You shr have a perrty mouth!

 

Why, thank you kindly!

You know, nobody's ever made a lesbian western.

 

That's true! Do you want to be my star?

 

Better yet, a lesbian PORN western.

Where do I sign? I always thought Annie Oakley had a bit of a femme streak.

 

Annie Oakley, best shot in the west

 

All of your examples happened after the United States Civil War.

So at the time, there was no precedent for single countries peacefully dissolving into multiple countries. If I'm wrong, please correct me with sources.

As for my argument making the American Revolution "wrong," I disagree. I never said that it was wrong for the Confederate States of America to secede from the Union, I only said that Lincoln had a right to attempt to bring them back into the fold.

The British government did exactly the same thing, but the only difference is that they lost.

 

Well, actually, the colonies didn't do it legally. It was a revolution, pure and simple. To the British crown, our founding fathers were nothing but traitors.

Later on, several former British colonies became independent by, I assume, mutual consent. That's probably a better analogy.

 

I also don't think Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are particularly good examples, since they were basically artificial constructs to begin with, just like Iraq (and we all know how THAT'S working out). The Czechs and Slovaks had a marriage of convenience, as did the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Montenegrans, etc. Ditto the former Soviet Union, which was always an uncomfortable conglomeration of very distinct ethnic groups.

 

It was thoroughly entertaining seeing AM get cyber-bitch-slapped repeatedly. After each slap, he would try to go back and change what he is. At one point he even said, "i never said you were wrong." But if you go back, he says "you are SO wrong."

AM, whats wrong with being over run by blacks anyhow? Why would it be so terrible if whites weren't the majority? Even if some other ethnicity became the majority, i don't see whats wrong with that?

Would they try to implement things from their culture? Kinda like how people wanna bring prayer back in church? NO WAY do i want muslims running my country, i don't want my kids praying 5 times a day. So i guess when you're part of the majority, "majority rules" is a great rule. But as soon as you're part of the minority, you're gonna start saying "my rights.. my rights!"

Bigot.

 

Hey y'all, lets make this a current topics type thread and talk about Quebec wanting to secede.

 

See there, Bukkake proved WRONG again, there was a vote was there not? That would be a good topic for a new thread re just Quebec, sure we can have a good one going on it. But,but,but, you are from Tennessee, are you a crypto Quebecois?

Ignorance is such bliss when you quote the wrong facts that aren't.

not ragging on you BB, just on what you said.

 

That's a very good point. There are no better defenders of the status quo than the people who are running things.

 

Ah yes, you are right on that point if none of the South American countries after their independence from Spain broke up voluntarily into the ones we see today, I think that was the case actually, Granada I think I recall was one that included several of todays countries including Peru and Columbia and Ecuador. BUT I could be wrong and you right. I must admit I am not a great historian re South America or Central America, I think there may have also been some early voluntary divorces there, but the one separating Panama was instigated and enforced by the US for the canal. And dear friend, I will always admit it when I am proved wrong, as even tho I am pope of the church of oral sex, I disagree with infallibility.

 

Just trying to distract y'all from the real reason we seceded. Y'all were taking our nice subservient women away from us.

 

And just look at how they are ruined in every way when they go NORTH.

(putting on asbestos overcoat and hood) (I really am kidding)

 

I knew a woman from Oak Ridge once . . . she was faaaaaaaaaaaaaar from subservient

 

oLD TOOL: gee I expected a great oratorio from you, are is it just not finished yet?

 

It sounds to me like they violated an interpretation.

So some people don't have that option, but what I am proposing gives more people that option to find lives and laws that better reflect their desires, while promoting progressive legislation. Anyone knows the larger the stucture the larger the red tape.

What you are saying could be compaired to saying that if a few of the kids in the class are lactose intolerant and diabetic, none of them should be allowed to have milk and cookies. It just isn't "fair" to those who don't get to.

 

So, under your interpretation, if Alabama wanted to maintain Jim Crow laws, they could do that. If blacks didn't like it, they could leave. Right?

 

They just ACTED subservient when necessary to get what they wanted. And you, of course, always fell for it.