• Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:52 PM
    Actually, it demonstrates your original argument was so weak you resort to the most generic libertarian opening statement we've all heard a million times over. It's as much of a reflex as Antifa shouting "RACIST!!!". Anytime you lose an argument (which only took one post, which is pathetic), revert immediately to talking about libertarian philosophy!!! Yeah, let's not talk about how in 1836, South Carolina gave up all title to the land the rest of you claim was theirs in 1861.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:50 PM
    Swordsmyth, you're twisting and contorting yourself it's laughable. You've blamed Southern slavery on the North not blocking the South's own decisions (but also simultaneously argue Northern-supported tariffs pushed the South into secession???), so it's , you argue when South Carolina gives up title to property that they still own it, you then argue it's "joint property" which is laughable, so it's clear you're stuck in your Neo-Confederate ways. It boils down to 1836. South Carolina clearly gave up all claims to the land. You Neo-Confederates argue 1+1 does not equal 2. So, there's no reasoning with that. The best part? The Confederacy got their asses kicked, and it drives you guys crazy 150 years later. That's the comforting factor. Cue the Neo-Confederates, "We all lost in the Civil War....we now have a nationalist government...." Yadda yadda yadda. Anything to distract from 1836 and the subsequent aggression by the South to start the Civil War by firing the first shots.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:38 PM
    Aaaaand, there you went. When you can't win an argument over how South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter back in 1836 and all claim and title to it, revert immediately to a completely different esoteric philosophical discussion over "rights" and "states" and "man". It just demonstrates you can't argue the indisputable fact, so you go cling to your go-to safe space arguments, however irrelevant it is. It took you two whole posts to go from South Carolina ceding Fort Sumter to the US in 1836 to the philosophy of rights and government. Yawn. Hahahahahah.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:35 PM
    Terrible hypothetical given this didn't happen in 1861. South Carolina left the Union and invaded United States territory in the process. Try to stay on topic and post actual statutes---there's been enough diverting by everyone else in this discussion. I just thoroughly enjoy this 1836 statute where South Carolina gave up all claims to the land of Fort Sumter, and get a kick out of the Neo-Confederates insisting it's still South Carolina's land. So, the state's rights folks insist South Carolina can't do that, or that they didn't really mean it?? That's the best part of it all.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:27 PM
    Yeah,yeah, you're conflating a business partnership with the US Constitution to try and salvage your embarrassing arguments. Please, for once, post the statute where South Carolina, after giving up all title/claims, can undo that. PLEASE.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:12 PM
    Terrible analogy as the United States was not formed as a business partnership. Completely separate legal concept.. Seems like you don't actually have facts and are trying to slap some putty on varying concepts to make an argument without actually using facts and the law that applies. You're not making a legal argument---you're ad hoc-ing it as you go. You goofed up when you said a state's land is irrevocably a state's land. I then showed you otherwise and you're too stubborn to admit you had no idea, so you backtrack and toss word salad. "Irrevocable" becomes "transferable". What's even more hilarious is you claiming, "Well, in a partnership, this happens..." Okay, and that has nothing to do with the United States. Even so, using your argument, South Carolina took the whole enchilada---the entire Fort Sumter, and used aggression to do it. Not exactly "splitting the property" as one would have to in a partnership, which doesn't even apply, so it's moronic. I guess your idea of "splitting it" is South Carolina getting 100% of Fort Sumter. Yeah!! That's right! LOL!!! Still waiting for the statute to be posted by you.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:07 PM
    *yawn* still waiting for you to cite the law where "joint property" exists and applies to this discussion. Also waiting for you to point to the law where one maintains claim to it after they've given up "all title/claims" to it. Shouldn't be that hard to find given you're so persistent in arguing it. So, educate me. Post the statute. I'd love to read it. I'm tired of Neo-Confederate talking points, I want the actual damn law you're saying overrides a state legislature's cession of all title of land.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 04:02 PM
    Actually, it does matter. Because when you give up "all title/claims" to a piece of land, you can't "clawback" that provision. It's over with. You have no claim to it. Unless, of course, you invade it, which is what the South did. It's hilariously odd Ron Paulians/Misesians/Rothbardians are rewriting what cession of title for a piece of property actually means. Apparently when you give up title to something, you have rights to it. That's news to me--doesn't resemble anything in America, but okay.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:57 PM
    LOL, a minute ago it was "irrevocable". Now it's "transferrable"? Sounds to me like you had no idea and are faking it as you go. "Joint property"? Do you even know what that means? Another bogus argument that doesn't apply to states ceding land. "Joint property" means multiple entities enjoy title to the property. Last I checked, South Carolina, by their own legislature, ceded ALL TITLE. Your argument is it's "joint property". Okay, so states can never give up any land (your original argument of "irrevocability"), but then you go onto arguing bogus "joint property" line of thought when you got educated by me about the law. You're hop-scotching and can't point to a statute for your claims. Then when I post two laws establishing my very argument, you ignore it. So, it would appear I'm arguing with an irrational person who argues for the sake of arguing. A stubborn Neo-Confederate who just won't admit 1+1=2. He just cannot admit South Carolina gave up ALL TITLE/CLAIMS because, well, they apparently never can. Oh wait, they can after I proved the Constitution allows for it, so uhhh...uhhh...it's joint property!! Yeah! That's it! Unbelievable. Hahahah.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:49 PM
    .....I mean....speechless....THAT'S your retort?? HAHAHAH!!! Yeah, it can be reclaimed---through invasion and aggression, which is what the South did. Thanks for playing! WHOAAAAAA WHOA WHOA!!!! Just a minute ago you said land in a state is "irrevocably theirs". Now you say, "Well, uhhh, yeah, it was transferred..." WHAT?!?! "Irrevocable" means you CAN'T "transfer", it means "cannot be changed", HAHAHAH! What's hilarious is reading the rebuttals on the fly, because you literally weren't aware of the 1836 statute, you literally weren't aware the Constitution allows for states to carve themselves up, and you're throwing out blatantly wrong legal arguments of "joint property" which is a legal term that doesn't even apply here. Show me where "joint property" exists in the Constitution.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:40 PM
    Yeah, I mean why would I think that, right?? It only says it right in the Constitution, and the State Legislature in South Carolina passed the law in 1836 to give up the land. But hey, it's quite clear I could copy and paste the law right in front of you and you'll argue that the English language is not the English language. So, what do you do when debating people who insist 1+1 does not equal 2? Shrug your shoulders and laugh! LOL!
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:35 PM
    HAHAHAHAH!!! Just read what you wrote. You managed to offer a minor concession ("I condemn slavery"...yeah, who doesn't??), but then proceed to blame the NORTH for SOUTHERN SLAVERY?!?!? HAHAHAHAH!!! But then why would that matter??? You blame, again incorrectly, the North's tariffs for the Civil War, so why wouldn't you blame a provision for emancipation put in by the North on the North causing the secession?? It's unreal you how just parry and deflect. You don't like slavery, but you bend over backwards to point the figure at the North and criticize why they didn't do more to stop the South from itself. Denialism. But hey, it's over and done with. The South was poorly led--which has to be heartbreaking for Neo-Confederates to hear given they're bitter and stubborn and insist the South was superior in every way. Too bad the South didn't think strategically. The strategic thinkers of the North knew when the South seceded that slavery was de facto abolished because they pulled out of an arrangement where the North HAD to enforce and protect Southern slavery. When the South left, bye-bye went the Fugitive Slave Laws!! LOL, what dorks who couldn't think beyond the day in front of them. Without slavehunters in free lands, slaves just up and left in droves. Stupid move by the South who were rather impulsive. Fort Sumter embodies Southern thinking: be the first to throw the punch, that way you alienate all foreign sympathy, and rally the North to unify in the cause of reunification.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:18 PM
    Wow, that's completely wrong. Go read the Constitution, buddy. "Irrevocably theirs", huh?? Seems like the Constitution states otherwise---that state legislatures get to determine that. Doesn't seem "irrevocable" to me. Yeah, go sit in the corner. I'll repeat, again and again, the South Carolina legislature ceded the land of Fort Sumter to the federal government in 1836. You don't get "do-overs". Sorry, your premise is completely wrong, AND, you followed it up with an ignorant statement that once a state is a state, their land is "irrevocably theirs". Wrong, try again.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:14 PM
    LOL, "PR". Emancipation was a "public relations" deal. "Further destroy the Southern economy"....an economy built on slavery? LOL, seems like you have contempt for emancipation. I can understand being upset over the invasion (well, the South should've never fired upon Fort Sumter to begin with. Strategic error, but the South weren't very forward thinkers), but your venom you spew over the 13th/14th Amendments is indicative of your sympathy towards Southern slavery. If emancipation "further destroys the Southern economy", then destroy it. Your economy is built on an abomination. But yeah, I don't glorify the North, but the Neo-Confederates revisionist history of the South is indeed disturbing---where they romanticize the institution of slavery by quickly deflecting and pointing elsewhere with Whataboutisms. At the very least, the North was far more strategic in their thinking. The South, by seceding, voided the Fugitive Slave Laws. They signed their own death warrant. Their economy, built on coercion, was doomed as slaves fled in droves. Not to mention all the military blunders of the South. It's a shame they didn't have better leaders like the Neo-Confederates like to believe they did.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:05 PM
    Here we go again. Text from the 1836 statute passed by the South Carolina legislature: What part of that do you not understand? Apparently all of it, because you keep stating "joint property". History made up in your head because it fits your Neo-Confederate narrative. Look at the facts---it's obvious you're in denial.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 03:02 PM
    WTF? It wasn't "joint property". It was federal property. Using your logic, the State of Michigan is "joint property" of Massachusetts and Michigan because, well, Michigan was carved out of the Northwest Ordinance in land that was formerly Massachusetts. So, Massachusetts, if they seceded today, could, what? Tax Michigan?? LOL
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 02:57 PM
    Uhhh....what?! The South Carolina legislature, in 1836, gave up ALL TITLE to the land. How can one argue they have the right to claim it back?? LOL. Read up on what "title" is. If you have no title to the land, and if you fire upon it and occupy it from the foreign force that was there, that's an aggressive invasion. Just because you secede doesn't mean you get claim to land you ceded title to decades prior. Doesn't work that way.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 02:54 PM
    Sorry, but the land was ceded in 1836, which means you can't come back in 1936 or 2036 and be like, "Mine. I want it back". You gave up title to it. Meaning, you have no claim to it. Just like how many early states were much larger than they are today. Massachusetts cannot claim parts of Michigan today because they didn't like how the Northwest Ordinance turned out. Using your logic, all territorial cessions can be declared null and void after-the-fact and devolve to the original state that existed there.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 02:45 PM
    Nice try. The federal government DID have a problem with it---see 13th and 14th Amendments, and note the South's blatant disregard for human rights by scoffing and re-enslaving freedmen following the Civil War.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    09-01-2017, 02:41 PM
    Ugh. This again?? Seriously??? South Carolina ceded the land to the federal government in 1836.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-31-2017, 02:35 PM
    Last I checked, the South fired the first shots onto a foreign country at Fort Sumter. Who was violent, again? :)
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-31-2017, 02:35 PM
    Liar. I posted stats on this already. 2/3rds of all imports came into New York. The bulk of the tariffs were on textiles, sugar, and tobacco. Show me where the South liked clothes, sugar, and tobacco more than the North did. Because for your argument to be correct, Southern consumers had to like consuming things more than the North did, which is absurd. Sorry, the tariff collection was in overdrive in New York and Boston ports, with New Orleans, the largest Southern port, being 1/10th the revenue of New York. Historical fact is tariffs were paid mostly in the North, not the South, so whining over how "unfair" it was for the South due to tariffs is factually wrong and intellectually dishonest. Your strawman also sucked as it painted the South as a bunch of whiners that any tax at any level could be something Neo-Confederates could cling onto for arguments as to why they seceded. "I paid a penny, you paid 99 cents, therefore I get to leave because it's unfair I paid a penny." Good to see you throw in the towel.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-31-2017, 02:32 PM
    Nah, I think not. When all you got left is a rhetorical statement on matters of fact, you've dealt all your cards.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-31-2017, 02:32 PM
    Read up on the "Mason-Dixon line". Maryland is a southern state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States But, it is hilarious you're resorting to "Whataboutism" trying to diminish Confederate slavery by pointing to other southern states not in the CSA as if that's some sort of defense.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-30-2017, 03:19 PM
    Glad I could win the argument and the only retort left is, "Well, now we have a big central government." Divert. Divert!!!! DIVERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-30-2017, 03:17 PM
    Plenty of mistakes?? You had no idea export taxes were illegal in the United States. You've gone through life with a flawed premise! LOL! I KNOW you said the 2% tariff was a hypothetical---that's why I re-affirmed it!! You struggle with reading comprehension here. I keep saying "I KNOW you're hypothetically saying 2%" and you follow up with bolding the letters as if I didn't "get it" the first time. I did. YOU don't. That's WHY I said EVEN HYPOTHETICALLY if the South seceded due to them paying 2% of the tariffs, your argument cannot be, "Well, tariffs were a major cause of the secession." Because your argument is the South should've paid nothing?? Because if they paid a dime in taxes then you can say, "Well, they were justified in seceding!!!" On what planet could one argue THAT?
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-30-2017, 02:59 PM
    Stats to back this up? You don't have any. You're parroting propaganda you've read from another Neo-Confederate. I posted the top tariffed goods that came into the United States. Your argument is the South paid more because they relied on imports more. Oh, really? The top tariffed products which made up the majority of the tariffs were textiles, tobacco, and sugar. So, your argument is the South bought more clothes, smoked more tobacco, and consumed more sugar than the North?? How much sense does THAT make? I guess Northern consumers just didn't buy clothes, smokes, or liked sweets? LOL Yeah, they had about as much right seizing federal property as any other invader. Sorry, once you sign over title to a property, you forfeit claim. You don't possess perpetual ownership. Just because you want something and it's in your way doesn't mean you can start shooting at the people in it.
    98 replies | 1594 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-30-2017, 02:51 PM
    Uhhh, the North didn't enslave freedmen. The South sure did, after the Civil War. The South used the 13th Amendment as a method of re-enslavement---you literally found the same freedmen on the same plantation they were previously enslaved to. You don't find anything congruent to that in the North. But hey, just take a step back and observe the Neo-Confederates being apologists for Southern slavery. "It wasn't THAT bad, c'mon now...the North had racists, too!!" Yeah, the North didn't enslave them. There's a massive difference.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-30-2017, 02:47 PM
    Not sure what I meant by this? Are you aware, sir, the South owned slaves in 1860? Just checking. And what "northern" states owned slaves? Are you referring to the border states that didn't secede? Hardly the North. Take a geography class sometime.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Gaddafi Duck's Avatar
    08-30-2017, 06:20 AM
    What?! The North didn't reinstitute slavery during Reconstruction---Southerners tried to end-around the 13th Amendment with vagrancy laws. In fact, the North detested plantation owners throughout the 19th century because they were tired of enforcing fugitive slave laws and found slavery to be abhorrent, albeit not every Northerner was an abolitionist. Still, they had higher standards than the South. Oh, yes, I'm well aware the North were racist compared to today's standards. But the South had slaves AND were racist. Slavery is about the worst thing you could do to a man, so yes, it was a special southern problem.
    29 replies | 616 view(s)
More Activity
About Gaddafi Duck

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
465
Posts Per Day
0.20
General Information
Last Activity
09-01-2017 04:52 PM
Join Date
04-11-2011
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

09-05-2017


09-01-2017



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast