1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 10/7/10 09:06 AM, bcdemon wrote: LMAO, this gets better and better. The Israelis can't operate a border crossing sufficiently enough to prevent truckloads of fresh food from spoiling, so they deny sending in fresh food?
That's like saying, "We suck, and you're going to suffer for it" .
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&ar t=14423
The UN is demanding a resolution to the issue and are blaming Palestine.
With as much as the world hates Israel...if they aren't being blamed...it takes a lot.
"But Christopher Gunnes, spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides crucial aid to most of the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza, charges that on February 5, the militants seized 10 vehicles full of rice and flour (more than 200 tons), and two days earlier took more than 3,500 blankets and 400 cases of food from the agency's distribution center in Gaza. He insists that the supplies must be returned, and "we have to be given by the Hamas government credible assurances that this will not happen again," otherwise - he concludes - "we will continue with the suspension of our imports." In any case, the agency has enough food and other supplies for the next few days."
So Hamas stole multiple vehicles full of food and supplies. And EVEN the UN blames Hamas.
With those supplies, if Palestinians starve, no one is to blame but Hamas.
Fail man.
At 10/6/10 01:03 AM, Antimatter500 wrote: fox likes to call themselves "news" while only making chicken shit right wing editorial arguments, and purposefully scaring the living daylights out of people to make them conform.
that is not news.
/argument
Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox news, is an ardant left winger. He has supported EVERY democrat candidate for president since the 70s. Claiming that a life long Democrat is scheming to tilt the news to the right is moronic.
While Fox's opinion segments are heavily conservative, their news segments are left of center.
You're kinda done bud.
At 10/6/10 01:14 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That's the way it should be in my mind. I'd also like those who think Islam is getting "too much favorable coverage" to please give some examples...and not examples that boil down to "duuuuuh, they're evil...so anything that doesn't portray them as evil is bad".
"I do believe the 'Church of Murderous Bastards' should get the same favorable coverage as 'The Church of People Who Find Lettuce Attractive'."
We have a faith that admits that the first 5 centuries of their religion were spent in murderous barbarism, killing anyone who said 'wait'. Yet we question why people object to positive classifications to it? Nazism actually made the trains run on time. Yet we only mention the rampant slaughter of the Jews. Pol Pot cleared massive amounts of farm land. Yet again...we only mention the slaughter. Stalin thought science could be fun. Yet we only talk about the dead bodies in mass graves.
Why aren't we kinder to Islam, which has produced next to nothing, while ignoring their bigger attrocities? The horrors!
At 9/30/10 06:00 AM, poxpower wrote: The constitution is a very very broad and vague legal document.
Actually, the Constitution has NO vagueness to it. The federal government has the following powers: (listed). That's it. Nothing else. Pretty clear. Claiming that the constitution is vague is like claiming a rent agreement is vague...
"Now, I know they say I have to pay on the first of every month. But is that by 8 am or 4 pm? Does that include a leeway period? What if Alaska explodes? What if I watch Ghostbusters and don't remember the ending?"
This is foolish. The wording of the Constitution is clear. "Congress shall make no law..." means Congress can't make a law. End of story.
Healthcare is immensely complicated.
And is excluded from the powers of the government. But whatever.
NO law ever needs to be 1000 pages long. Ever.
At 10/7/10 10:02 AM, poxpower wrote: Well that's why you don't want a totally private firefighting system.
Poor people will be hit hardest by fire insurance and so will opt to not pay which will then result in situations like this where firefighters will not put out the fires for poor people.
That's basically what you'll get for a system.
Let's point out.
This is not even a remotely private system. This is the public government system.
Using a governmental action to attack the private system is stupid. End of story. Done.
So the basic problem is...
Even if Islam is intrinsically tied to violence, and that violence was responsible for 9/11, it does not give us the right to take away the right of property of every single Muslim regardless of violent affiliation if that right offends us (such as building a mosque within walking distance of the WTC).
It is really that simple.
Even under the most generous reading of city/populous rights to private property, sharing a religion with a lunatic (and there are peaceful Muslims), does not give a city carte blanche to violate property rights. Some public good/harm must be shown. And there is none here.
End of story.
At 3/17/10 04:14 AM, hengen wrote: Norway actually has enough factories and already stored the oil profits, if all the oil were to suddently disappear we would still be fine for years to come. Also everyone gets free school untill they are 16, pluss u get free college aswell! Suck it u capitualist pig!
Well, the free schooling has certainly done wonders here. This is a gramatical and spelling nightmare.
YAY SOCIALISM!
The problem with the rather silly idea that fascism is opposed to socialism...is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the fascist governments were socialist. The Nazi party were the National Socialists. Mussolini was a devoted socialist his entire life.
This site offers more difference between socialism and fascism than there really is:
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism /socfasc.html
But hammers home the point. They're not really all that different.
Facism was state run, privately owned business. The state made EVERY decision. You may own your company, but yo will run it how we like! By contrast, Communism took it over directly. These are mild differences. And when viewed in the "left/right" spectrum, it is clear that both ideologies are leftist.
At 3/6/10 12:30 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I like that everyone in this discussion ( not so much our thread--the media in particular) is bitching about the homosexuality aspect of this situation and no one has said anything about the fact that he was driving drunk.
If he's a senator he should be setting an example. Pretend there's no ass ramming sweaty sex even in this scenario. He shouldn't be driving if he's plastered.
Yes. That is the problem. Morons said "gay bar" and that overrode "drunk driving". And many people on both sides of the aisle took it up.
Gay rights and all. HOORAY!
At 3/5/10 03:40 PM, fli wrote: Not only is he an opponent of gay rights-- but he's gone his way to demonize the community. I don't know about you, but a gay bar is the last place he needs to be seen at.
You know, this is a neat little story about the guy.
Only problem...it isn't true.
If you actually look at his record, and his rational for voting certain ways, he has cast ONE "anti-gay" ballot in his career. And that ballot was against recognizing out of state gay marriages after the people of California voted to not recognize gay marriage. That is...he voted with his constituents. Which is what a politician is supposed to do. The horrors!
So people are OK with the 1st Amendment being violated as long as it's against the "right" people? Sad.
At 2/7/10 05:39 PM, Musician wrote: Stuff
So in other words, if the facts don't fit the narrative, you twist them until they do?
Sorry, I feel no further need to fuel your delusion that the IMMEDIATE aftermath is irrelevant, but 20 years later after milions of more things affected the landscape that Roe vs Wade was the defining factor.
Sorry, not impressed.
At 2/10/10 11:50 AM, Elfer wrote: Please to take a course on the mathematics of dynamic systems.
Allow me to give a brief explanation: The effect of warming is amplified by GHGs released by melting ice, but that doesn't create an unstable system, it just creates one with a higher temperature equilibrium. It's not like the Earth will soak up heat forever and never ever radiate any back out into space. The higher the average temperature, the more heat is radiated, so it would balance out with the effect of GHGs at a new point. Once solar activity drops, that means less heat input, which means ice reformation and a reversal of the trend we were just discussing.
The problem we're having currently is that we're taking carbon that was stored in long-term geological deposits and pumping it right into the atmosphere, which is very different from melting ice.
So in other words, we keep pumping out the GHG, which keeps melting the ice which...
HOLY SHIT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
Except in simpler terms.
In short, it's unmitigates horsecrap. Heating leads to more stuff melting which releases more CO2, which leads to more heating, which leads to...we get it by now right.
So are we done pretending to be smart now?
At 2/7/10 01:25 PM, Musician wrote: As I've already shown, polling indicates that approximately 82% of all scientists believe in significant AGW, and that percentage gets even higher when a scientist specializes in climate science. I'm sorry but posting these petitions here is just disingenous, 30,000 people? out of how many? This information means nothing to the debate.
No, sorry. Fail. Your sources use numbers to prove the opposition wrong. As soon as someone uses the tactic back you cry foul. Next?
The first study you linked to was criticized because it included people in the "consensus" who felt the world was warming, but didn't believe man was the cause,. They would be in the implicit category.
You're going to need to provide a citation for this one. I've never heard of Orestes being criticised for this before. If you're going to be the first I suggest you provide some examples of when she misinterpreted support for the consensus within a paper.
No I DON'T need to provide anything for this. The study says that people believe that warming is happening AND/OR it is caused by humans. By the study's own criteria it is bunk.
Science doesn't work like that. Everything starts with competing hypothesis and as more evidence shows up the hypotheses that explain the evidence better get moved forwared. Back in the 1970s we didn't have the data on rising global temperatures that we did now, so it makes sense that there would be competing hypothesis. The fact that there wasn't a consensus in the 1970s doesn't show weakness in the scientific community, because starting without a consensus is a staple of the scientific community.
It does discredit them if a general "consensus" said cooling, after a consensus said warming before, and is now saying coling again.
Gotcha. Consensus then is irrelevant because consensus now is more informed. Yawn.
Exaggerations and Alarmism? No, what it shows is that scientific hypothesis are not always correct. Which is actually the mechanism by which the scientific community works. Multiple hypothesis are formed and the bad ones are weeded out.
Gotcha. So a large degree of scientists believing something doesn't make it true,
Please tell me you're a parody.
Making observations like that are short sighted. Sure, someone in the world may be having a cold winter, but another part of the world may be experiencing the hottest summer in it's history. That's why climate scientists look at temperatures of the world as a whole.
No, they're not. If CO2 heats the world, and every yeat sees an increase in CO2 than the world temp should increase every year. Otherwize the theory is wrong.
See, no it doesn't. I never said anything about constant down activity. I said that sunspot activity has been dropping since the 1980's, that is sunspot activity as a whole. If you'll look back at my argument you'll even see I posted a graph showing that there was not constant down activity. And even if I was wrong, sunspot data still does not correlate with the current warming trend now does it?
But it hasn't. You're wrong.
Until of course the earth is put through an ice age due to changes in the planets orbit relative to the sun.
Then this years winter should be less than last years, or you're wrong.
If what I'm saying is wrong go ahead and prove me wrong. If you're right you should be able to prove me wrong on a scientific level, correct?
which I'll pass on given your bad record.
Ad Hominem, lovely.
There's no if, bud. I've put forward real challenges to your record. You simply said they don't matter. You're not a scientist and you dob't even play one on TV.
At 2/10/10 04:32 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I read in the BBC that France has just refused a Muslim man who forces his wife to wear a Burka, citizenship.
That's right boy's & girls, you want to force a woman to wear a demeaning piece of clothing that has nothing at all to do with the Muslim religion...You aren't getting to be a French citizen any time soon.
The quran speaks to the believing women remaining covered. The burqa has something to do with Islam.
At 2/7/10 02:00 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so do scarves and balaclavas here in the winter, yet i have a right to keep warm without having to care for whether or not i'm identifiable because all i'm doing is keeping warm.
at an airport/customs/security? take it off to verify your identity, end of story.
Yet no one wears scarvers and face masks inside during a snowstorm. No one refuses to take off those things for religious reasons. Bad comparison.
how is that a logical conclusion or a real problem? hiding ones identity is not unusual when crime is involved... and neither is eventually finding the culprit.
You're not very bright are you boss? And you haven't thought about this at all have you?
At 2/6/10 01:57 AM, Musician wrote: Sometimes, however, morality does not coincide with reality. Legislated abortion for example, has been empirically proven to be a failure. Such a program not only fails to prevent abortion, but it breeds poverty, and with that higher crime rates. From an objective stand point the pro-life morality does not coincide with the reality of the situation.
Oh goodness. Um, sorry chap, but epic fail. Poverty rates increased quicker after abortion was legalized. As did crime. But don't let facts stand in your way.
The case for legislating against gay rights is even clearer: it persecutes a completely harmless group of people for no other reason than "my morality says they're bad". A group of American's are stripped of their rights because of a "morality" held by an irrational majority.
Because me not giving you a pat on the back and saying "good boy" deprives you of your rights? eye roll.....
At 1/29/10 07:38 PM, poxpower wrote: So a scientist could disagree completely on 99% of the things conservatives stand for, but like tax cuts so he'd answer he's a conservative.
No, sorry. Conservative is an overall view. You must agree with more than one platform to be conservative. You're muddying the waters.
That is, quite simply, horsecrap.
Like I told you, scientists don't side with politicians, politicians side with scientists.
If scientist realize politicians from a certain party tend to ignore science and just push their opinions over reality, they won't side with that party because they know the politicians are full of crap.
You contradict yourself. But I doubt you realize that.
For instance, if you saw a dude say "hey join my party, we believe in a flat earth" you'd just tell him to fuck off and it wouldn't matter what his ideas are on healthcare reform or zoning permits.
Again, no, sorry. No one joins a party, a group, whatever, that they don't agree with 51% or more.
That's what happened with evolution. People who have studied science KNOW about that subject and when they heard what was going on, they realized instantly that the party pushing for banning it was retarded.
But people who aren't educated don't know about this so they don't get it.
Gotcha. You're an ideologue.
At 2/5/10 08:06 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so why not ban other religious symbols?
because its stupid, why the hell would you bother banning something people wish to wear?
The burka hides your identity. I think you'd be hard pressed to find another simple that does so.
burqas? who gives a flying fuck?
Let's take this logic to it's conclusion. Someone in a burka murders someone. In a lineup, you have people covered in burkas. Which one is it? It's voting time. The poll attendant checks the ID against the person and...they're both in a burka.
Etc.
The makes a real problem.
At 2/6/10 02:23 AM, Musician wrote: 8. The Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling before in the past. Way before industrialization. This proves that carbon dioxide can't possibly be having the impact we're attributing it to.
So what caused the former periods of global warming? Most likely increased solar input caused massive ice sheets to begin to melt, releasing large amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere further amplifying the effects of the solar output. This is how it is assumed to have happened in the past. However, the current trend of global warming CANNOT be explained through increased solar output. Why? Because as shown in Debunk #5, solar activity has been decreasing since the 1980s. Seemingly, the only possible reason for the current trend of warming is an increase in green house emmissions.
This is nonsense. The earth would've boiled over if that was the case. Warming would've lead to more ice melting which would've lead to more warming, which would've lead to more ice melting...yadda yadda yadda.By this silly theory, once warming starts, it is irreversible. Of course, the fact that such warming reversed in the past proves this wrong.
Sorry, Musician, but two of your previous points were strawmen, one was an out and out lie, and the others were questionable. And this simply relies on accepting your word as gospel, which I'll pass on given your bad record.
At 2/5/10 03:42 PM, Musician wrote: Being a man of science and logic myself I find it very hard to swallow some of the sheer bullshit being lobbed in the climate change debate.
Being a man of common sense, I feel, the same, which is why some of your points immediately cried BS.
1. There is no scientific consensus on climate change
assessment of the the consensus within the scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci entists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientif ic_assessment_of_global_warming
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-
american-scientists-against-agw.html
The idea that no meaningful disagreement exists is utterly laughable.
The first study you linked to was criticized because it included people in the "consensus" who felt the world was warming, but didn't believe man was the cause,. They would be in the implicit category.
This is akin to saying that a woman died because she was struck by a car. 100 doctors study her. None of the 100 disagree that she's dead, though many disagree that she was struck by a car. Therefore 100% of the scientists implicitly or explictly agree.
2. In the 1970's scientists were certain that the world was cooling and that we were headed towards another ice age
Scientific hypothesis are not always correct, this does not discredit the scientific body as a whole. Only a fool would believe that
It does discredit them if a general "consensus" said cooling, after a consensus said warming before, and is now saying coling again.
It shows that even scientists are prone towards exaggerations and alarmism.
3. In my hometown we're having an extremely cold winter. So much for global warming!
Of course, no one is making this foolish argument. But if we are having one of the coldest winters on record (we are), and last year was unseasonably cold (it was), it hurts the argument.
4. Green House Gasses only makes up about 3% of the atmosphere. How can something that makes up such an insignificant amount of our atmosphere have any real effect on climate?
That's uh, wow. No one has EVER made that argument.
5. Climate Change is more closely correlated to sun activity than it is to green house gas emmissions
This argument would make sense if sunspot activity had increased in the last few decades. In fact it's been in decline, so sun activity can't be used to explain the current increase in temperature. (see graph at bottom)
That's a bold faced lie.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p RCU-GILWR0NIkAN4Y5eQPw
Hmmm, no constant down activity hurts your case. Hmmm.
At 12/22/09 12:42 PM, awkward-silence wrote: umet from 1929 until 1933, when FDR took office.
Stop trying to mindread. You suck at reading period. I clearly blamed Hoover too.
No it never recovered. The DoW Jones Industrial average fell from 381 to 198 and rose to 294 during the "Hope" or "Suckers" Rally before plumeting again to 41.6 in 1932. But once again doesn't matter that you were wrong about the Dow recouperating, because according to EVERY economics textbook, a depression is defined by at least 6 months (2 quarters) of contraction in the Gross Domestic Product (total goods and services produced inside national borders, Im not taking any chances on what you think you know) Which started in 1929 and continued until 1933. Thus your claim that Roosevelt "created" the depression is utter bunk.
My god, you're an idiot. "The stock market never recovered. Except for that time it recovered, But that doesn't count." The stock market has a rebound. But then there was a drought and the Smoot-Hawley act was passed, and we fell back into freefall.
It's like denying the losing football teram rallied in the second quarter because they still lost in the end. It's moronic.
I didn't change the terms, I simply defined the terms that you should have known if you were going to enter an economics debate about depression.
You denied there was a recovery. Then pointed out there was a recovery, but then denied it again. Supposedly because I claimed the recession was over til 1933, which I never did.
You're a master at the strawman I suppose.
What is arguable is whether states have a right to succeed. And it is even arguable about the validity of the Boston Plot. However, it is not argueable that attackin and seizing a military base is a clear act of war.
If the state succeeds, then the government is not longer entitled to that base. After MONTHS of demanding the union withdraw, the South took the base. If the south has the right to succeed, as they clearly did, then the Union broke the law first. Not that the South didn't play into their hands, but the Union was still in the wrong.
Since these were the actions of the Confederates and not the actions of the Union, your claim that lincoln "created" the civil war is also bunk.
I'm going to grab a fork because you=done.
Um, hardly. You debate nothing but strawmen. And you're not even very good at that.
Back to the drawing board Junior.
Oh, and the failure to report thing...
6. Failure to report the offense
Any person who being aware of the commission of any offense under this Act omits to report the offense to the relevant authorities within 24 hours commits an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred currency points or imprisonment not exceeding six months year.
So, you've lied about homosexuality being a capital offense. You've lied about not reporting it being a capital offense. So now you want to play this card?
At 12/22/09 07:12 PM, fli wrote: It is c-l-e-a-r-l-y homophobic.
Hell, you don't need to read entirely. You can read the first part.
Even if your ridiculous view of homophobia was correct, the rest isn't. It DOESN'T call for the execution of gays, nor does it call for the execution of non-compliant witnesses.
And yes, it is homophobic because 1.) AIDS promoted exclusively through queer people, 2.) that homosexual recruit people, 3.) that families are threatened (although, nobody knows how exactly homosexuals threaten families).
YAAAAWN.
So, being completely wrong on the murder of queer people, we move to lesser grounds. Sorry, don't care.
You're trying to mask your lies in appeal to empathy.
Talk about ignorance.
I'm sorry, who claimed it'd kill witnesses to gay sex? Yourself?
; This bill says that if you're any sort of queer... you're dead.
If you know or possibly know a queer and not report it... you're probably dead too.
No exceptions.
Who is wrong? Yourself?
Where do you get off lecturing me? You're lying your ass off and now that you're caught in it, you're trying to change the terms. Just because you posted it, then ACTUALLY read it for the first time yourself, doesn't mean you hol any high ground on people who knew what it said all along.
So, based on the fact that you actually posted the bill, we can conclude you're lying and hoping no one reads it. Because:
At 12/22/09 06:57 PM, fli wrote: (2) Any person who engages in homosexuality contrary to sub-section (1) commits an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding 500 currency points or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both.
So in other words, being gay ISNT a death sentence, and is simply fineable?
And the ONLY criteria for death are exact what I said above.
Moreover, no such provision exists to murder people who don't report gays.
Did you really expect me not to read ad quote it?
Fool.
At 12/22/09 12:49 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Oh, who gives a damn about you? It's obvious you're just a bigot.
It's clear you're just an idiot.
At 12/22/09 01:00 PM, LordJaric wrote: Um no, simply having HIV should not be an automatic death sentence, maybe if the person starts spreading it to as many people as they can, but not just for having it.
Good gravy, can no one read?
No one is given the death sentence for having AIDS. They're given the death sentence for passing it on.
This bill says that if you're any sort of queer... you're dead.
If you know or possibly know a queer and not report it... you're probably dead too.
No exceptions.
Um, horseshit. The bill says no such thing. It sets forth THREE standards for death:
:The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a "serial offender" or the other person is under 18.
While I could really do without the under 18 thing, the HIV thing should be an automatic death sentence. Straight or queer.
If they really want to help to remove their AIDS problem, then maybe they should be dispelling the myths that seem to cover those people in a perpetual cloud of ignorance. I mean, some people are saying that AIDS come from using condoms!
This bill is about legalizing genocide.
It's not about AIDS.
Hey, write whatever in it that makes you feel good. It doesn't say what you claim, as I showed above.
At 12/21/09 08:11 AM, awkward-silence wrote: Really? No historian? I studied economics at University and am here to prove You Wrong
The stock market never recovered, but did make a formidable showing in 1930, during something called the "Sucker Rally". However the terms depression and recession are not marked buy by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, so it doesn't even matter that your were wrong about that. Instead Recession and depression are marked by contractions in GDP and in the second link you can see that continued to plumet from 1929 until 1933, when FDR took office.
So it recovered, but it doesn't matter than it recovered, because the recovery was short lived.
Talk about self serving pap. Nothing is wrong if you change the terms enough.
That is arguable. What is not argueable is that attacking and confenscating U.S. Military bases and repeated assination attempts on The president is provocation. The South was doing just that.
So it doesn't matter that they had the right to leave the union? Cause I mean, that really decimates your entire argument.
As for assassination attempts on Lincoln...there were none. They believed that someone would try on route to his inaugeration, but no one did. And A shot was reportedly heard on a ride, but no bullet struck the travelers and no repeat shot was fired. Musta been some pretty lame killers....
Really, because I've met 1st graders with more insightful arguments than yours. You don't present evidence of anykind to support your wild accusations. And Belittle your opposition to belittle their argument (and you don't even do that very well)
I know you think you're brilliant, but you claimed Lincoln suffered all these attempts on his life (he didn't), and you are forced to admit the stock market rebounded, then dismiss it. Where the hell do you get off saying I'm wrong again?
At 12/16/09 06:10 AM, poxpower wrote:
Oh ok that does explain why HE WIPED EVERYONE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET EXCEPT FOR NOAH AND HIS FAMILY.
AWESOME! So we ignore the actual meaning of the text and write in our own meaning,
The Hebrew word is land. Should we pretend Hitler had control of the whole world for the Holocaust too?
Here's a recount of how EVERY religion viewed it as a regional flood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Floo d#Jewish
So it doesn't matter that the word in Hebrew is land instead of world? Hell, language means naught but what we want it ti then.
At 12/21/09 05:05 AM, fli wrote: Why should you even say, "I'm sorry," when it's obvious that you're insincere about it.
Cause I'm sorry someone else is so stupid?
The provisions for execution are simple:
Pass HIV knowlingly.
Screw a Minor
Or be Promiscuous with proof. (Proof being multiple people coming forward catching STDs woth you, or being caught in public more than 4 times.)
I see no problem with this.
At 12/16/09 11:56 AM, awkward-silence wrote: I'm guessing you weren't aware that the depression started 3 years before Roosevelt was Elected (1929)
Perhaps you're not aware that the stock market crash of 1929 lasted less that 6 months. No historian disagrees. The stock market crisis had fixed itself almost immediately.
However, pointing out that FDR has the ONLY financial crisis in history that lasted his entire term is noteworthy. Of course, Hoover played his part. But had FDR not been a socialist twist...the Depression would never have happened.
That the South Suceeded 4 months prior to Lincoln's Inaugeration, (they even had a president 1 month before) Lincoln Was inaugerated.
-or-
That the first shots were fired by confederates at a Union Fort (Sumter).
So that the South had a right to break from the union justifies a war?
So you are just wrong, so very, very wrong.
"Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who learn it incorrectly, why they are simply doomed."
Um, I'm not wrong on anything. And I feel like I'm being lectured on history by a first grader.
