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 - Kinder Graham
Pages: 1 ... 178179180 181182 ... 243
5371
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:33:22 PM »
Spanish, Irish, and Polish
Wouldn't be too surprised to have North African or Arabanian in me seeing as the Spanish side of my family has always remained in Spain, which was once under the occupation of the Umayyad Caliphate centuries ago. Although I'm sure countless generations have washed away that blood out of me
5372
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:29:20 PM »
Take a look at Islam. Take a look at the Tea Party, or just the entire Bible Belt.
I'm speaking about society as an aggregate.
I imagine the Muslims ashamed of ISIS or the citizens generally fed up with the polarisation of American politics outnumber those more ideological loyalists.
do they do anything to stop it? No
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/kurds-rush-across-turkey-defend-kobani-isis-syriaExcept the Kurds, a predominately Islam majority ethnic group, are trying to stop them. And don't forget the Arab coalition being led by the U.S to fight ISIS
5373
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:24:40 PM »
I made a claim that slaves were being freed. Didn't get into details how or why. It was stated and a source that showed such. Same with allowing blacks to fight, I didn't say why or how other than they were allowed to fight. You twisted what I said to make it sound like the South did it out of kindness
Your entire claim this thread is that the South wasn't at fault, the North is too blame, etc. Your claims were to show the South wasn't as bad as everyone says - your sources disprove that because they only start freeing slaves when they were sure they lost. Guess what - there was already a proclamation requiring them to do that anyway when they rejoined the union.
You are wrong, good day sir.
I claimed the North was at fault for raising taxes and quelling the concept of a limited central government. Try again My claims were that the South was allowing blacks to serve, get rid of slavery, and blacks were slave owners. I showed that. You try to make it sound like I'm saying the South isn't bad. Try again My sources don't disprove anything I said because all I said was that the south was allowing blacks to serve. Try again You are delusional, good day
5374
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:22:22 PM »
ITT: Kinder damage controlling the fuck out
Yeah, no. Take your stupidity back to b.lind. Explain how I'm damage controlling. I stated something and showed it to be true. If you think that's damage controlling then you need to go back to school
5375
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:20:49 PM »
lolno
5376
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:17:43 PM »
Not damage controlling or back peddling. You twisted and misunderstood what I said in order for you to look like you know something
Twisted what you said? You made a claim and gave a source. I pulled up your source and found it contradicted what you said in all of two paragraphs.
Keep trying Kinder.
I made a claim that slaves were being freed. Didn't get into details how or why. It was stated and a source that showed such. Same with allowing blacks to fight, I didn't say why or how other than they were allowed to fight. You twisted what I said to make it sound like the South did it out of kindness
5377
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:13:33 PM »
I did read my sources. They may not be dead on accurate to the picture I was trying to represent but they do show that what I initially stated of the South winning can plausibly be true. This is entirely a "what-if" situation and not everything will come out as fact
Using what I know and these sources shows the idea that the South would eventually abandon slavery. I never made mention of the circumstances, aside from political pressure and introduction of technology.
Way not to address any of the points or try to help yourself, but just back peddle and damage control to make yourself look like you know something.
We're done here. Come back when you have an argument.
Not damage controlling or back peddling. You twisted and misunderstood what I said in order for you to look like you know something
5378
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:12:36 PM »
Are you guys really ballsy enough to derail the lockmaster's thread?
I'm not trying to derail anything. I made a contribution to the thread and it was attacked by a non-civil response. Challenger ought to be banned for not having a civil debate in this forum and derailment
5379
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:10:21 PM »
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiers
Blacks fight for the Confederacy
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Black slave owners and slave owners in general were a small minority in the South
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Civil-War-Diplomacy-The-slavery-issue-and-the-end-of-confederate-diplomacy.html
Europe ignored the South because the North was going to free the slaves
http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surprising-facts-about-the-confederacy/
Slavery was being rid away with in the south by 1864
Question - Do you actually read your sources, or just Google something, see a title that helps your argument, and post it?
From your first source, SECOND paragraph, about the South using slaves as soldiers:
The situation was bleak for the Confederates in the spring of 1865. The Yankees had captured large swaths of Southern territory, General William T. Sherman's Union army was tearing through the Carolinas, and General Robert E. Lee was trying valiantly to hold the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, against General Ulysses S. Grant's growing force. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis had only two options. One was for Lee to unite with General Joseph Johnston's army in the Carolinas and use the combined force to take on Sherman and Grant one at a time. The other option was to arm slaves, the last source of fresh manpower in the Confederacy.
As you can see by my bolded portions for you, the South did not let slaves serve out of the goodness of their hearts. They had to let slaves serve because they didn't have more men to actually fight the North. You can twist it how you want and say the South was good for it, but they didn't even let the men who serve be free, as from the same source.
Lee asked that the slaves be freed as a condition of fighting, but the bill that passed the Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865, did not stipulate freedom for those who served.
So, there goes that point for you. Onto your third source, where you say that Europe ignored the South over slaves, you're partially incorrect. Slavery was a reason that came far later in 1862. Prior to that, Europe never recognized the South as an independent state, the Northern agriculture was far more beneficial to Europe during a grain shortage, and cotton could be made in India and Asia.
And source four. Your "The South was getting rid of slavery, they were good!" Directly from your source...
Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent.
Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.
I did read my sources. They may not be dead on accurate to the picture I was trying to represent but they do show that what I initially stated of the South winning can plausibly be true. This is entirely a "what-if" situation and not everything will come out as fact Using what I know and these sources shows the idea that the South would eventually abandon slavery. I never made mention of the circumstances, aside from political pressure and introduction of technology.
5380
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:05:29 PM »
i can smell it...
You can blame Challenger, as this is always expected from him. Just look at his comment FUCKING LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS IS THE STUPIDEST SHIT IVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE That just reeks of derailment
5381
« on: September 28, 2014, 02:01:30 PM »
>Admits South started war
>it was a defensive declaration of aggression
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOL
That stupid lol shit makes you look incredibly stupid and a waste of time to have a civil discussion with. Really, either actually make some sense and contribute to the thread or fucking don't It was a defensive declaration. And actually, the South simply seceded and only attacked because Unions troops were illegally in their territory
5382
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:51:28 PM »
Boo-hoo, I call a war a certain name. That makes me the most biased person ever. The North was being aggressive to the South by trying to enforce high taxation that Southerners couldn't afford, along with trying to expand big government and quell the concept of a limited central government. What you know of the civil war is biased northern bullshit
> War of Northern Aggression
> South initiated the War
My sides are in orbit
And why did the South initiate the war? Because it was tired of the North's aggression, hence the term War of Northern Aggression. South was on a primarily defensive campaign to protect their land
I love how you honestly think this. The South had no place to start a war - they were wrong about the entire thing. They seceded because they couldn't accept that Lincoln won the election and were so afraid he would take their slaves and money away.
I love how you deny this. The South did have a place to start a war - they felt the government and half the country was an entire different entity that didn't represent the idea of small government the founding fathers had and with that, felt the social contract between and and government was shredded by the government Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves, he only did so for strategic purposes and supported the idea of sending them to Africa
5384
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:40:01 PM »
Boo-hoo, I call a war a certain name. That makes me the most biased person ever. The North was being aggressive to the South by trying to enforce high taxation that Southerners couldn't afford, along with trying to expand big government and quell the concept of a limited central government. What you know of the civil war is biased northern bullshit
> War of Northern Aggression
> South initiated the War
And why did the South initiate the war? Because it was tired of the North's aggression, hence the term War of Northern Aggression. South was on a primarily defensive campaign to protect their land
My sides are in orbit
5385
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:26:15 PM »
Countless possibilities really
The South was fighting a defensive war and won many battles. If Jackson wasn't killed and Lee not attack Gettysburg on a uphill battle then the Union, especially the citizens, would have lost great moral and call for an end to hostilities.
By this time a cease-fire would take place and both sides would meet and work out a treaty. The Union realizing it has western lands that would be suitable enough for agriculture would be okay with the Confederacy leaving and forming their own nation. However it could be in the next couple years or decades where Texas would leave the Confederacy and form their own nation, leaving three nations in the lower 48
Now head back to the South fighting a defensive war. Key loses such as Gettysburg ended any hope of France and Britain to aid support to the South and give it recognition. If the South did win these key battles then these European powers would put pressure on the Union, aiding in the ability of the war ending shortly. However, Europe would also put pressure on the South to outlaw slavery
Slavery wouldn't exist into the 20th century, that's for sure. The South even allowed blacks to serve in the military and there were black plantation owners that owned slaves, including white slaves. In dire need of man power along with pressure on foreign powers and introduction of technology, slavery could have very well ended during the war or transition to the point where slaves were still such but imitated ancient world civilizations where slaves could own land, make money, and buy themselves out of freedom; indentured servants would be the best way to explain
Oh, Lincoln wouldn't have been assassinated since Booth had no motivation to do so and the KKK wouldn't exist because it was created after the Civil War. Eventually equal right would have occurred in the South the same way it was in South Africa. The North and South would also form a union similar to the E.U
FUCKING LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS IS THE STUPIDEST SHIT IVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE
Actually it's not
For one, this is a "what-if" situation and there's no way to prove if anything in the situation is fact. That means saying aliens will invade and build giant dildo statues is just as credible as what a person that's profound to study the Civil War will now
Secondly, I don't see you giving an opinion as to what will happen so you really have no room to talk. I;m basing this as of what I know about the South and the Civil War, which is probably far more in-depth than what you know
Thirdly, get reported. Enjoy your 3 month ban :^)
I didn't personally insult you, so I'm not getting banned.
What you know about the civil war is biased southern bullshit. That's why I'm laughing. You literally called it the "War of Northern Aggression".
And no, somebody saying aliens will invade is not as credible as saying something that actually makes sense, like slavery continuing and the U.S. not being a superpower.
Yeah, you did Boo-hoo, I call a war a certain name. That makes me the most biased person ever. The North was being aggressive to the South by trying to enforce high taxation that Southerners couldn't afford, along with trying to expand big government and quell the concept of a limited central government. What you know of the civil war is biased northern bullshit Except slavery wouldn't continue till the 20th and 21st century. That is the end-result of a biased learning institution. The facts are Europe would put pressure on the South to deal away with slavery if they wanted their help, along with the introduction of machinery that could do the job of an entire plantation in a shorter amount of time Do I need to remind you about the "Great Emancipator's" decision to free the slaves for the benefit of a military victory? Or how about his initial plan to send them all to Africa?
5386
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:38:59 PM »
Wonder what flavor of genetics she has in that cup
5387
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:33:48 PM »
Neither do I. Is there a problem?
How old are you?
47
I'm having a hard time to believe you
5388
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:30:21 PM »
Countless possibilities really
The South was fighting a defensive war and won many battles. If Jackson wasn't killed and Lee not attack Gettysburg on a uphill battle then the Union, especially the citizens, would have lost great moral and call for an end to hostilities.
By this time a cease-fire would take place and both sides would meet and work out a treaty. The Union realizing it has western lands that would be suitable enough for agriculture would be okay with the Confederacy leaving and forming their own nation. However it could be in the next couple years or decades where Texas would leave the Confederacy and form their own nation, leaving three nations in the lower 48
Now head back to the South fighting a defensive war. Key loses such as Gettysburg ended any hope of France and Britain to aid support to the South and give it recognition. If the South did win these key battles then these European powers would put pressure on the Union, aiding in the ability of the war ending shortly. However, Europe would also put pressure on the South to outlaw slavery
Slavery wouldn't exist into the 20th century, that's for sure. The South even allowed blacks to serve in the military and there were black plantation owners that owned slaves, including white slaves. In dire need of man power along with pressure on foreign powers and introduction of technology, slavery could have very well ended during the war or transition to the point where slaves were still such but imitated ancient world civilizations where slaves could own land, make money, and buy themselves out of freedom; indentured servants would be the best way to explain
Oh, Lincoln wouldn't have been assassinated since Booth had no motivation to do so and the KKK wouldn't exist because it was created after the Civil War. Eventually equal right would have occurred in the South the same way it was in South Africa. The North and South would also form a union similar to the E.U
FUCKING LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD THIS IS THE STUPIDEST SHIT IVE EVER READ IN MY LIFE
Actually it's not For one, this is a "what-if" situation and there's no way to prove if anything in the situation is fact. That means saying aliens will invade and build giant dildo statues is just as credible as what a person that's profound to study the Civil War will now Secondly, I don't see you giving an opinion as to what will happen so you really have no room to talk. I;m basing this as of what I know about the South and the Civil War, which is probably far more in-depth than what you know Thirdly, get reported. Enjoy your 3 month ban :^)
5389
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:26:40 PM »
Kinder's claim about the Crusades killing an equal number of people in centuries as Hitler and Stalin did in decades is really quite ridiculous. First of all, the Crusades killed much, much less than the decades of Hitler and Stalin at a death toll of about 1.5-3 million.
Second of all, the Crusades lasted about 30 years when taken as a lump.
So are you saying less people died in the Crusades? Because it's estimated between 20,000,000-60,000,000 people died under Stalin and around 22,027,000 died under Hitler based on 5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews 1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles 500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis 200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti 200,000–300,000 people with disabilities 80,000–200,000 Freemasons 100,000 communists 10,000–25,000 homosexual men 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses 3.5–6 million other Slavic civilians 2.5–4 million Soviet POWs 1–1.5 million political dissidents The world population at the beginning of WWII was 2.3 billion and the world population was 400 million during the the Crusades and from what I read, around a million people died in the Crusades So let's say around 40,000,000 million people died under Stalin and add that to the number of deaths under Hitler. You get a total of about 3% of the world population being killed Under the Crusades, a total of .25% of the world population was killed That's 3% compared to .25%
5390
« on: September 28, 2014, 12:00:22 PM »
Countless possibilities really
The South was fighting a defensive war and won many battles. If Jackson wasn't killed and Lee not attack Gettysburg on a uphill battle then the Union, especially the citizens, would have lost great moral and call for an end to hostilities.
By this time a cease-fire would take place and both sides would meet and work out a treaty. The Union realizing it has western lands that would be suitable enough for agriculture would be okay with the Confederacy leaving and forming their own nation. However it could be in the next couple years or decades where Texas would leave the Confederacy and form their own nation, leaving three nations in the lower 48
Now head back to the South fighting a defensive war. Key loses such as Gettysburg ended any hope of France and Britain to aid support to the South and give it recognition. If the South did win these key battles then these European powers would put pressure on the Union, aiding in the ability of the war ending shortly. However, Europe would also put pressure on the South to outlaw slavery
Slavery wouldn't exist into the 20th century, that's for sure. The South even allowed blacks to serve in the military and there were black plantation owners that owned slaves, including white slaves. In dire need of man power along with pressure on foreign powers and introduction of technology, slavery could have very well ended during the war or transition to the point where slaves were still such but imitated ancient world civilizations where slaves could own land, make money, and buy themselves out of freedom; indentured servants would be the best way to explain
Oh, Lincoln wouldn't have been assassinated since Booth had no motivation to do so and the KKK wouldn't exist because it was created after the Civil War. Eventually equal right would have occurred in the South the same way it was in South Africa. The North and South would also form a union similar to the E.U
5391
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:31:15 AM »
.......Are you going to eat the body?
5392
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:30:18 AM »
awwwwww, baby's first maymay
5393
« on: September 28, 2014, 11:28:51 AM »
Atheists can be good people too, but on average they're not. I think that's the key distinction.
Most definitely.
Just yesterday I stoned a woman for talking out of turn (I didn't give her permission to talk you see) and then later I blew up a school because girls were attending it. Then I threw acid in the face of a 6 year old girl. Then I hit my dormmate in the head with a hammer because he's a homosexual. Spoiler Oh wait. That would be the shit you hear on the news that Theists do.
Muslims are less advanced than Christians so that doesn't really make a difference. On the topic of homosexuality, there seems to be a lot of gay pedophiles, so you really can't blame people for being upset with them over it. Proportional to the gay population, there are far more gay pedophiles than straight. And of course, it's simply God's will that homosexuality one of the deadly sins. We might not know why, but that doesn't make it any less of a sin to commit.
LOL You almost had me there for a minute. The username and Density avatar had me suspicious but all that sin talk gave you away.
Are you trying to say I'm a troll for saying what billions of people believe? Figures, it's so much easier to just say someone's a troll than to actually form a rebuttal. Good luck in college by the way.
There's no rebuttal necessary to superstitious mumbo jumbo. Don't get mad because I don't take your bullshit seriously. All you're doing is pulling. Statistics out of your ass from your limited and close minded perspective of life. Pedophiles are irrelevant, and it was a Crhistian who smashed a mans head in for being homosexual. Let's also not forget the WBC, and the fact that Christian politicians make laws using the bible as a reference.
Funny how you call atheists argumentative, yet here you are trying to argue. If you're so firm in your beliefs, why do you care what I think? I've met real fundamentalists, and they're not the least bit interested in discussing things like this. So yes, you're either a troll or very stupid. You can pick whichever you lets you sleep at night. And I'm not in college. If I were, what religious fundamentalism have to do with anything?
>Dustbin
The opinions of one person in a group of people do not represent the whole, and that's what you're saying entirely throughout your post. What? Christians are evil because one of them committed murder? Well then I guess atheists must be really evil for killing hundreds of millions in the twentieth century.
>Your logic
Well since you brought up the past, then I guess you never heard of the Crusades.
Also, Hitler and Stalin did not kill because they were atheist. They killed people who opposed them. But I guess you're too busy sending me PMs which presumably have shock images.
Around the same number of people died in both the Crusades and the decades that saw the rule of Stalin and Hitler. While it took centuries for millions to die in the Crusades, it took a couple of decades for these relentless people to match and even surpass that body count Hitler and Stalin wanted to see the end of religion in their nations. Hitler started with the Jews because nobody liked them but his ultimate goal was the eradication of Christianity and the Catholic Church. Stalin on the other hand just went straight forward and persecuted the Russian Orthodox majority that resulted in hundreds of thousands believers and priests to be murdered by the State. It's really interesting if Hitler and Stalin were actually religious then people would come out in droves saying their acts was on a religious bias but it's not so when they are no religious and promote ideologies that rely on modern science (Nazism) Theists and atheists both have blood on their hands. That doesn't mean everybody who is one or the other is bad, just those crazy people are
5394
« on: September 27, 2014, 11:19:40 PM »
>american handball
OH LOL SO ORIGINAL
hand prolate spheroid?
5395
« on: September 27, 2014, 11:13:04 PM »
>american handball
5396
« on: September 27, 2014, 11:08:19 PM »
Poke........Tru?
5397
« on: September 27, 2014, 11:04:11 PM »
Hell no. They just need to shut the fuck up and deal with it. If they want unbiased history they should learn it from sources outside of school.
But wait they wont. They are just going to sit on their pot smoking, entitled asses bitching about social injustices just for attention.
\ Uh, what? School is to educate, that means giving students an un-biased and open education of both sides, not just one. With the world becoming intertwined, ignorance of another nation's culture of history will not do well in the work force
5398
« on: September 27, 2014, 11:01:16 PM »
Wait, don't fucking tell me asbestos is still a commo. Insulator In Canada
It's not. But there's a lot of old buildings still containing it. I worked in a room for basically five days straight, with a disfunctional mask that I didn't know about until after we were done.
oh my gott...
Sue, I'd all i can think.
You. . You may be done for, bur please do it so your family has something.
I can't sue the construction company because it's not their fault. And I can't sue the company that sold it tot hem because I don't even have any money in my pockets right now.
You need to start looking this stuff up. There has to be a way for you to hire a lawyer and make an arrangement to pay after the case wins in your favor. Or find an organization that will hire you a lawyer for hire; I'm sure there's one out there that can
I don't think he can really afford a lawyer...
I read that but typically lawyers don't charge unless they win the case. A win, or even a settlement, can reward him hundreds of thousands of dollars, enough to pay the lawyer and have money for his family. And if he lives in the U.K, the government is paying out over 123,000 pounds in compensation https://www.gov.uk/government/news/asbestos-victims-to-get-123000-in-compensation
5399
« on: September 27, 2014, 10:55:04 PM »
Wait, don't fucking tell me asbestos is still a commo. Insulator In Canada
It's not. But there's a lot of old buildings still containing it. I worked in a room for basically five days straight, with a disfunctional mask that I didn't know about until after we were done.
oh my gott...
Sue, I'd all i can think.
You. . You may be done for, bur please do it so your family has something.
I can't sue the construction company because it's not their fault. And I can't sue the company that sold it tot hem because I don't even have any money in my pockets right now.
You need to start looking this stuff up. There has to be a way for you to hire a lawyer and make an arrangement to pay after the case wins in your favor. Or find an organization that will hire you a lawyer for hire; I'm sure there's one out there that can
5400
« on: September 27, 2014, 10:49:08 PM »
Perhaps we could try this again since you will all be able to get it for free starting October 1st.
Oh shit, seriously?! Fuck yeah!
Pages: 1 ... 178179180 181182 ... 243
|
Show Posts