A shiny bald head, no neck, and 32 chins are the least of his problems. In a peculiar and ridiculous effort to explain why secession is unconstitutional, Weird Al recently made a stupefyingly stupid claim. Al fatuously argued that in order for a new State to be admitted to the Union, it would "obviously need the permission of the other States" (no kidding, the hapless dunce actually said that). Accordingly, Weird Al explains, a State would just as obviously need the "permission" of the other States in order to leave the Union..Weird Al is, evidently, quite unfamiliar with Article 4, section 3, of the Constitution. The simple fact is that under Article 4, section 3, the States have almost no say in the admission of new States at all. In point of fact, unless a new State is being formed by the junction of two or more States, or is being formed within an existing State (even then only the consent of the States immediately concerned are needed) the States have absolutely no say, and it is the Congress that admits new States into the Union. So his whole " argument" against secession is thoroughly and utterly annihilated. And there is, of course, no language anywhere which prohibits a State from leaving the Union. None. He's just so damn dumb.
I see Connie is running out of arrows in her quiver so she is resorting to personal attacks. Cute.
The complaint from Meyer is obscene in its hypocrisy. Very recently Makey posted a video of a Southern Nationalist on his blog. Thereafter Mackey and his fellow bloggers, almost like a pack of wild hyenas, cruelly and ruthlessly attacked the man for his physical appearance. This, by the way, after Mackey had piously announced that he does not permit rudeness or insults on his blog. Meyer, of course, did not come rushing in and complain that Mackey was out of bullets and was reduced to personal attacks. Once again, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Yep, Austin ... I didn't do any graphics that made Mackey look ugly or anything. Corey's grasping at straws....
Yeah Connie...I am grasping a straws. Seriously? I am not mocking someone with photoshop.
Corey, you don't have to use Photoshop to mock somebody. Simpson, Mackey, et.al., mock the VaFlaggers, the SHPG, the SCV, the UDC, call them names, ridicule them, malign their intelligence -- simply because they see the civil war differently than the floggers. It's odious, it's sickening; and it's far worse than anything I've done.
It seems that Meyer is still deeply offended that Connie has mocked the physical appearance of Mackey. It also seems that Meyer is not at all offended by the fact that Mackey and his fellow unwashed troglodytes routinely and ruthlessly mock the physical appearance of their philosophical adversaries. The hypocrisy is endless...
Weird Al is, evidently, quite unfamiliar with Article 4, section 3, of the Constitution. The simple fact is that under Article 4, section 3, the States have almost no say in the admission of new States at all. In point of fact, unless a new State is being formed by the junction of two or more States, or is being formed within an existing State (even then only the consent of the States immediately concerned are needed) the States have absolutely no say, and it is the Congress that admits new States into the Union.Oh look, Austin/Sara Lee/Clarissa/Caldwell/Reed/Jennifer Cotton strikes again. It cites Congress's duties of adding states without realizing: 1, that Congress is made up of representatives from respective states (hence, representative government); and 2, that it does not defeat Al's argument but leaves others suspecting that Congress has the authority of giving "permission" for unilateral secession. It, is also void of any knowledge of the history of Constitutional interpretation. It's always fun to watch people attempt at grabbing straws and wriggling out of arguments. It's especially hilarious when those same imbeciles claim victory after putting together a ridiculous argument based on cherry picked quotes and sections of the Constitution. Keep the humor coming.
Austin, secession is not the only part of the equation the Floggers have wrong.Yankees claim they fought and died by the thousands to free the black man from slavery 150 years ago. Modern day events have a way of proving/disapproving whose version of the historical accounts of Slavery are correct. Who is telling the truth about slavery, and who is outright lying about Slavery? A close look at some Yankee states today answers that question.The US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that minorities in Michigan must be given preference in school admissions. This placed blacks on an even keel with whites in school admissions. All that may change in a few days. Soon the high court will decide whether the State of Michigan can ban the consideration of race in school admissions.Since 2003 many states have passed modern day black codes and Jim Crow laws designed to take admission to higher education opportunities from minorities. Michigan amended their state constitution to bar blacks and Latinos from the institutions of higher learning.The most prominent to pass these modern day black codes, or Jim Crow laws, as Yankees love to call them, are Michigan, California and Washington state. Yep, dem Yankees don't want blacks and Latinos in their state. Michigan, California and Washington are modern day Jim Crow states, and are saying to minorities, "If you want an education, go South, and get out of our state! The Courts will force the South to take you, but not in Michigan, California and Washington!"Yep, dem Yankees love minorities alright. Yankees claim they fought and died by the thousands to free the black man from slavery 150 years ago. Now they running blacks out of their state. The truth comes out in mysterious ways. The truth is, Yankees were the first to passed black codes and Jim Crow laws, and today is no exception.If you believe Yankees died by the thousands to free the black man 150 years ago, I own the deed to the Golden Gate bridge, and will sell it to you cheap.
All true Janice. And if you recall, Lincoln himself adhered to the practices you describe. In fact, that is why Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery into the territories, because it would mean blacks in areas he wanted for whites, and he openly said so.And did I read that right? Is the tubby know-nothing nincompoop from North Georgia State College of Whatever really asserting that the Sates and Congress are one and the same? Can he be that effin stupid? Does the moronic twit truly not know that Article V, for example, authorizes the Congress to propose amendments, but only the States may ratify? How does the clumsy boob explain this if Congress and the States are one and the same? Is it really possible that this miserable unlettered cretin does not understand the constitutional responsibilities that are given to Congress and those that are given to the States? What a laughable contemptible farce he is.
Simpson says, "Sometimes the real ugliness is to be found inside a person . . . ," referring to "No More Mosque in America." In Simpson's and the Floggers’ case, the ugliness is more than skin deep for sure. The ugliness is showing outside like a bad sore on a Navy recruit's behind. Simpson and his followers have gone to praising Muslims, Shariah Law, Mosques and Islam, and ridiculing Jews, Christians and Mormons. Did I leave anyone out? That’s pretty much the same avenue the radical, murdering abolitionist took in 1860. Preacher, abolitionist and murderer John Brown comes to mind first.Simpson writes so poorly his analogy is impossible to understand. What does the building of Mosques and freedom of religion have to do with Christians and the KKK?I wonder how female Schroeder will feel when she is forced to don her Burka, give up her driver's license, give up her freedom of speech, and submit all her energy, life and sustenance to one man who happens to have 25 other wives who are far better looking than her. I've heard the ugly wives do all the laundry and dish washing.
It is worth noting that there is only a teensy-weensy Muslim population in Arizona, and many cities and townships have no mosques at all. Judging from that practical reality, many of the citizens of Arizona live not by the mantra "no more mosques"' but rather, "no mosques at all in our Arizona towns and cities". Which by the way, seems also to be reality at the all-white Crossroads blog. No Muslims there either.As for "ski-cap Schroeder", a more grisly and masculine face on a woman is scarcely imaginable. She better stock up on the Palmolive dish-washing soap.
And did I read that right?No It, you just can't read. I do love how you draw straws to argue against a statement that I never made. Truly classic! It is also apparent that your ineptness in reading comprehension prevents you from understanding Article V of the Constitution. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (my emphasis)Article V says two thirds of state legislatures may also propose amendments, and that the state legislatures, or conventions, ratify amendments. Surely "IT" knows what representative government is, or does "IT" persist in making gross generalizations and over simplifying issues to meet Its ends? Much the same from this crowd, haha. Keep those dimwitted arguments coming though, it gives me something to laugh at! lol.
Before she blocked me, I saw on Konate's FB wall or some place a post saying she had chemo the next day. That probably accounts for the headwear in some of her photos. I won't make fun of that. But her arrogance, hypocrisy and ignorance are fair game. As for Simpson and Mackey -- as long as they make fun of people's intelligence, everything about them is fair game.
Hahahahaha! The vulgar dimwitted North Georgia schlub did it again! The witless dumbass actually advanced my argument for me! Hohohohahahahehehe! Hey moron, Article V is EXACTLY and PRECISELY as I said it was; Congress proposes and States ratify. Thanks again for shooting yourself in the foot. Schlub.Oh, and by the way, do you mind also posting the text of Article IV section 3, and showing everyone where, in order to admit a new state, the "permission of the states" is required, as you and Mackey hilariously, and ignorantly, maintain. Hohohohahahehehe!Ignorant schlub.
"It" continues to have trouble reading. Let's revisit exactly what "It" wrote. And did I read that right? Is the tubby know-nothing nincompoop from North Georgia State College of Whatever really asserting that the Sates and Congress are one and the same? Can he be that effin stupid? Does the moronic twit truly not know that Article V, for example, authorizes the Congress to propose amendments, but only the States may ratify? How does the clumsy boob explain this if Congress and the States are one and the same? Is it really possible that this miserable unlettered cretin does not understand the constitutional responsibilities that are given to Congress and those that are given to the States? What a laughable contemptible farce he is.And then he claims victory by sayingArticle V is EXACTLY and PRECISELY as I said it was; Congress proposes and States ratifyNow let's look at Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.Now let's look at the definition of precisely. pre·cise·lypriˈsīslē/Submitadverb1.in exact terms; without vagueness.Notice how Article V goes way more in depth and avoids the generalizations and simplification of the small minded "IT"? You really cannot invent this type of idiot, "IT" has already done that for us.
Also, I never maintained, nor said, that the states admitted new states. I do, however, recognize that Congress is made up of state representatives which does make those decisions. It, doesn't seem to know what representative government is based on Its comments here. I'm waiting for the next big laugh where he continues his straw man arguments and misreading of the Constitution so It can falsely claim a victory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9aU8-ofdA
Looks like the "Creepy Stalker Thing" from the North Georgia State College of Whatever is a pure masochist. This illiterate bumbling "Thing" is just too comically ignorant to concede the obvious fact that the Congress, and not the States, admit new States to the Union. And the intellectual beating the "Creepy Stalker Thing" is taking as a result is appalling. "Permission of the other States". Lol. That's as funny as "White v Texas". This bozo is good for deep, eye-watering belly laughs, but not much else. When will this "Creepy Stalker Thing" go away?
LoL!!!This fool is still trying to say that I think states admit new states into the Union. And notice he is now referring to me as an object, which is something I've been doing to him for awhile. Honestly, can "It" not come up with his own unique arguments per-person? HA HA
LOLOOLOL!!! This miserable stalking miscreant is still trying to squirm out of its stupid assertion that a State "obviously needs the permission of the other States" to be admitted to the Union. And notice how since this "Creepy Stalker Thing" has been objectified, it now tries to mimic that tactic? Polly want a cracker? Hahahhrhehehohoho! More belly laughs!
Why does this creepy stalker thing keep humiliating itself in this manner. It is so vulgar.
Too bad for you, I never asserted such things. And did you really just use the same accusation I did, as a response? I mean, how retarded are people in Springfield?
The imbecilic and very, very, creepy stalker from the crummy no-name North Georgia State College of whatever puts his fat foot in his fat mouth one again. Lol.
Appeals court to consider Calif. school's Cinco de Mayo American flag banPublished October 17, 2013Associated PressSAN FRANCISCO – Racial tensions and gang problems were plaguing a Northern California high school when three students arrived for classes in 2010 wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo.So when students told administrators that trouble was a possibility because of the American flag attire, the students were ordered to turn their shirts inside out or go home.They went home, ... Cinco de Mayo is observed by some as a celebration of Mexican heritage.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/17/appeals-court-to-consider-calif-school-cinco-de-mayo-american-flag-ban/
Wow, whoever you are, are you really so infantile that you cannot read retorts? There you go bashing my education while being too much of a coward, void of Southern honor, to post your information. You then post the same responses I do, as your insults then laughing about them revealing that you are an imbecile. You've gone from humoring to plain bewildering. Perhaps you should return to the asylum. I'm sure they are looking for you.
Lol. More buffoonery, vulgarity, ignorance, and brainless stupidity from the gutless reprobate at the North Georgia State College of Something. And whatever troubles the furry beast, is no small thing. No Sir, the creature desperately needs professional help, and now.
Ha ha!! You are too simple minded to express individuality! Bless your heart. I'm sure you'll grow up one day, and hopefully gain an education that you so desperately need.
Hahahaha! The useless, grunting, monosyllabic, furry beast from the crummy no-name North Georgia State College of Whatever is lecturing on education! What a truly grotesque and perverse spectacle it makes.
Thus sayeth the coward, too afraid to reveal its name, and too afraid to post its credentials as it moves from white supremacist website to white supremacist website on the internet. It thinks its clever, but it is easy to track the moron from 18th street.
Looks like the foul, filthy, gutless, creepy stalker thing from North Georgia is prowling in the gutters and back alleys again. What a grotesque existence it has, and what a dirty life it leads.
Rob and Austin, y'all are making my blog look bad.
Connie, your blog post is nothing but an insult, what did you expect in your comments section? BTW, I'm not the one using an online thesaurus to post as many obtuse adjectives and insult someone's education, while being too much of a coward to post my real name and background. Of course, if I were posting on White Supremacist websites under the same handles, I'd probably hide as well.
My posted image, in both execution and intent, is only a fraction of the level of insult spewed out by Mackey, Simpson and fellow floggers. A SMALL fraction. It is grounded in humor, not malice, as their posts frequently are. The image doesn't do any harm, while harm is certainly the intent of some of their blog posts.
Connie, I regret the effect these acerbic exchanges have upon your blog, but this bloated, gutless, stalking schlub from the crummy no-name North Georgia State College of Whatever is very creepy. And at the blogs where he and his ilk gather, they are free to hurl insult after insult, knowing full well that they will be protected from receiving any insults in return. It is imperative that this fool realize he cannot and will not always be insulated and protected in this manner. He's really nothing but a dumb kid, so he may even learn and grow from the experience.
Lol, yea right
Says the imbecile too cowardly to revwal himself. What lesson does it have besides flawed logic and hate. Perhaps if you intend on teaching lessons, you might summon the courage to reveal yourself rather than hide. BTW, you are not banned from my blog, you are suspended until you acquire the balls to post under your own name.
And the brainless, hate-filled, creepy, gutless stalker from the crummy no-name North Georgia State College of Whatever says, well, says nothing actually.
I was just recently alerted to another Mackey thread, and as usual, he is ass-over backwards wrong in almost every particular. In this case, Mackey breathlessly argues that Ft. Sumter was federal property, and that by firing upon it, the CSA commenced the war. By itself, this argument is too tedious, dull, and commonplace to warrant any attention, but in this case Mackey has, rather comically, persuaded himself he has uncovered some rare information with which few are familiar. Mackey observes that Sumter was owned by the U.S. through a cession promulgated by the South Carolina Legislature in 1836(predictably, Mackey doesn't bother to explain why the U.S. began working on Sumter in 1829, when it was not ceded the territorial rights until 1836-but that's another story) The resolution upon which Mackey relies reads as follows:""Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law..."Somehow it does not occur to the obtuse, calorically challenged, and clueless "Student of the American Civil War" that by perfidiously occupying Sumter with a hostile garrison, Major Anderson was obstructing the civil and criminal processes,and openly resisting and palpably defying the civil authority of South Carolina. Of course in so doing, he caused the U.S. to be in flagrant breach of the cession. So even if South Carolina had not seceded, it still would have been entitled to recover Ft. Sumter.In truth, none of that matters in the least; it was just fun to obliterate and decimate another thoughtless and empty Mackey "argument". But insofar as Sumter is concerned, the fact that South Carolina had seceded months before fully negated the ownership claims the U.S. asserted. As of December, 1860, as far as the U.S. was concerned, Ft. Sumter was on foreign territory. The most the U.S. could lawfully expect was a compensation for its loss.
Austin,Sumter would not have been occupied by Anderson had it not been for the secession of SC. Therefore through the act of secession SC breeched the agreement and Anderson had then every right to defend himself.
Corey,You are mistaken. Anderson was not defending himself, he was an unlawful intruder, and he was illegally violating the territorial integrity of both South Carolina and the Confederate States of America. In order for your argument to be correct, you would need to demonstrate that secession is prohibited by the constitution. Now then, in order to be scrupulously fair, I do invite and encourage you to do just that. You may want to start with Article I, section 10, as that section carefully enumerates all the powers that are denied to the states. But in all honesty, you will find that the power to secede is most certainly not prohibited to the states.
The constitutionality of secession is a moot point given that the fort was/is Federal property.
Ft. Sumter was rightfully the property of South Carolina and the Confederate States of America.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or ConfederationBoom!
Corey, that means no state that's part of the union. None of the Southern states joined the Confederacy while they were still part of the USA.
Excellent call Connie. Corey, that provision is mostly to prevent any state from entering into alliances with foreign powers, and it has very limited domestic applicability. And as Connie properly observes, each state of the CSA seceded absolutely independently of the others. Once they had left the United States they were, as free and independent Republics, obviously free to associate and Confederate with whomever they chose. Why do you think Lincoln or Chase (or anyone else) never made that argument? Truthfully, it is very basic constitutional law.
Too bad Austin has no documentation to back up that claim. I'm sure he will post the statute, and then incorrectly argue that the property reverted back to the state...and he'll be wrong. Sad days. I'm sure next he'll tell us that South Carolina rebelled against the United States because of states' rights.
What a pathetic ignorant schlub.
Comments are welcome, but monitored.