This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Solonoid
Pages: 1 ... 333334335 336337 ... 449
10021
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:56:28 AM »
I don't have one, because I don't live in 24 hour cycles.
I think usually I get about six hours of sleep during various parts of the day split between three days, and on the fourth day I sleep shit fifteen hours.
What happens in between is always different.
10022
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:49:40 AM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.
Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.
The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.
Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.
Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?
No.
That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.
Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.
Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.
Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.
You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.
>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"
This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?
And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.
Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.
But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?
It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.
You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.
The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?
The answer is yes.
However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.
So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?
Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.
What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.
And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.
I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.
That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.
I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.
You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.
The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.
I didn't say any of that.
You're just terrible at paying attention.
Explain how one long winded and apologetic post trying to justify "fuck you, don't take my right to own slaves" translates to me not paying attention.
That's uh... The reason they were long winded. Because I spent the last day explaining and a half explaining exactly why slavery was not the underlying cause of southern secession.
10023
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:35:14 AM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.
Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.
The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.
Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.
Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?
No.
That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.
Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.
Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.
Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.
You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.
>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"
This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?
And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.
Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.
But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?
It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.
You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.
The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?
The answer is yes.
However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.
So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?
Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.
What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.
And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.
I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.
That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.
I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.
You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.
The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.
I didn't say any of that. You're just terrible at paying attention.
10024
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:30:27 AM »
I don't fucking care just post quietly until you get it like Byrne did.
lol you used to be cool, I missed the moment when you became such a shitbird
I'll post quietly when you do, other that than that, Mr Shitposter, if you don't care, you don't have to post in my thread
I don't like this forum fox bullshit or pretty much the way you went from ebin funposting on b.net to cringeworthy self obsession in sep7.
10025
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:27:48 AM »
There's a cap to how good your internet can really be right now, but in five years when everybody else's router sucks fuck and they'll have replaced it yours will still be good.
10026
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:01:24 AM »
Ew, only normies go to college and watch gurren.
10027
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:58:50 AM »
Only if there cash be a an option to add a semi transparent confederate flag.
10028
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:56:25 AM »
Why isn't fruit considered and ambassador?
I'm pretty sure he's an admin on bungle.
And with the incredibly high status of mods on b.net, shouldn't Foman have it too?
10029
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:53:09 AM »
I don't fucking care just post quietly until you get it like Byrne did.
10030
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:49:56 AM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.
Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.
The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.
Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.
Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?
No.
That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.
Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.
Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.
Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.
You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.
>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"
This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?
And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.
Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.
But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?
It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.
You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.
The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?
The answer is yes.
However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.
So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?
Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.
What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.
And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.
I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.
That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be. I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.
10031
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:09:58 PM »
Everyone
just
shut up
and come inside
ITS BED TIME
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
10032
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:08:52 PM »
I'm not surprised, but this is getting annoying.
Why are so many games cutting split screen?
10033
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:52:26 PM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.
Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.
The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.
Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.
Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?
No.
That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.
Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.
Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.
Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.
You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.
>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"
This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?
And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.
Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.
But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?
It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no. It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened. You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be. The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished? The answer is yes. However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war. So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened? Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say. What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place. And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
10034
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:08:45 PM »
Lmao
I'm done
Yes please go with your logic that is based around correlation instead of cause and effect. You can't apply mathematical logic to an anthropological issue.
10035
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:03:09 PM »
Yeah, man.
Nobody knows why the civil war started. Can't imagine why, myself.
Why don't we check the Declarations of Secession for...
Mississippi In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
Texas Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States[/b].
South Carolina In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
Georgia In 1820 the North demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
Florida By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.
And
Alabama And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
Now, I swear, it's right on the tip of my tongue but it's just not coming to me. What could the Southern states have possibly founded their secessions on?
Yes, they clearly scripted those passages in response to the abolition movement. But the fact that they decided to load their bases and protect their (racist) economy doesn't mean that they wouldn't heve seceded without the presence of abolitionists.
10036
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.
Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.
The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.
Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.
Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?
No.
That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.
Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.
Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.
Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.
You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.
>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"
This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?
And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.
Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.
But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
10037
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.
Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.
The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.
Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.
Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?
No.
That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.
Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.
Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.
Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.
You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.
>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"
This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post? And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation. Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started. But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
10038
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans. You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told. Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states. There was nowhere near enough support for the movement. The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day. Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on? Yes. Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s? No. That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation. Read a god damned book.
10039
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:04:29 PM »
>tfw you support both
Also I'd like to point out to all of the people hating on rednecks and "muh confederacy" people ITT, that it was mentioned in the annotations of the video that they're burning gays, as a rhetorical technique to discredit ISIS, meaning that the creator of this video is most likely tolerant of homosexuals, and therefore presuably not some thick headed anti-everything neo nazi klansmen type like everyone stereotypes them to be.
Of course, he could just literally only be tolerant of the gays, but I find that unlikely.
Its a point that stands for a lot of these kinds of people who get called bigots just because they see something different in those stars and stripes than you do, might not really be bigoted at all.
You're not a bigot if you support the Confederate flag
You're just an idiot if you don't understand that it doesn't matter what the flag originally stood for. The swastika is a symbol of the sun and the god Surya in Hinduism, but I'm not gonna fuckin' carry a flag with that around on it either, now am I?
The flag never stood for racism or hatred though, racism was just a popular social construct of the time. The government didn't endorse racism any more heavily than the Union government did a few years before.
Its not quite like where Hitler took a relatively neutral country and turned it into a racially oriented regime.
The south was so socioeconomically different from the north that making it its own country was probably a sound move, considering that millions of people suffered miserably in "reconstruction" or really the indoctrination of northern political and economic structures in the south, which would have had to happen anyway if there had been no war if the nation wanted to prevent collapse.
Those states wanted to have more power over their own governance without leaving the union, because the policies that were being produced by the majority North were harmful to the economy of the south.
Slavery didn't even become a major issue until after the war had already begun, sure there was an abolitionist moevment before that, but it certainly did not see the support it saw during or after the war.
In fact, dirty politics, blackmail, and bribery had to be used to pass the thirteenth amendment, without the southern states in the legislature.
So no, the Confederacy was not formed in order to cling on to racist hatred, and the flag was never a symbol of hate until the union government demonised it.
Yes, good job on missing the entire point of my post.
Like, seriously, I could hear an audible woosh.
It DOES NOT MATTER EVEN A LITTLE what the flag stood for originally. Nope, not one little bit. What DOES matter is that it's only in the public light due to the KKK's usage in the 1940's and the continual usage for racist means by the organization, followers, and others thereafter.
Thus, the Nazi example. It doesn't MATTER that the swastika originally stood for Surya, it matters that it was used as the figurehead for a genocide.
Symbols evolve.
And if the rest of you stopped being ignorant pricks, it could evolve back. A huge point of this movement is that there is heritage tied to it, which a lot of people take seriously. Some people want to honor their ancestors who laid down their lives in defence of their country, and instead of listenening to what anyone has to say, the real bigots, the libtards just say NOPE LOL YOU RACIST FUCK
10040
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:01:26 PM »
 Meet your next President, America. Spoiler LOLNO VERMIN SUPREME 2016
A VOTE FOR VERMIN IS A VOTE FOR LEARNIN'
EVERYONE GETS A FREE PONY IN EXCHANGE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
MANDATORY BRUSHED TEETH
ALL HAIL THE TOOTHBRUSH POLICE
10041
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:49:39 PM »
>tfw you support both
Also I'd like to point out to all of the people hating on rednecks and "muh confederacy" people ITT, that it was mentioned in the annotations of the video that they're burning gays, as a rhetorical technique to discredit ISIS, meaning that the creator of this video is most likely tolerant of homosexuals, and therefore presuably not some thick headed anti-everything neo nazi klansmen type like everyone stereotypes them to be.
Of course, he could just literally only be tolerant of the gays, but I find that unlikely.
Its a point that stands for a lot of these kinds of people who get called bigots just because they see something different in those stars and stripes than you do, might not really be bigoted at all.
You're not a bigot if you support the Confederate flag
You're just an idiot if you don't understand that it doesn't matter what the flag originally stood for. The swastika is a symbol of the sun and the god Surya in Hinduism, but I'm not gonna fuckin' carry a flag with that around on it either, now am I?
The flag never stood for racism or hatred though, racism was just a popular social construct of the time. The government didn't endorse racism any more heavily than the Union government did a few years before. Its not quite like where Hitler took a relatively neutral country and turned it into a racially oriented regime. The south was so socioeconomically different from the north that making it its own country was probably a sound move, considering that millions of people suffered miserably in "reconstruction" or really the indoctrination of northern political and economic structures in the south, which would have had to happen anyway if there had been no war if the nation wanted to prevent collapse. Those states wanted to have more power over their own governance without leaving the union, because the policies that were being produced by the majority North were harmful to the economy of the south. Slavery didn't even become a major issue until after the war had already begun, sure there was an abolitionist moevment before that, but it certainly did not see the support it saw during or after the war. In fact, dirty politics, blackmail, and bribery had to be used to pass the thirteenth amendment, without the southern states in the legislature. So no, the Confederacy was not formed in order to cling on to racist hatred, and the flag was never a symbol of hate until the union government demonised it.
10042
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:23:07 PM »
00's were better.
You know, if it weren't for the tacky taste in floors I might think we were soulmates.
10043
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:15:08 PM »
What are you talking about?
Every facet of the media
and i'm not fucking talking about the media. I'm talking about congressmen lashing out during speeches and shit.
Do none of you fucks know how to read?
No max, the media isn't just the news its fucking everything.
Most particularly pop culture was what I was talking about.
And congressmen are supposed to lash out at the president when he fucks up, its literally their job.
not to his face, interrupting a speech. they're acting like fucking 13 year old girls.
Under what context is that acceptable behavior for an elected official?
>minute and a half of a speech followed by a standing ovation
>one dude briefly calls him a liar
And if you'd bother to pay attention, the whole point of my post is that this didn't happen previously. We acted with civility during speeches - televised ones, no less. This is a new development, and the distinguishing factor between Obama and those before him is the color of his skin.
I'd really like to know how one guy shouting "liar" constitutes institutionalized racism.
Hm, I wonder if I can find an equal, if not more disparaging experience that the previous president experienced.
OH WAIT I FUCKING DID
hurr durr post a useless video.
I didn't say shouting "liar" was racist. In fact, I never said any of this was racist. But the only major difference is Obama's race. If it's not because he's black, I'm curious as to the cause of the lack of respect for the office of the President. I'm also curious if it will continue in 2016.
It's been hip to hate on the president since the second president went into office. Politicians are always saying awful things about each other, regardless of prestige of office. If you haven't seen it until now it's because you were too young or weren't paying attention before.
10044
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:02:35 PM »
What are you talking about?
Every facet of the media
and i'm not fucking talking about the media. I'm talking about congressmen lashing out during speeches and shit.
Do none of you fucks know how to read?
No max, the media isn't just the news its fucking everything.
Most particularly pop culture was what I was talking about.
And congressmen are supposed to lash out at the president when he fucks up, its literally their job.
not to his face, interrupting a speech. they're acting like fucking 13 year old girls.
Under what context is that acceptable behavior for an elected official?
Elected officials get elected to office because (presumably) they care about the desires and needs of their constituencies, so when the president of the united states comes up and lies through his teeth, I would be ashamed if I were standing there and an emotional response was not provoked. And I don't really see how that means that just because the president is a snake oil liar and he also happens to be black, that anyone who calls him out on it is racist.
10045
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:56:53 PM »
>tfw you support both
Also I'd like to point out to all of the people hating on rednecks and "muh confederacy" people ITT, that it was mentioned in the annotations of the video that they're burning gays, as a rhetorical technique to discredit ISIS, meaning that the creator of this video is most likely tolerant of homosexuals, and therefore presuably not some thick headed anti-everything neo nazi klansmen type like everyone stereotypes them to be.
Of course, he could just literally only be tolerant of the gays, but I find that unlikely.
Its a point that stands for a lot of these kinds of people who get called bigots just because they see something different in those stars and stripes than you do, might not really be bigoted at all.
10046
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:47:01 PM »
What are you talking about?
Every facet of the media
and i'm not fucking talking about the media. I'm talking about congressmen lashing out during speeches and shit.
Do none of you fucks know how to read?
No max, the media isn't just the news its fucking everything. Most particularly pop culture was what I was talking about. And congressmen are supposed to lash out at the president when he fucks up, its literally their job. And other than that I think I perfectly explained how Bush never recieved any respect from pretty much anyone, whereas Obama has been riding the "I'm black" wave since he got elected to his first state legislature, and people have been buying into it because they're afraid of being called racist.
10047
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:40:36 PM »
What are you talking about?
Every facet of the media called W Bush a liar and a charlatan the entire time he was in office.
He was constantly under heat from every direction, being caricaturised to an ungodly point.
American culture was against the presidency the entire time he was in office, and you think that just because Obama is rightfully hated by citizens on both sides of the aisle, he is the least respected president of all time?
The difference between the kind of hatred the two encountered is extreme, people hate Obama, culture hated Bush.
I can't think of any greater disrespect than to be made the laughing stock of the entire world, and that is certainly not what has happened to Obama.
10048
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:25:57 PM »
It's more expensive than a steel drum and it has a higher quality sound. A lot more engineering went into the design of the handpan than in the steelpan. I suggest you look it up, it's quite amazing actually. The creators basically took the properties of gongs, steelpans, bells, and combined them all into one intrument. So saying a handpan is a poor man's steel drum is like saying Caviar is a poor man's sardines.
I just found a fuckload for sale with one google search.
this is like telling someone writing a book to just buy one
that's not the point, yo
I believe he said he wanted one but couldn't find one in the OP. It's more like telling someone who is trying to handwrite a book on handmade paper and bind it in leather themselves, then pass it around one person at a time until everyone they want to have read it has, to just type it up and send it to a publisher.
10049
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:23:32 PM »
It's more expensive than a steel drum and it has a higher quality sound. A lot more engineering went into the design of the handpan than in the steelpan. I suggest you look it up, it's quite amazing actually. The creators basically took the properties of gongs, steelpans, bells, and combined them all into one intrument. So saying a handpan is a poor man's steel drum is like saying Caviar is a poor man's sardines.
I just found a fuckload for sale with one google search.
Link.
Here's one guy who sells nothing but.And once you consider the man hours it will take you, not to mention the materials if you keep messing up, you actually might find yourself in a better position paying for one.
10050
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:21:14 PM »
George RR Martin.
Pages: 1 ... 333334335 336337 ... 449
|
Show Posts