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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 139140141 142143 ... 243
4201
« on: July 02, 2015, 07:07:52 AM »
I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil. I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.
So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand. Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.
But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.
Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.
Stating something over and over again and then giving half assed answers doesn't automatically make something true. I thought this was obvious.
If that's the case how can you explain your behaviour throughout this entire thread?
I'm not the one asserting anything ridiculous here last I recalled.
You seem to be misremembering.
>"South secession wasn't about slavery"
Okay, explain how
>"The North's expansionary motives threatened the South's economy that was based around slavery"
Okay, so it was about slavery then
>"NO UR JUST AN AUTISTIC CHILD STOP MISINTERPRETING MY POSITION"
I think this about succinctly sums up the discussion.
But their society and economy weren't threatened because of the fact that they involved slavery.
They were threatened because they were very socioeconomically different, and Washington, controlled by a northern majority, was forcing change they weren't ready for down their throats.
You just assumed the change I was talking about was abolition, though I stated several times that abolition would not have been seen as a major threat for over another decade, had it not been for Lincoln's desperation during the war.
No actually, they got bootyblasted over the fact Lincoln won the 1860 election without gaining a Southern state, (which was perfectly within the parameters of a democracy) then subsequently became paranoid over the fact they were going to lose the driving force of the economy. You can continue to give me all this hogwash about how the Union was a tyrannical force that threatened the sovereignty of the South, (and I'm liable to agree with you, but again, it isn't within the scope of the discussion) but the fact of the matter is slavery was, categorically, the fundamental facet as to how the Civil War began, and to dispute otherwise is really just negationism of the highest caliber.
4202
« on: July 02, 2015, 06:45:38 AM »
I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil. I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.
So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand. Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.
But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.
Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.
Stating something over and over again and then giving half assed answers doesn't automatically make something true. I thought this was obvious.
If that's the case how can you explain your behaviour throughout this entire thread?
I'm not the one asserting anything ridiculous here last I recalled.
You seem to be misremembering.
>"South secession wasn't about slavery" Okay, explain how >"The North's expansionary motives threatened the South's economy that was based around slavery" Okay, so it was about slavery then >"NO UR JUST AN AUTISTIC CHILD STOP MISINTERPRETING MY POSITION" I think this about succinctly sums up the discussion.
4203
« on: July 02, 2015, 06:36:12 AM »
I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil. I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.
So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand. Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.
But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.
Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.
Stating something over and over again and then giving half assed answers doesn't automatically make something true. I thought this was obvious.
If that's the case how can you explain your behaviour throughout this entire thread?
I'm not the one asserting anything ridiculous here last I recalled.
4204
« on: July 02, 2015, 06:24:41 AM »
4205
« on: July 02, 2015, 06:23:00 AM »
I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil. I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves.
So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand. Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.
But I did state numerous times that the secession was not about slavery.
Honestly I'm not sure you care enough to read anyone else's posts because you're just a stubborn ass.
Stating something over and over again and then giving half assed answers doesn't automatically make something true. I thought this was obvious. No point in getting pissy with me on behalf of your fuck up mate. Unless this is all one big massive ruse.
4206
« on: July 02, 2015, 06:11:57 AM »
I think I objectively stated several times that slavery is evil. I never disputed your ethical position on slavery. Time and time again I've asked you to prove why the attempt at secession wasn't about slavery and so far you've given me tenuous at best answers, including why they were somehow entitled to slaves. So I'm not sure where you're getting any of this, but I guess I'll have to go to school and get a degree in psychology to understand the logical pathways of an autistic child, then I will come back and discuss things with you in a manner you can understand. Oh no, trust me, you don't need a degree in anything for that mate.
4207
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:38:23 PM »
what exactly did you balls up, an exam or something?
Completely forgot about an assignment that contributed 20% towards my grade back in April, and now I have the other 80% due in on Friday.
I was determined to do the 80% assignment today but the more I look into it the more I can't really do anything without having done the previous assignment.
How so?
The first assignment is pretty much laying out the foundations for the second assignment. Can't really do one without the other.
4208
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:21:34 PM »
what exactly did you balls up, an exam or something?
Completely forgot about an assignment that contributed 20% towards my grade back in April, and now I have the other 80% due in on Friday. I was determined to do the 80% assignment today but the more I look into it the more I can't really do anything without having done the previous assignment.
4209
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:09:01 PM »
4210
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:06:02 PM »
>serious
4211
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:05:01 PM »
4212
« on: July 01, 2015, 05:04:16 PM »
 cheer me up sep7
4213
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:48:05 PM »
Spoiler Yes, that man is racist. And yet still, I'm waiting on your explanation as to why that is. No, there's plenty of valid criticism to be made. Civilly. Okay, but for the millionth time, how does this equate to racism. Not really. You're just kind of annoying. Pot meet kettle. Because to show that much disrespect, he's obviously racist. Okay, so by that logic, the amount of disrespect you've shown me in this debate, as well as others, you must be a racist. Because he's black. Leap of logic number 1. And I've told you countless times that this type of stuff is very few and far between. Racism is far and few between in politics? Agreed. The fact that he did something like this is racism on his part. Proof? Not in the way Euro politics is. And how exactly are you gauging this? >The Guardian
>The Sun
>The Telegraph
They're all written horribly. They read almost like a parody. Don't see how they're any different to the populist media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC. The media has a narrative that it likes to spin. Congratulations on discovering that his doesn't just happen in America. Obviously.
Point is this heckling (which was totally uncalled for) is racist. Leap of logic number 2. Booing is not as bad as calling somebody liar, though they're both really disrespectful. And once again, I'm dying on a clarification as to how it's racist. It's the president's job to lie? Given how every president has done so since the days of Washington it's practically mandatory at this point. Don't see how Obama is exempt from this. Maybe if you vote republican. DUDE REPUBLICANS CAUSE ALL TROUBLE IN THE COUNTRY LMAO Because he is a republican and the heckling did is racist. Leap of logic number 3. You know republicans are racist. That's my point. A select few are, yes. http://www.salon.com/2015/04/10/the_gop_has_scores_of_racists_a_former_bush_official_condemns_modern_republican_orthodoxy/ A select number of Republicans are racist, congratulations on proving what 99% of us already know. Now please do the rest of us the courtesy of proving how one congressman who heckled a president is racist, which I originally asked you to do in the first place. LOL
Never have I once acted or said anything like that. Got some bad news on what the rest of us think of you buddy. Oh lord what a baby. You don't remove these personal experiences from your views, they're one of the main reasons you think the way you do. You ever been falsely accused of rape and had the whole judicial system engineered against you because you're a man? Come back and talk to me when you do, because I can assure you, it isn't a pleasant experience. That you have a hard on for denying racism and attacking "the left". I attack the left when it's warranted, just as I attack the right when it's warranted. Neither political allegiance is exempt from scrutiny. Not at all.
Nobody has disrespected any president the way they've distracted Obama. The media, other politicians, public figures. You keep on thinking that if that's what your echo chamber assures you of. The guy was being referred to as the antichrist. As a hologram. And Bush has been referred to as mentally handicapped and a failed abortion. What's your point? I mean for fuck's sake, don't you see how insane Obama's election has made people? Yeah sure, if you're referring to the fact that politics turn people into a divided bunch of retards, absolutely. Don't see how this suddenly occurred as soon as Obama was inaugurated though. They can't accept a black man is president. Some of them do, yeah. A lot of them just don't like the fact that he's a Democrat. As is what happens with political elections. Not by the media, politicians and public figures the way Obama has. You got anyway to quantify this? Bush at least was a stupid motherfucker that deserved a lot of criticism. Okay. Obama has been called a dictator, hologram, murderer. Never heard anyone call him a hologram sans the conspiratorial audience. I don't see how the other two points aren't valid criticisms. Bush was lambasted as a tyrant and a murderer when he entered the country into the Iraq War. A lot of it trying to pass health care reform. And a horribly bureaucratic and inefficient reform at that. It's a large network. Many others have also said thing s about Obama that they haven't said about other presidents. Such as? Has Donald Trump ever said this about any other president? Did anybody else try to? Bush had his intellectual capacity questioned, and was involved in a ridiculous hoax report about it. Was the birth certificate scandal ludicrous? Yes. Was it racist, however? No. Presidents have to endure these kinds of farces day in and day out. Obama is no exception simply because he's black. Obama has faced opposition and criticism no other president has. Because he's black. Leap of logic number 4. America has been really shooken up since Obama took office. Believe it or not America is really racist still. Once again, never repudiated this. I won't I wonder why. because it's irrelevant. Or because there isn't any. Is rather point you to major media news sources that have criticized Obama. Such as? You deny there's racism any chance you get, as long as it's white on black. So prove it. This is why I can't take you seriously. Because you asserted an inane statement? Not really my problem bro. You're comparing the division we're seeing now (with people wanting to actually secede from he United States) Haha oh wow, when did we start discussing this? to something barely similar under say Clinton's presidency. What? I've never denied I have an extreme dislike for the republicans. I'm pretty adamant about it, actually. So you may as well just generalize all Republicans then, since you seem so keen about it. Point is you're putting words in my mouth. IRON KNEE le ebin independent Yeah, no, doesn't really work when you regurgitate my rebuttals. By denying white on black racism but bringing up black on white racism any chance you get? Leap in logic number 5. And using raw data to try and twist the facts? LOL How's that 13% of the population yet still commit the most crime going for you? Is that twisting facts? I'm not. I don't really like them at all. I like Obama. There's liking someone, and subverting legitimate criticism any chance you get. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10 This the most politically motivated opinion piece I've ever read. Here's a suggestion. How about instead of linking me a flagrantly partisan piece of journalism, instead you link me to an academic paper that doesn't have an agenda attached to it. That'd be great, thanks. Not on the level of the republicans. Not even close. And how exactly are you gauging this? All the social conservatives tend to join the GOP. And all the communists tend to join the Democrats. I can play the generalization game too. Again, not talking about SJW's. I'm saying you act like you're not socially conservative, but you really are. So were are exactly are you getting "progressive" from then? How much more proof of you being socially conservative and racist do we need when you literally denied racism being the factor in the shooting of that church? Except I didn't. How many times do we have to go over this to get it into your libshit brain? The irony in this is astounding. This is but a sample of what it's like debating with you. I don't believe, I know. Careful now challenger, you're starting to sound like...I don't know. A religious zealot who has no interest in evaluating the arguments for himself? Let's take the little outbursts and the yelling over each other. Which you're equally guilty of. Nobody would take you seriously in America after pulling something like that. Good thing nobody else in the world takes American politics seriously then. Thanks leva No problem Tyrone. And there's being disrespectful because you're racist. Pretty sure this is like the fifth racist card you've pulled in this post alone. Not sure why you're acting like that doesn't exist. I don't. I just don't appreciate agendas being pushed on the basis of a massacre. What's so difficult about seeing that the dude is a racist which is why he acted like that? Leap of logic number 6. Whatever you say fagorino. Oh wow, almost broke that facade of leftist tolerance there. Careful. No, I just don't associate with anybody. Hardcore. color* >when you're getting desperate for rebuttals. Because it wasn't genuine criticism, genius. It was heckling. Still waiting as to how it constitutes racism even if I have to say it in literally every post. I'm going to laugh at you if you make me laugh. Glad we share a mutual feeling on this one. Can't wait. >when you're getting desperate for rebuttals And yet you deny racism being involved. Nope, never did, but I'd love for you to point out otherwise. Except race is the main focus. Leap of logic number 7. Pulling the race card means somebody doesn't let you use the bathroom in an establishment because you have to be a customer and you say "oh you're not letting me use the bathroom because I'm black". Literally what exactly does this have to do with what we're discussing? Learn what these phrases mean. You'll look more educated. dips bedora I know so. le special snowflake faec You, however, deny it. Never have tbh. ]Again, further what agenda? The agenda that all crimes are going up, when literally all the evidence proves otherwise. "THE EVIL LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO TO TURN A RACIST HATE CRIME INTO SOMETHING ABOUT RACE SO THEY CAN MAKE ALL OF OUR CARS ELECTRIC" Okay, so this literally tells me you ignored my advice on how not to act like a child. I'm turning this into propaganda? Please, show where I've done that. All I did was say it was disgusting. Okay, so explain to me why you took issue when I called out the people who WERE trying to propagandize this? You're the one spreading right wing propaganda about "the left" pulling the race card when it's about race. You can't pull the race card when it about race you ignorant ass. Literally turn on MSNBC and the Young Turks and tell me there isn't an agenda being spun. Because I'd really like to hear that. How dare you say I don't care? How dare you, you fucking swine. You're fucking obsessed with this SJW bullshit so much you attribute a tragedy caused by racism to a political party or side. You're the worst type of trash there is. Oh my, how mad can one NEET get? You act just like him. And you're just as intelligent as he is. I actually consider that a compliment given how fucking imbecilic you've acted in this discussion. Except you just said you love getting "libshits" (LOL) mad. Nice try there Kind-Mordo. >not recognizing a ruse when he sees one Because this guy was racist, the shooting was racist, and you deny it. I condemn an agenda being pushed. Never once denied the terroristic motivations of the shooter. These are the only discussion I've had with you recently, because I try to ignore your ignorant drivel for the most part, but it's a little too much when you bring your retarded ass into that thread about the shooting and start telling about the evil liberals pulling the race card. You seem awfully upset about something really unimportant, and it's just fantastic. I'd love for you to show me where I've said that anything negative said about Obama is racist. Dude, you're basically his white knight. Anything anyone bad has to say about him and the race card busted out before anyone knows what has happened. Please, show me. Prove that I've ever said that. All you need to do is look at your posts. Oh, you can't. Because I never have. Continue being a joke. My oh my, I've struck a nerve something bad, haven't I?
4214
« on: June 30, 2015, 07:03:10 PM »
>greece
>welfare queen of europe
>doesn't bother to pay denbts
>acts entitled every chance they get
>but brits are the niggers of europe
? ? ?
4215
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:30:04 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.
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.
There's explaining something which I asked you specifically to explain (which you haven't at all done) and then trying to tenuously justify something which isn't ethically or objectively justifiable. You have literally just danced round my question this entire discussion and then gave some half assed answer as to why the South was entitled to own slaves.
4216
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:23:13 PM »
LOL Wow. You're pretty good at twisting things man. You should be a lawyer. Exactly how am I twisting things? You guys clamor to a video trying to exemplify the racist abuse Obama gets on a daily basis but all I saw was the entire Congress erupt in approval and then ONE guy expressing his disapproval. If that's what you guys consider racist then I've got some news for you. "but racism guys, any form of criticism against Obama no matter how belligerent it may be is racism" Yeah okay, I'm the lawyer here. Unfortunately though, there's no excuse for somebody shouting LIAR at the president. I'm not saying it's excusable. I'm simply asking where you found this causal link between him calling the president a liar, and racism. They do this shit because they have no respect for the president. Surprise, surprise, someone doesn't respect a leader. More news at 10. Then having no respect for comes from them being racist. Yes, racist politicians. It's not unheard of, it's not fake. Deal with it. Never said there wasn't any racist politicians, I'm simply asking you to prove how that one guy shouting "liar" is. That's because other politics is a joke. And the US' isn't? Just like newspapers here in Britain look like they were written by an autistic teenager. The Beano isn't a newspaper mate, but I can see how the colourful imagery would make you think like that. I'm telling you heckling rarely happens. But it has happened before, right? It isn't just some novel concept that came into fruition as soon as Obama came into power. When it does happen, rarely has it ever been so disrespectful as what that guy did. I'm not sure what a respectful heckler is, but okay. Fair enough.
And while that was disrespectful, at least Bush deserved it. And it almost inaudible booing, not somebody telling an insult at the president. Oh wow, somebody calling the president, whose job it is to pretty much lie through the teeth during his job tenure, a liar? Inconceivable. So disrespectful, and of course without a doubt, racist. The link is from Republicans being a bunch of racists. Okay, but that doesn't really explain how that one individual is. I don't need to provide links for this, I already have in past discussions and these people show how racist they are on a day to day basis. lol, "I don't need to prove my assertions, you should already know about it" Yeah no, that's not how the burden of proof works. This doesn't make a difference to you though, because in your eyes the right wing is the savior of the world protecting it from the evil SJW's. Actually I just don't exist in an infantile, black and white "this is bad, this is good" mindset like yourself. Were you raped by a feminist or something? I've actually experienced bias against my gender within the judicial system before, just so you know, but that's neither here nor there, and I do my best to remove my own subjective personal experiences involving debates regarding that issue. Although it certainly doesn't excuse the fact that a lot of them are deplorable human beings, right on par with the racist Republicans. Not sure how this is relevant to this discussion though. Because you have to be racist to disrespect the president of the United States that much. These leaps in logic are really just astounding. I mean just look at how people about Obama. The things they say about him people wouldn't even say of Bush. Yeah no, Bush got universally panned by anyone that wasn't a hillbilly, a religious zealot, or a gun toting maniac, and rightfully so. Not sure the narrative your crafting here is accurate at all. The shit Fox News says and other media sources Because Fox News represents the zeitgeist right enough. the whole birth certificate deal. Because Donald Trump represents the zeitgeist right enough. Bush got fucked with for being an idiot. Obama is being fucked with for being black. Point to me one comedy sketch or media outlet that outright mocked Obama because of his race. If you don't have the intelligence to comprehend that the first black president is going to shock the country and have these people who were mildly racist turn full blown racists, that's your problem. Not really within the scope of this discussion, and I never once denied there were racists in America. Obama becoming president has really changed America. People are really divided. Because political divisiveness over a presidency started occurring after 2008 right enough. I didn't say that at all, you fucking retard. I said they do what they're told by the people that fund them. Oh c'mon challenger. You have such a publicized disdain for the Republicans that there's really no point in trying to sugar coat it. Why are you such a republican fanboy anyway? I'm actually a fan boy for neither party. I'm what's called critically consistent. Why are you such a Democrat fanboy? Their economic policies are shit You going to explain how they're shit then instead of just repeating what a hug box told you? their members socially conservative full of racists and homophobes. A lot of them are yes, no doubt. But you can find political idiots in just about every political party, including the Democrats shockingly enough. I mean you put on this facade of beings progressive I've honestly never asserted myself as a progressive at all, so not really sure where your getting this from. I'm vehemently opposed to the modern conception of progressiveness and its censorious hypocritical behavior. but quite honestly, I think you really identify with social conservatism. Because they're not economically conservative, so it isn't that. Yeah, I'm practically Rush Limbaugh 2.0 aren't I? Disagreeing with your false narrative, how dare I. It's not cool because you can't seem to comprehend what I say. That's because there's really nothing valuable to comprehend. You've already blithely convinced yourself of this mindset within your own bubble of delusional ignorance, so it's really not me that needs to comprehend anything. It is. >this is what ameriflabs actually believe. The shut you guys pull here is political suicide in America. And what shut would that be? LOL Sick rebuttal brochacho. Because to show that amount of disrespect (something rarely shown for people like Bush and even then not as disrespectfully) you obviously consider the person didn't deserve the position of president because you consider him inferior. There's being disrespectful and there's being purposefully racist. Not sure why you're conflating the two. Why is it so hard for you to believe the guy is racist, and that the Republican Party is full of racists? It's not hard. If you show me concrete proof that the guy was indeed, racist, instead of just parroting the racist card back and forth, then I'll believe you. What's so difficult about that? You are, I'm not leftist. As if we needed anymore proof of how delusional you are. No, I'm not an independent or whatever other retarded label you're going to try and put on me. le free thinking faec I didn't say "hurr durr left and right wing are equally retarded lol", I said both extremes are bad. Something we all know. I was telling you to stop starting the obvious. Then why are you acting like a flagrant SJW/far leftist then? You are literally subverting any kind of genuine criticism because of his skin colour. If anyone's really racist here, it's you. LOL LMAO LOL ROFL SO EBIN WELL MEME'D You going to actually address my points or are you going to continue to act like an infant for the rest of this discussion? I don't need to. There's an example later on in the post and I'll wait for another case of racism for you to deny. Looking forward to it. >guy kills black people because he's racist Yep, we all know what his political motivations were, thank you for the reiteration. "THE LIBERALS ARE PULLING THE RACE CARD" They are. Except they were literally shot because of their race. You think so? There you are. I quoted you strongly denying that these people were killed because of their race, because you can't seem to stomach white on black racism. There's a difference between denying white on black racism and politicizing a tragedy to try and further an agenda. I'll let you decide what position I fall under once you begin to calm down and actually start thinking critically. You insult the memories of those people by denying they were killed because of racism. And YOU are disrespecting their deaths by turning this into one big propaganda piece. You don't at all care about the fact that they died. You just want an agenda to push. As does the left. Hence, the how the left are pulling the race card. >he's gone full Kinder le sep7agon kinder yamyam Unfortunately for you, you're not making anybody mad This speaks more about your character than it does mine if you think my intentions are to purposefully go out and inflame someone. You're just showing how much a racist you are. Why are you so enamored with race? You literally seem to want to turn everything into a race issue. Have you ever considered for a cursory moment that maybe not everyone who has something negative to say about the president is racially motivated?
4217
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:37:10 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.
4218
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:30:14 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.
4219
« on: June 30, 2015, 08:42:50 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.
4220
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:50:00 PM »
Nice meme
>using month old memes your meme game is weak m8
4221
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:48:56 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.
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?
4222
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 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.
4223
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:39:56 PM »
WHO'S READY FOR HILLDOG 2016
SO PROGRESSIVE
Yep, that's exactly why I'll never vote for her. All of her evolution on her positions has been in the last 5 years or so.
The Clinton's are so fucking sleazily corrupt. At least the Republicans have fun with their corruption by starting wars and don't bother trying to cover it up.
4224
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:37:32 PM »
According to the showrunners it's Stannis.
4225
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:35:52 PM »
WHO'S READY FOR HILLDOG 2016 SO PROGRESSIVE
4226
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 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.
4227
« on: June 29, 2015, 09:15:58 PM »
le meme president man
4228
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 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.
I'm all for Southern pride and alternative interpretations of the Confederate flag, but c'mon man. This argument literally just says "it wasn't considered reprehensible at the time, therefore it wasn't reprehensible." 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.
4229
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:32:03 PM »
...And? For a video and post trying to illustrate the plethora of racism that Obama faces on a daily basis it doesn't exactly do the argument any favours when the entire audience erupts into applause followed by one guy shouting "liar." That's actually extremely tame in comparison to other democracies. But I guess whatever reaffirms your echo chambers. And it's not shit that happens in American politics. So you're telling me only Obama has experienced the novel concept of heckling in American politics? Your video of a comedian heckling the president is just that, a comedian. Not a congressman. I posted the wrong video. When the main reason you're heckling them and calling them liars is because they're black Really would love to know where you found the link between these two lines of thought. and you don't like that a black man is president, yes. Really would love to know if the guy actually disliked the fact he was black instead of just going off what you think he was heckling him for. Nah. Most republicans are just doing what they're told. le republicans r ebil maymay I don't think we do agree though if you even bring it up. Cool? It is. Shit is dead serious in America. It's a bunch of clowns everywhere else. You guys heckle and yell all the time. It's disgraceful. I don't deny the etiquette of congress, mate. I just find it funny how you think American politics is much more "serious and professional." A comedian heckling Bush doesn't compare to a congressman heckling the president and calling him a liar, especially when Obama isn't lying. The Democrats certainly are comedians. And he disagreed the way he did because he considers blacks inferior. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-causeHe can disagree respectfully. But he didn't. Something which I don't disagree with, but again, how does that equate to racism? I'm not leftist though. And I'm not a fat scottish cunt. Extrme. Left wing is just as crazy as extreme right wing. Wow what a surprise. le independent faec Except you deny white on black racism any chance you get. Literally quote me in my thousand pages of posts where I have said this. A guy literally shot up a church killing black folks in an attempt to start a race war and you said "the left" was "pulling the race card". It was. Standing on the graves of dead people to further an agenda is despicable. Just shut your ignorant ass up already. Nah I like infuriating you libshits.
4230
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:17:24 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.
posted the wrong video^
What respect? You earn respect, it isn't automatically bestowed upon you simply because you can win a presidential candidacy run.
I'm often reminded of the scene from Band of Brothers where someone refuses to salute Sobel. "We salute the rank, not the man"
It's fine if you disagree with the President. But exercise some restraint and respect by not shouting out in the middle of a televised speech. It did him no favors.
I'm in complete agreement that it was disrespectful. But it's not exactly an exclusive situation that ONLY Obama has experienced simply because of his skin colour. Case in point, the video I just linked you.
Pages: 1 ... 139140141 142143 ... 243
|
Show Posts