....1,000?
You use a anomaly in nature that is extremely rare and say "Look, Look".
By the way....they are still a woman. Just an extra chromosome.
Try and keep it real. :rolleyes-41:
 
Good question. We were NOT automatically at war the last time the country split. The South hoped to leave peaceably. But when they finally sent troops to fight south of Washington at Bull Run, we were at war.
Pity about that Fort Sumter thing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top