Romanticization of the Civil War by Niki2

Try runnin it through demographics.

Apparently the more mixed a community is, the less racism - cause we got Detroit, which is primarily one, surrounded by a buncha communities/suburbs, which are another, and a lot of em are some *seriously* racist little gits - the worst of that is when you have police from a bitterly racist, primarily white, suburb, patrolling a city which is almost exclusively populated by afro-americans...

That's a recipe for amplification of existing problems within that dynamic, believe it.

So generally the more integrated a community is, the less of that crap goes on, and when you have two communities side by side with very segregated populations, it's usually pretty nasty, especially on the border area - ESPECIALLY when the racism gets cloaked in the behavior of real estate folk, homeowners orgs, and the like, and buried beneath red tape and bullshit - most folk are not gonna admit it, for a fact, no on paper anyways, but anyone with eyes can see it.

Anyhows, I don't think it's a geographical north/south thing so much as the population distribution, integration and related dynamics.

Even the hardest of cases can learn tolerance, living side by side with other people, the (excellent) movie Gran Torino is actually a pretty good representation of how that happens.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2010 4:26 PM

TRAVELER

You may want to check this book,"The New Jim Crow".
I have just heard of this book and have not had opportunity to read it. So I can't offer an opinion on it.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To carry my last point forward... the reason why the south doesn't acknowledge the brutality of slavery is not because southerners are so prejudiced against blacks. IMHO denial is due to guilt, not to current practices. that's why I think it would be better for southerners to "man up" to their past. Then they could fully move on.

But IMHO, while the proximate cause of the Civil War was "maintaining the Union", the REAL cause was still slavery. At heart, the southern economic model needed slavery to survive. Buying off the slaves wouldn't have worked, because the profiteers who were running the southern political show would have seen that tactic... and all others... as the death blow that it was. The south simply did not have an economic alternative to slave-based profit!

The north was already industrializing and becoming a wage-based, capitalist economy.

These two economic forms were politically yoked together.

If the south had seceded, then the north and the south could have interacted as separate nations. I think the south would have revived the slave trade, and the two nations would STILL have fought a war over the territories to the west.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:44 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I'm thinking maybe I should start celebrating my heritage, too; I have family members from my mom's side and my dad's side who fought for the Union. Maybe we should start celebrating 150 years of kicking the ass off traitorous rebel scum! :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, with everything in this thread, are you truly serious about "traitorous scum"? Just wondering...by now I would have noped you'd get a view of both North and South as human beings caught in a difficult situation, and that seceding wasn't a traitorous act, given the Constitution, all that came before on both sides, etc.

Okay, guys, I give in. Maybe my misconceptions are carried forward from the past (I lived through that stuff, too, and memories are pretty deep), I'll grant you that. My only remaining complaint is that "racist" needs to be defined as Black-White, because there are tons of all kinds of people here in California, and I know there is deep resentment of Hispanics, whereas all the Black people I have ever seen are mixed in with us, interracial couples, etc.

The Hispanics, however, live in their own areas, which pop up with Hispanic-titled stores, etc., and become known as Hispanic sections. NOT that it's true of all, but it's distinctly obvious. And of course we have tons of illegals all over the place. And hate crimes against Hispanics.

Now, we also have Richmond and one section of SF which are by far mostly Black; and drive-by shootings happen all the time. We also have areas almost completely Asian, Indian, Italian, etc. Neighborhoods, which I assume all urban areas have. Asians have taken over almost all of the mom-and-pop stores, and Hispanics women are by and large what man Sears and such places, and nannies for the damned yuppies. So that's what I see around me.

Why the Northeast? I don't get how that happened, anyone know? It doesn't seem logical, unless influx of ex-slaves into the area created racism that survives to this day?

I freely admit that when people live together, it changes things. I'm thrilled to learn the South has changed, and yes, I take back what I said; maybe their feelings about the war when it comes to slavery are somewhat guilt--also possibly that it's not "PC"? Guilt or no, if many people have the same misconceptions I do, it could easily be frustrating for the South to be seen in that light, and to want to avoid dealing with slavery because it's seen as something "ugly". I dunno.

Nonetheless, thank you for educating me, I guarantee I will pass on what you have told me in hopes of changing the perception of people I know and meet. It's really great to hear; but that everyone should be so!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To carry my last point forward... the reason why the south doesn't acknowledge the brutality of slavery is not because southerners are so prejudiced against blacks. IMHO denial is due to guilt, not to current practices. that's why I think it would be better for southerners to "man up" to their past. Then they could fully move on.

Thought I expect you won't believe me, I will tell you that folks in the South do recognize the brutality of slavery. They don't deny it. The folks whose ancestors held slaves often try to reconnect with their descendents and apologize for their forebearers actions. Many historical museums in the South have sections documenting the inhumanity of slavery. Folks - white folks - recognize it was an evil and are glad it's gone.

That being said, most young Southerners, while recognizing slavery as a great wrong, don't feel personally guilty about it. It happened 150 years ago. It would be like a young German feeling guilty for the Franco-Prussian war. It's history to them - a bad part of history, granted - but something from the distant past to be aware of, not obsess over.

If you have any evidence that most Southerners don not now recognize the brutality of slavery, or deny it was bad, please let me know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 10:38 AM

Bah, Mikey is just tryin to wind folks up, not so much to get their back up, although maybe a little, but to encourage further discussion and maybe cut through the bullshit by annoyin folk into revealing how they really feel.

S'why I haven't torn his head off, he knows what he's doin, and he knows damn well *I* know it too.

I've said as much as there's any point to sayin, but I will give you this to work with if you're interested - I never bought into the whitewash of our historical figures, in fact they're FAR more interesting when you actually investigate their flaws and personal issues with one another cause you start to understand them as people, and thus I knew quite a bit about Lincoln that rubbed me wrong to begin with...

But if you wanna muckrake the dirt on ole "honest" Abe, Thomas Dilorenzo is your go-to guy.
Admittedly he's biased, but 95% of the things he brings up are fully sourced and fact-checked beyond any reasonable doubt whatever, they kinda hafta be, given that any attempt to cut through the whitewash provokes some serious flameage from those tasked with putting it on in the first place.

And when viewed on the evidence alone, I state firmly without reservation that the man was a monstrous tyrant who's sanity was at best questionable, and in retrospect his abuses and usurpations make Nixon and Shrub look like pikers in comparison - the fact that we built monuments to this creep makes me feel physically nauseous.

But there's little point to discussin the matter with folk who can't get past the propaganda the were taught in public school, who keep banging the one drum while ignoring all of the real causes and factors...

And in respect to that, THIS.

What is gunpoint conscription but an even more brutal, more abhorrent, form of slavery ?

Did not many of the corporations Lincoln fronted for practice a form of economic slavery known as the Company Store or truck system - a practice which continued well into the modern era, and despite all efforts to the contrary, is still practiced in a lighter form by coal providers ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_system

What *IS* Slavery but forced labor under threat, anyways - the idea that persons are property instead of people, a concept I am all too damned familiar with from another angle.

Up till the Civil War, the United States ran on the mutual consent of the governed, and the implied right to revoke that consent if the relationship soured.

And Lincoln, and the Union, ran that principle over to the point where american citizens are essentially serfs to a corporate oligarchy, which was the fully admitted intention of the Federalists from day one of the Constitutional Convention, and if you have an ounce of doubt..

Quote:
“I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favour of a national bank, the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff.”

Mind you, this came *after* Jacksons wholesale assault on centralized banking as a grevious affront given that it was based on the Hamiltonian idea of making the people and "elite" dependent on the Government by putting them deep in an entanglement of mutual debt - a protofascist idea later put into practice in all it's unholy glory by Mussolini.

Now, I don't exactly *mind* payin a share of the costs to maintain infrastructure, but that ain't what taxes are about anymore, if they ever even were, and I for damned sure have serious issues with so much of my income taken from me by threat of force that I could not even put food on the table driving a cab for sixty hours a week - and not having any choice as to WHAT that money goes to, watching it being handed off to corporations as our infrastructure crumbles...

You tell me THAT is not a form of slavery, however you wanna whitewash it, cause a refusal to shell out that money *will* eventually result in men with guns coming to do something about it, won't it ?

Lincoln didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves, his debt ridden bitches, to fill the coffers of his corporate masters.

You say follow the money, well, then follow it, a tremendous tariff on the slave states, in combination with an attempt to constitutionally protect that slavery - Lincoln didn't give a rats ass about the slaves, he wanted the MONEY, as big a chunk as he could get, and he wanted POWER, to firmly, fully and permanently revoke the whole idea of mutual consent, and when a person is no longer mutually consenting to an agreement which robs them of half and more of their income...

What the fuck can you call it but a form of slavery ?

Is *that* clear enough for you ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thought I expect you won't believe me, I will tell you that folks in the South do recognize the brutality of slavery. They don't deny it. The folks whose ancestors held slaves often try to reconnect with their descendents and apologize for their forebearers actions. Many historical museums in the South have sections documenting the inhumanity of slavery. Folks - white folks - recognize it was an evil and are glad it's gone. That being said, most young Southerners, while recognizing slavery as a great wrong, don't feel personally guilty about it. It happened 150 years ago. It would be like a young German feeling guilty for the Franco-Prussian war. It's history to them - a bad part of history, granted - but something from the distant past to be aware of, not obsess over. If you have any evidence that most Southerners don not now recognize the brutality of slavery, or deny it was bad, please let me know.

Oh, dear. Geezer, do you really need me to spell this out for you???

First of all... one of the latest examples is (ahem!) you. I think I pointed out your unconscious bias pretty clearly about 10 posts ago, when you forgot to account for slavery deaths. At the time, I said it could only be an unconscious or deliberate... er... whitewashing of southern history. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying it was unconscious.

Another recent example... According to Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia

Quote:
“there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.” [...]

The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to “understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.”

And even more recently

Quote:
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Sunday defended fellow Gov. Bob McDonnell for his decision to declare April "Confederate History Month" in Virginia without initially acknowledging the legacy of slavery, saying the controversy "doesn't amount to diddly."

I think they're reflecting the same bias ... since slaves didn't amount to diddly as far as whites were concerned, neither did the issue of slavery.

But if you're going to reach back 150 years for your heritage, maybe you should accept the baggage that comes with it?

And I'm going to add the same thing about the FF. They were biased against natives and assumed that land was for the taking. That part of our heritage shouldn't be forgotten either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:00 PM

Quote:

The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to “understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War.”

And really, if McDonnell and others WEREN'T whitewashing the issue, why no mention of the sacrifices of SLAVES during the period? He specifically mentions leaders, soldiers, and CITIZENS, which slaves were most definitely NOT.

Is it because even now, same as then, they just don't think of slaves as actual, real, living and breathing PEOPLE? Or do they just not think that slaves actually suffered or sacrificed?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:20 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Why the Northeast? I don't get how that happened, anyone know? It doesn't seem logical, unless influx of ex-slaves into the area created racism that survives to this day?

As I hear it and witnessed a bit, there's a bit of historic turf war between the various factions in Boston. Certainly, the Irish, the Italians, and the African-Americans (and others?) have been bottom rung at various times. Sets up a bit of a rivalry.

Interestingly, I heard this theory once but never again - Bostonians don't want to talk about this - but one possible factor in the Red Sox not winning for so long was racism. The old management did not want the "coloreds" on their team. I'm talking 60s and 70s here, maybe later but I don't really know the history.

This is truly hearsay and I won't swear any of it to be true, but after 9 years in Boston I will tell you that there is a big ole color divide in the city.

It didn't bother me as much as the Midwest though. Out there, everyone was lilly white and ignorance was through the roof. That's where the really scary ideas take hold and sink deep.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:07 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I pointed out your unconscious bias pretty clearly about 10 posts ago, when you forgot to account for slavery deaths. At the time, I said it could only be an unconscious or deliberate... er... whitewashing of southern history. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying it was unconscious.

And as noted I believe that your perception owes more to your preconceptions than to my statements. I know what I meant, and your conclusion is incorrect.

Bob McDonnell's insensitive declaration is considered stupid by most folk I know, black and white. I'd suspect most folks around here consider Gov. Barbour's statements about the same. Unfortunately, politicians tend to be be well behind the curve in stuff like this.

Quote:
But if you're going to reach back 150 years for your heritage, maybe you should accept the baggage that comes with it?

I can only reiterate what I said before. "I will tell you that folks in the South do recognize the brutality of slavery. They don't deny it. The folks whose ancestors held slaves often try to reconnect with their descendents and apologize for their forebearers actions. Many historical museums in the South have sections documenting the inhumanity of slavery. Folks - white folks - recognize it was an evil and are glad it's gone."

I feel bad about slavery, but I'm not gonna feel guilty about something that occurred almost a hundred years before I was born, and over which I had no control.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, you asked for examples and I gave you examples... three from the last two weeks alone! And not examples of individuals with no accountability, but well-known elected officials who are presumably accountable to the people who elected them... the majority of voters. You may want to shrug them off as being aberrant, peculiar individuals but that argument really doesn't work.

Quote:
I know what I meant, and your conclusion is incorrect.

Well, you think you know what you meant, but I think it was unintentionally revealing. I'm giving you friendly insight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:01 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."
-President Abraham Lincoln Rothschild

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [the crowd applauds] – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-Abraham Lincoln Rothschild, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
http://magicnegrowatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/abe-lincoln-didnt-care-abo
ut-black.html

"Nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger..."
-Abraham Lincoln Rothschild

Abraham "Lincoln" Springstein was a jew Rothschild assassinated by his jealous opium-addicted First Lady
http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/abraham%20lincoln.ht
ml
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm

“The Non-Jews have been created to serve the Jews as slaves.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Midrasch Talpioth 225

“Everywhere they (the Jews) come, they will be the princes of the lords.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 104a

“Just the Jews are humans, the Non-Jews are no humans, but cattle.”
-Jewish Babylonian Talmud, Kerithuth 6b page 78, Jebhammoth 61a (goyim = human cattle)

Johnny Rebel Loves Black People
http://undercoverblackman.vox.com/library/audio/6a00cd970f81104cd50109
81191576000c.html

MORE ABOUT OLE ABE!

Abraham Lincoln "was a racist who opposed equal rights for black people, who loved minstrel shows, who used the N-word, who wanted to deport all blacks," a veteran journalist and historian says.

Where did this come from you say…… Well the other day at work a co-worker showed me an old picture of a black family during the civil war era and they were gathered around the fireplace and a picture of Ole Abe with two candles flanking it as they gazed lovingly at it.

I thought is this a fucken joke?

Even as a little kid I never understood why American history looked so favorable at Lincoln. In school I was hardly a good student. I got D’s in history constantly (except when dealing with current event or political stuff). But even as the only black in many of my classes and hearing the history teachers speak so eloquently about ole Abe I was thinking myself that fucker Abe did not give a rats ass about Slaves or Blacks. But nobody even today seems to want to acknowledge that.

Below is some stuff you won’t see in history books nor come out of the mouth of historical scholars.

*Lincoln publicly referred to blacks by the most offensive racial slur. In one speech, Lincoln said he opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he didn't want the West "to become an asylum for slavery and niggers."

* Lincoln was, in the words of one friend, "especially fond of Negro minstrel shows," attending blackface performances in Chicago and Washington. At an 1860 performance of Rumsey and Newcomb's Minstrels, Lincoln "clapped his great hands, demanding an encore, louder than anyone" when the minstrels performed "Dixie." Lincoln was also fond of what he called "darky" jokes, Mr. Bennett documents.

* Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring at Alton, Ill., in 1858, that he was "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over."

* Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."

* Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."

* Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."

* Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.

In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia; to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.

In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."

Lincoln said: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

Sounds like a fucken white supremacist!

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.."

His intentions of fighting the South did NOT lie with abolishing slavery, but to save the Union. Even though Lincoln died in April of 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery was not instituted until eight months later, nearly three years from his "slave freeing" Emancipation Proclamation.

Another Lincoln quote was, "Your race suffers greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should be separated." - quoted from John Hope Franklin's book, "From Slavery to Freedom"

So Lincoln had little experience with black people. There was terrible problems of slave unrest and white violence in older states like South Carolina and Virginia where slaves had been bought and sold for generations. In Illinois the problem was ignorance and prejudice. Along with his neighbors, Lincoln believed that Negroes were probably inferior to white people. He didn't believe they had the mental capacity to hold the same rights as white people like voting or serving on juries. As a result of his beliefs, he called grown adult black men 'boys', and told stories about "pickanninnies", "Sambos", "darkies", and "niggers".

It wasn't until he was 19 that he traveled out of Illinois and experienced slavery markets in other states. On his trip he and his partner were attacked by seven negroes and had to fight them off. It wasn't until he was 28 that he finally spoke out publically against slave markets.

However, on another one of his trips out of the state, he saw "12 negroes' chained together, who were enjoying themselves, joking amongst themselves and having a good time. He commented later that they were the happiest creatures on board the ship and it was a blessing that God didn't give them the awareness of their plight. Most southerners believed that the slaves had a good life as 'they were a child race' as Jefferson Davis was quoted to have said.

Quote:
"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
-Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912), quoted by Congressman Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559

Obama meets his Jewish brother who lives in Communist China with his Chinese wife, says their deadbeat dad was a wife-beating alcoholic bigamist
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/obama.half.brother/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/obama.half.brother/index.ht
ml

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 2:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, you think you know what you meant, but I think it was unintentionally revealing.

Siggy, if you have to believe that, then you will. I know it's not true so I won't argue about it any longer.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 4:19 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Lincoln didn't free the slaves, he made us ALL slaves, his debt ridden bitches, to fill the coffers of his corporate masters.

Hahahahahahaaaa. Once again, THANK YOU Fremmeister. You just have that knack for getting to the core of the matter.

As someone who lived in Alabama for 15 years, I have come to appreciate a different view of the story. You know, they don't call it the "Civil War" down there. They call it "War Between the States" or "War of Northern Aggression."

If you've ever seen the movie Gettysburg, you might notice a line in which someone said, "We should have freed the slaves first, THEN seceded from the Union." That would have made clarified why the South was fighting.

The Confederate flag flies partly as a memorial to the soldiers who died for that flag. It represents the collective suffering and pain the South experienced at the hands of the Damn Yankees, fighting for the right to self-determination.

See, both sides were fighting for freedom--just different kinds of freedom. Both sides were fighting for slavery, different kinds of slavery. One side is not nobler than the other.

-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 4:35 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But Geezer, help me out here.. What WAS the Confederate cause?

State's rights? Rights to... what?

No matter how I bang it, the nub of the division seems to come down NOT to the practice of slavery in the Old South, because that was already a settled issue... but expansion of slavery westward

There were many causes. Most Southerners who fought did not own slaves, they fought because they didn't want the Yankees telling them what to do. Many fought because they didn't want to free the slaves. Many others, like Lee, fought out of a sense of duty to their native states.

Lee owned no slaves, Jackson was an abolitionist.

On a more fundamental level the causes of the Civil War are many and complex. The institution of slavery, international relations and trade(the European anti-slave movement and the competition for northern factories from Britain for textiles manufactured with Southern cotton), the domestic slave trade including the expansion of slavery into the west, etc.

In the end it all came down to economics.

I note for the record that the first American President to call for an end to slavery was Thomas Jefferson. He warned the South that if it did not find its own means to end slavery, then at some point it would be forced upon them.

A why do many of us love the South and the Confederacy? Because of romantic figures like Lee and Jackson. Because of the amazing acts of courage and sacrifice by American soldiers on the battlefield. Because we sympathize with our fellow Americans and the loss they suffered even if we disagree with their Cause. Because the only reason they lost is because their enemy had more money, more supplies, and more men. Because man for man they outfought the North time and again. Because the history of the South belongs to all of us. And because...I love BBQ and biscuits.

The South shall rise again (and in many ways, it already has).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 5:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, at one point my hubby was at a week-long manufacturer's class on computers. It pulled in people from around the world. Being very long, and having packed light, my hubby started gathering up his laundry mid-week to head to the nearest laundromat. His roommate, a guy from the Philippines, was startled by that, and blurted out Why are you doing laundry? People in my country don't do laundry!

HE knew what he meant, too. But what he implied is those who do laundry aren't people. What you said was:

Quote:
Good question. Is it worth sacrificing 600-700 thousand people to free 4 million? I'd probably choose the one that kills the least; trusting that if given the chance, folk will eventually figure the right thing to do.

Somewhere, the idea that slavery ALSO killed people slipped your mind. Because slave deaths are in a different category- a category not pulled up in the context of "the cost of/ benefit to human lives due to the Civil War".

It's not that you don't understand the brutality of slavery, it's just that death due to slavery didn't come up in this context.

Basically, human thinking is highly contextual. Groups of thoughts tend to occur together, other thoughts tend not to cross that boundary. That is what keeps humans from being fully "rational". Ratio, to compare relative amounts.

Now, in MY thinking, when someone points out an obvious illogic on my part... a glaring factor that I've overlooked for whatever reason... I tend to get a little irritated with myself, but I'm extremely grateful to the person who pointed it out. So if I remove the word "bias" and say that your thinking was "overly contextual", does that change anything for you?

In any case, I'm glad that you are no longer challenging that fact that this kind of irrationality occurs in the romanticization of the south.... or the War of Independence, the "winning" of the west, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Bush II, the war in Iraq, or any other topic we care to think critically about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 5:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There were many causes. Most Southerners who fought did not own slaves, they fought because they didn't want the Yankees telling them what to do. Many fought because they didn't want to free the slaves. Many others, like Lee, fought out of a sense of duty to their native states.

Just like people today defend capitalism although they're not capitalists and never will be, and get screwed over by the system at every turn? Or soldiers who got winkled into the Vietnam/ Iraq wars out of a sense of duty?

There were a lot of reasons for the Civil War, and apparently neither the immorality of slavery nor the lack of benefit to most free white men weren't sufficient counterweights to those reasons.

I understand that people are illogical. They don't accurately weigh the costs and benefits to themselves, but tend to get pulled along by others. Humans are neither rational nor individualistic- we are social creatures who tag along with "our" group, however we define that to be, even if our position on that group is "peon". So people make errors in judgment. That is to be forgiven, not celebrated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 6:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you've ever seen the movie Gettysburg, you might notice a line in which someone said, "We should have freed the slaves first, THEN seceded from the Union." That would have made clarified why the South was fighting.

Yes, they should have. But they NEVER WOULD, because slavery was the foundation of Southern wealth, and the wealthy... plantation owners, cotton merchants, steamboat operators, politicians and generals who depended on that wealth... would not have allowed that to happen. Freeing the slaves wouldn't become a natural possibility until mechanized cotton-planting and cotton-picking. But the mechanical cotton-picker wouldn't come into use until 1935!

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpicker

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 7:49 AM

Quote:

The South shall rise again...

And of course, we Yanks will be right there as always to deliver yet another epic ass-kicking. After all these years, we've gotten really, really good at it. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 8:06 AM

http://liveforfilms.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/abe-lincoln-vampire-hunte
r-to-be-adapted-by-tim-burton-and-timur-bekmambetov/

aye kwicko! i am all for conquering and colonizing the south.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 8:50 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

If you've ever seen the movie Gettysburg, you might notice a line in which someone said, "We should have freed the slaves first, THEN seceded from the Union." That would have made clarified why the South was fighting.

The Confederate flag flies partly as a memorial to the soldiers who died for that flag. It represents the collective suffering and pain the South experienced at the hands of the Damn Yankees, fighting for the right to self-determination.

Free the slaves, then force them to work for pay as tenant farmers (indentured servants = slaves), just like po white folk.

The Confederate Flag is an American flag.

Lincoln made all white males slaves to the Fed govt, with USA's first military draft and massive riots.
www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&q=civil%20war%20draft%20riots&ie=UTF-
8&sa=N&tab=iw

Quote:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."
-Jewish President Abraham Lincoln Springstein Rothschild

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [the crowd applauds] – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
-Jew Abraham Lincoln Springstein Rothschild, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
http://magicnegrowatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/abe-lincoln-didnt-care-abo
ut-black.html

"Nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger... nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger...nigger..."
-Jew Abraham Lincoln Springstein Rothschild

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 9:23 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, at one point my hubby was at a week-long manufacturer's class on computers. It pulled in people from around the world. Being very long, and having packed light, my hubby started gathering up his laundry mid-week to head to the nearest laundromat. His roommate, a guy from the Philippines, was startled by that, and blurted out Why are you doing laundry? People in my country don't do laundry!

HE knew what he meant, too. But what he implied is those who do laundry aren't people. What you said was:
Quote:
Good question. Is it worth sacrificing 600-700 thousand people to free 4 million? I'd probably choose the one that kills the least; trusting that if given the chance, folk will eventually figure the right thing to do.

You know he's actually saying that 600-700 thousand people were killed to free 4 million people. That's how the statement reads to me. I think it's a lousy argument, but it's not what you've read into it.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 9:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I have to concur...the way it reads, he was talking about those killed in the WAR, not the entire total including slaves who were killed over time.

I think it's kind of a moot point...I don't see what he's been saying as racist, you do. It's all in how we take things, IMHO.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2010 10:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Guys.... let me use a medical analogy. Let's say that your daughter is suffering from progressive epileptical dementia. All of the standard, well-known treatments haven't worked. So now you're looking at experimental surgery or experimental drugs ... pretty radical stuff. There are risks and benefits to treatment. The hoped-for benefit is a reduction of symptoms, possibly even reversal. The risks... or side effects, are things like bone marrow suppression or post-surgical brain infection. But there is another side to the scale, and that is the risks and benefits of doing nothing. INACTION itself has a consequence. The risk is complete dementia and possibly permanent brain damage.

That's like the Civil War. The cost was 600,000-700,000 deaths, both north and south. The benefit was freeing the slaves. But the cost of doing nothing was not only the continuation of slavery, but the fact that slavery itself killed people. So when Geezer said that he would go with the course of action that would lead to the "fewest deaths", he forgot to include slave deaths that would have occurred without the Civil War. He forgot an entire category when balancing the scales.

Now, I'm not saying that slave deaths over the foreseeable lifetime of slavery (assuming no Civil war) would have exceeded citizen deaths during the Civil War. But if you're balancing deaths from the Civil War on one side side of the ledger, you have to include deaths that would have occurred WITHOUT the Civil war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:24 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And of course, we Yanks will be right there as always to deliver yet another epic ass-kicking. After all these years, we've gotten really, really good at it. :)

Well, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and New York are not the economic and industrial giants they once were. Technology, wealth, industry, population, and resources now favor the South. And we've already established that man for man, a Southerner can whip any ten Yankees and be home in time for chicken fried steak, fresh biscuits and gravy. So unless your plan is to wait for us all to die of heart attacks, we Southerners will win the next conflict (which comes in 2012).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's like the Civil War. The cost was 600,000-700,000 deaths, both north and south. The benefit was freeing the slaves. But the cost of doing nothing was not only the continuation of slavery, but the fact that slavery itself killed people.

Actually the benefit was preserving the Union. Freeing the slaves at the conclusion of the conflict was a side effect. The cost of doing nothing was dismembering the Union, but again, those slaves left within the Union (such as the border states) would have been freed.

Had the South won or had the North chosen not to fight, the only guarranteed outcome surrounded the disposition of the succession issue. It was clear that even if free the South would have freed its slaves sooner or later. Absent the economic and political pressure from the North, slavery would have died a natural death within a generation (again, economics would have dictated the outcome). It would have been similar to Brazil.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And of course, we Yanks will be right there as always to deliver yet another epic ass-kicking. After all these years, we've gotten really, really good at it. :)

And we've already established that man for man, a Southerner can whip any ten Yankees and be home in time for chicken fried steak, fresh biscuits and gravy. So unless your plan is to wait for us all to die of heart attacks, we Southerners will win the next conflict (which comes in 2012).
B]

What in the devil's name are you talking about, man? There are no men in the south, just man-shaped globs of butter and fail. Just you wait for the Golden Horde (of California) to cross your borders, and enforce homosexuality and socialism on the vanquished.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:31 AM

Quote:
Traitorous rebel scum seems an apt descriptor for such people taking such actions.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Of course, whenever I hear someone say rebel scum, I hear it with the dripping disdain of an imperial officer and to the quick boot steps of stormtroopers.

I've never been to the south. I don't particularly care if it's been romanticized, I guess people have that right to do that.

I don't fully buy the "slavery was the only factor" explanation, but I am glad it's gone. And I am glad for the people who got their freedom, reunited with families, and etc. Too bad the reclamation period was just the North ripping off the South as much as they could, and the South taking it out on black people with a slew of disgusting laws like the grandfather clause and jim crow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:47 AM

Ehm, Geezer, just how likely are blacks in the deep south to REPORT a hate crime? And how likely are they to get a ruling in their favour? Sorry, man, I get you want to defend the ground you're standing on, but the statistics, they're kinda flawed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You say that like it's a bad thing. Of course, whenever I hear someone say rebel scum, I hear it with the dripping disdain of an imperial officer and to the quick boot steps of stormtroopers.

You too eh ?

Who, much like the DHS, TSA and related alphabet goons, can't shoot worth a damn.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ImperialStormtrooperMarksma
nshipAcademy

That was kind of a factor during the war too, mind you - s'what you get for using conscripts as cannon fodder.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:40 AM

JONGSSTRAW

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863. This was 6 months before the Battle of Gettysburg. Lincoln had actually issued an earlier draft in late 1862, but officially the slaves were freed by law on January 1. It took real balls for Lincoln to do that, considering that up until that moment, the war had not gone well for the North. Lincoln's Generals, dozens of them, were incompetant, and many refused to engage the enemy in battle. McClellan, Meade, et al were constantly being berated by Lincoln for their lack of ability and will to fight, and things did look rather dismal for the Union in 1862, right up until Gettysburg in July, 1863. The Confederate Generals were too talented for their Northern counterparts, and Lee and Jackson and many others whipped the Northerners in battle after battle. On the way to Gettysburg, a battle fought at Antietam Creek, Maryland, in September, 1862, proved to be the costliest single day of casualties in the entire war. Both sides reeled from that engagement. But Lincoln pressed on with Emancipation despite the growing dislike of the war in the North. He exhibited great courage and leadership in doing that. That moment defined the Civil War in the opinion of many historians. The romanticism of the Old South is a myth. A myth carried on today by folks who don't want to, or cannot face the truth of that era. Slavery was a brutal, horrific practice that had to be destroyed at any price. Lincoln knew this. He issued orders that sent 200,000 men to their deaths following Gettysburg, as the war moved into a different, even more bloody phase over the last two years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
And we've already established that man for man, a Southerner can whip any ten Yankees and be home in time for chicken fried steak, fresh biscuits and gravy. So unless your plan is to wait for us all to die of heart attacks, we Southerners will win the next conflict (which comes in 2012).

Ooohhh, dear, thank you for that...I needed a good laugh!

If it were even SLIGHTLY true, you'd nonetheless get your asses kicked by any Ozzie around...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ehm, Geezer, just how likely are blacks in the deep south to REPORT a hate crime? And how likely are they to get a ruling in their favour? Sorry, man, I get you want to defend the ground you're standing on, but the statistics, they're kinda flawed.

There is a DOJ report that indicates that hate crimes are probably underreported http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=209911 but it doesn't note any regional differences. The Southern Poverty Law Center cites this report, but again mentions no regional trends in underreporting. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-i
ssues/2005/winter/hate-crime

If you google "underreporting of hate crimes" you'll find that it seems to be endemic worldwide.

That being said, in the cursory search I ran to find the cites above, I didn't find sources stating there is more underreporting of hate crimes in the South than in other places. If you have such a source, please let me know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:26 AM

Hmm, that does defy expectations. Interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

And we've already established that man for man, a Southerner can whip any ten Yankees and be home in time for chicken fried steak, fresh biscuits and gravy.

Actually, we've "established" quite the opposite. Look at the scoreboard. Yankees-1, Traitorous Rebel Scum-0. :) Like I said, we'd be more than happy to go on kicking your asses; we've gotten quite good at it, and had plenty of practice!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And of course, we Yanks will be right there as always to deliver yet another epic ass-kicking. After all these years, we've gotten really, really good at it. :)

And we've already established that man for man, a Southerner can whip any ten Yankees and be home in time for chicken fried steak, fresh biscuits and gravy. So unless your plan is to wait for us all to die of heart attacks, we Southerners will win the next conflict (which comes in 2012).
B]

What in the devil's name are you talking about, man? There are no men in the south, just man-shaped globs of butter and fail. Just you wait for the Golden Horde (of California) to cross your borders, and enforce homosexuality and socialism on the vanquished.

Mincing, can we make them our slaves? They seem to have no issue with the concept. :)

BTW, thanks for the best laugh I've had all day. "Man-shaped globs of butter and fail", indeed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:39 AM

Mikey, I don't doubt your ability to conquer Redneckistan if you really wanted to, but, um... WHY?

If you do though, make sure not to bomb all the Corn Dog 7 franchises - it kinda pisses me off that there aren't any up here and I have to make do with the puny common corn dog, meh...

That's like, the only thing I miss about TX, the ability to get a two-handed "corn dog" made from a whole polish sausage, typical texan overkill, but DAMN them things were good!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"Redneckistan"...I love it

Can we just declare them a separate country and bomb them? It worked once...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:36 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can we just declare them a separate country and bomb them? It worked once...

Sure , soon as you finish with your bake-sale and fund the bombers...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:26 AM

Kwicko, yes, let's enslave them! good call.

But I don't really have any use for a slave. I could, however, always use money, so I propose that we 1) enslave them and 2) sell them to the gypsies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can we just declare them a separate country and bomb them? It worked once...

Sure , soon as you finish with your bake-sale and fund the bombers...

What century are you living in? Americans don't need to "fund" wars anymore. Just dive in, start bombing, and freedom will ensue!

If we really need to "fund" a war, maybe we can sell the South into slavery to the Chinese. Hey, it's the South that claims that slavery wasn't that bad! :)

As to that whole notion "Hero" has of the South rising again, like I said, we'll be happy to on kicking their backwoods, backwards redneck asses all day long. Oh, and we happen to have the nuclear launch codes. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Kwicko, yes, let's enslave them! good call.

But I don't really have any use for a slave. I could, however, always use money, so I propose that we 1) enslave them and 2) sell them to the gypsies.

Sell 'em to the Chinese. They need cheap labor, and we know they have the cash in hand to pay up! :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:51 AM

Er- Kwicko? I imagine you're just joking and also trying to nudge the southern pride people into some entertaining tirades, but you know Frem's thing? About government being forced down on people with guns (and here, nuclear threats)?

I don't condone that kind of crap from Israel towards the Palestinians, let alone my own government towards, well, ANY of us... >_>

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:05 AM

kwicko, you joking? i'm not joking. i don't joke.

Men, through a necessary law of their nature, rule wherever they can. See generally Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War. We, and by we I mean California, can rule the South and everything in it.

This is not a question of right or wrong. Right and wrong only matter between equals in power. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Id. Only the weak would beg to differ.

for the aforementioned reasons, kwicko's suggestion is both rad, and inevitable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:26 AM

That's awfully convenient. Why those two examples, and not every single war in the history of mankind? Or the other 50% of the time when 51% of the population gets along relatively peacefully?

It's the old axiom, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's smart. Even complete apathy statistically is more self-serving and self-benefiting than fighting or war, being that there's a chance of death or disfigurement with the later. Assuming, of course, you don't consider death to be a more preferable state for yourself than life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:30 PM

In consideration of your point, I amend my earlier claim to the following:

Men, through a necessary law of their nature, PWN whoever they can. See generally All of Human History .

This is not a question of right or wrong. Right and wrong only matter between equals in power. The strong PWN who they can and the weak suffer what they must. See generally human nature . Only the weak would beg to differ.

A man who can do something, will, sooner or later, do it. A mans morals are essentially his options.

Therefore, I would enlist in Kwicko's army.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:41 PM

Also known as the general human dumbassedness clause.

Well, at least you're closer to reality now. I note, however, that human nature is a weak argument. If some humans are strong, in general, as you claim, then some humans must have the strength to act in violation of the theoretical basic inclinations you've proposed here, otherwise all humans would be weak willed, and therefore all humans would be weak. Correct?

I mean, you like Nietzsche, right? This is the basis of his Ubermensch argument we've just derived.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:51 PM