Truman wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:Ok, Truman, tell me exactly where Missouri formally seceded from the Union. Any time now.
No. Last I checked, the search function on T1B works just fine, and even if it didn’t, I’m pretty sure your Interweb comes equipped with a Google. So you’re welcome to look it up for yourself at your leisure.
I'm not looking for your opinion, dumbass. I already know what that is, and I already know it's wrong. In any event, your surrender flag is duly noted.
But since we're on the subject, here's an image that pops up on the first google hit for Confederate States of America:
Seems that Missouri is included in the area of
States and territories claimed by CSA without formal secession and/or control.
Check and mate. I know you're a Confederate sympathizer, and you want your state to have been on the Confederate side formally. But the mere fact that you want that doesn't mean that's what happened.
As for treason... So ALL those Southern patriots that swore an oath to protect the Confederacy and took up arms against the Fed were convicted of treason and faced a firing squad or a hangman’s noose at the cessation of hostilities, correct? Funny, that little nugget seems to have slipped past the history books. Or perhaps they were assimilated back into the fabric of this nation and took up the task of helping to rebuild her...
You don't really want to go
there, now do you?
Last I checked, Orenthal James Simpson has never been convicted of murder. Yet that little fact doesn't stop any number of people from referring to him as a murderer, now does it? It's the same thing here.
And you did know that Jefferson Davis was indicted (although never tried, let alone convicted) for treason, and spent a number of years in prison as a result, didn't you? And that Robert E. Lee lost his right to vote after the war? Small potatoes compared to what could've happened, granted, but it's not entirely accurate to say that neither went completely unpunished, now is it? For that matter, Andrew Johnson's pardons may have had just a little to do with the fact that no Confederate leaders were ever convicted of treason. Call it a hunch. And of course, Presidential pardons inherently imply either guilt or a pretty strong likelihood thereof. The President doesn't go around doling out pardons to people who are completely innocent of any offense.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:BTW... It's "in my dome" only to the extent that it merits a spot on the short list of the dumbest things ever posted on these boards. And that says a lot.
And you're right about one thing: I ain't no mvscal. I'm far more of a gentleman than he is. In fact, here I even gave you an opportunity to come correct, say, "You were right, I was wrong," and move on. Together with irrefutable proof of same, I might add. And you couldn't even do that.
Wrong about what? The War?[/quote]
Well, yeah, although that wasn't the topic of this thread.
Your limited knowledge of American history and lack of writing skills as compared to mvscal’s, who happens to excel at both?
If you think Missouri formally seceded, then it's inherently obvious that I've forgotten more American history than you've ever learned.
As for mvscal's writing skills, I suppose that if fifth-grade level insults are your thing, they don't come any better than mvscal. Personally, I prefer to operate on a higher intellectual plane than that.
The fact that a throw-away line posted in a smack forum over two years ago is still pinballing about the cavern your pea-sized brain calls home?
Translation: "I was just trolling." Anytime a poster goes to this card, it's a sure sign that he's lost.
Terry in Crapchester wrote:I know it's de rigeur around these parts for iodots to entrench themselves even farther into iodotic positions once called out on same, but I thought you were smarter than that.
It is also
de rigueur to be smart enough to know that when one decides to call out a fellow poster by name on a smack board, one might also expect just a bit of
push-back. as well. Or so I’ve heard. :wink:
You picked this up, yet didn't manage to pick up that I was calling you out on a comment that was quite clearly alluded to in the title of this thread?
Here, let me dumb it down for you.
If you had said something like, "Lacrosse? Sorry, not a fan," then there's nothing to call you out on. It's a subjective reaction, different from mine, but neither is inherently right or wrong. When you throw in a comment that implies that lacrosse players aren't exactly tough, it adds an element of objectivity to the discussion, and in your case, the objective comment is just plain wrong. That's the reason for that.
Still confused? I'll dumb it down for you even further with a comparison.
Even though I live in what could be considered a golf hotbed, I'm not a fan of golf, and I've said so on several occasions. That, again, is a subjective reaction, not inherently right or wrong. In response, some golf fans have made the comment that it takes skill to play golf at the level of the PGA tour players. That comment, of course, adds an element of objectivity to the discussion. If I were to refute that fact, then I would be wrong. What I have done instead is to counter with the argument that it also takes skill to play chess at the level that Garry Kasparov plays chess, but that doesn't mean that I'm about to sit down and watch one of his chess matches from start to finish.
Of course, all analogies are weak, and this is no exception. It would be pretty stupid to state or imply that it doesn't take skill to play golf at the level of someone on the PGA tour. It is exponentially more stupid, though, to state or imply that you don't have to be tough to play lacrosse. :wink:
