T1B

Sudden Sam wrote:1 - WSU can't pay Auburn enough to travel to that hellhole out there.

I've been to Eastern Washington numerous times.


I'm allowed to refer to it as a "shithole."

You are not, until such a time you've actually been there, when you can verify for yourself what a shithole Eastern Washington is.

Though I must RACK all the recent Wazzu coaches, for being able to recruit players to the part of the world where the Aryan Nation rules supreme.

I'll defer to Dins on this one for sure, but I've also heard that Washington State is one helluva road trip in terms of getting there.

As I understand it, Pullman has no airport. Seattle is about a five hour drive away, and Spokane is about a two hour drive in the other direction. I've been told that teams have to fly into Seattle, get on a puddle jumper to fly from Seattle to Spokane, then take the bus from Spokane to Pullman.

Pullman has an airport and it is realtively nice. Granted I haven't been thru the pax terminal, but I think you can fly to Boise from there along with Seattle. I also don't have my brain bag handy for charts, but I don't remember an special proceedures for us there, so the runway was prolly 7K. While not huge by any means, it would lift a 757 that wasn't fully loaded. A team playing there from the East coast would prolly require a fuel stop. Not because the plane didn't have the range, but because a full fuel load would require a longer runway.

Do you honestly think that anyone in Alabama can refer to any other region in this country as a "shit hole"?
Those confederate flag waving SEC fucks carrying signs that they wish the Civil War was a best 2 out of 3 so they could have kept their blacks in the cotton fields instead of the football fields should feel right at home in the racist North West

SoCalTrjn wrote:Do you honestly think that anyone in Alabama can refer to any other region in this country as a "shit hole"?
Those confederate flag waving SEC fucks carrying signs that they wish the Civil War was a best 2 out of 3 so they could have kept their blacks in the cotton fields instead of the football fields should feel right at home in the racist North West

Typical that you wouldn't know anything about this war. First it really wasn't a civil war in that the south wasn't attempting to overthrow the government. They were stepping aside to form their own country. Just like the States did with England. Was that a civil war? No, it was for self government. Same as the south.

Secondly, this war was hardly about slavery. The Union troops rallying cries were "Preserve the Union" not "Free the Slaves." Hell, Lincoln didn't give the Emancipation Proclamation until five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862. Further this didn't free all slaves. Lincoln went on to call it a "war measure." It only freed the slaves in non union controled areas of the south. Slaves and slaveholders in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee and a few other areas were exempt from this. Further if any states dropped their independence claims before Jan 1, 1863 they would also be allowed to keep their slaves. Finally the 13th amendment ended slavery.

In Dec of 1862, Lincoln proposed a three part plan to free the slaves not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. First all remaining slaves would be freed gradually over the years until no slaves remained by the turn of the centruy. Second slaveholders would be compensated by the government for their loss of property. Finally all freed blacks would be transported at government expense to Africa or South America.

Again this was not a war over slavery. It was more along the lines of the Revouluntionary War with the South being in the position of the colonies. Taxes were levied on imports and some exports all along the south. These taxes then went north to the federal government who sent back only pennies on the dollar.

If you would like to learn more about this war and the events leading up to it and during the course of the conflict I will be happy to suggest some books. Hell, I will even send you a few that I own. Care to expand your horizons?

Frozen,

Not trying to say that the War had zero to do with slavery, however, it wasn't the only reason as most think. In fact there were many things that went into it.

However, most of these lead back to one central issue, State's Rights. Yes slavery was listed as you correctly point out, but I and many smarter than myself boil it down to State's Rights. Don't forget that Lincoln himself said that if continuing slavery would keep the southern states from seceding, then he would. Lincoln only went to war, without much consultation with Congress which was in recession leading up to the War, to preserve the Union. Again, the Southern States felt slavery was a "State's Rights" issue, not a Northern Issue.

Futher slavery would have been been abolished soon thereafter anyway just like it was in much of the rest of the world around the same time. I think only oursevles and Hati had slaves freed during a time of war. Everyone else had it happen peacefully due to economic factors.

The north dominated House with the population breakdown of roughly 20 million to 5 million. The north also dominated the Senate, 19 states to 11. Then things like the Kanas Nebraska act further upset the south. What with the north not accepting the free decisions of the residents. At the same time it is estimated that maybe as much as 85%, but certainly 70% of the US budget was generated in the South. Remember there was no income tax at the time, infact one was declared unconstitutional.

So yes, slavery was a part, maybe even the most recognizable part of State's Rights, but not THE reason for the war. As Lincoln said if that were the only reason he wouldn't be opposed to keeping slavery to keep the south part of the union.

Spokane has an international aitport. Yeah, probably about two hours on a bus, probably a lot less in a car through the middle of Bumfucked. About 4.5-5 hours from Seattle (not a heck of a lot of difference from Portland).

Once you get that far east in WA, it gets a little more rain (not much), and it ain't quite so tough on the eyeballs. Further west, it's the Columbia Valley, which is a big huge pile of arid nothing.

Sudden Sam wrote:How the hell did this thread go haywire?!?!

It took a left somewhere around Walla Walla.

Sam,

Cut the shit. We all know it was Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandpa Bush's fault.

Frozen,

One of the major things was the transcontinental railroad act. The fact that this was to terminate in Chicago, Cairo, or elsewhere, was crazy. Granted the majority of the people lived in the north, but the railroad wasn't being built for pax travel. Rather it was to move southern crops to the West coast for lumber and other goods. The southern crops would need to be moved UP the Mississippi to one of these cities, instead of the much smaller amount of goods coming down river to a southern terminal. Further a southern route across Texas, NM, AZ, and Nevada would have been much easier than thru the heart of the Rockies. Paxs were an after thought.

Trade was also a major issue. Southern states were only allowed to sell their goods to other countries after the northern states bought what they needed. Southern states were not able to operate in a free ecocnomy. They were unable to buy cheaper manufactured goods from Europe due to tarifs to protect Northern employers.

Another issue was Land Grant Schools. These ag schools were being awarded in numbers that no ratio could support for northern states. They didn't follow population or geography common sense. Was an ag school in northern Vermont a good location?

Further State's Rights weren't just a Southern Rally cry. The Hartford convention was called by the Federalist Party to discuss states rights way back in the 1810s. Cartoons of the time showed some of the NE states going back under the Crown.

If slavery were the only issue, why did the Southern States secede? Lincoln stated he would continue slavery before the war. He further only freed slaves in the "outlaw" states with the EP, not in Union controled states.

Sam remember though by this time both the North and South had outlawed the practice of importing slaves. Neither would allow new slaves to be brought into the country. So as more slaves got their freedom and worked their own land or moved North, the population in slavery was declining.

Frozen wrote:As was pointed out, the importation of slaves was illegal at the time of the Civil War. In fact, the Confederate Constitution made the practice expressly unconstitutional.

And hey, we're all just having a civil discussion sparked by schmick's asshattery. It's interesting to discuss this with people who can do so rationally instead of just hollering about the "War of Northern Aggression."

I can't stand some of the labels people put on things to frame arguement/discussions. I never use the above War of Northern Aggression, nor do I use the Civil War. Both are incorrect, but widely used. Sadly most people now have an incorrect definition of a Civil War. The other place where labels are out of whack is the abortion debate. The worst is the relatively new one by those supporting Abortion rights in calling the other side anti-choice. Should those who support reducing abortion label the other side pro murder? Of course not and as such anti-choice shouldn't be used either.

Back to the importation of slaves. I am sure some of the largest plantation owners were still trying to find ways to import more slaves as their numbers were reducing rapidly. As Frozen pointed out once in "free" states the slaves would not be trasported back to the south. Strangely though many freed slaves often chose to stay and work along side their former "masters" instead of heading for northern cities. They chose to work for themselves and many were given their own land after helping to hold the Mississippi river back during floods in the 1850s and 1860s.

Wow. This thread took a turn for the boring.

And no, I don't care much for history unless there was some kind of football, basketall, baseball or some other athletic instrument involved.

Debate on, historians.

You know what really bothers me? The fact that grocery stores now provide disinfectant wipes to "sanitize" your shopping cart. Since when did grocery stores get into the business of enabling people's OCDs?

Personally, I blame the North. And Bush. And anti-choice advocates. And of course Pete Carroll.

Indy, basketball certainly was not part of history at this time, as Naismith wasn't born until about this time. Therfore he didn't invent the game until well past the battle. American football was prolly in its infancy, but the first game wasn't played until late in the 1860's so that leaves only baseball. While I am not completely up to speed on the history of baseball it may have still been called rounders at the time. So if baseball history is it, that is a good starting point. :D

BTH, either way they are both poor labels and both are an attempt to fan the flames among supporters.

Mike, I totally agree, WTF is up with those wipes? None of us died as kids pushing the cart around the store, why are the suddenly the rage today. Even better is when the wipe dispenser is empty and some stay at home mother of three is freaking out over the germs she might come in contact with on the cart. Never mind that she will touch countless other itmes in the store that have been handled repeatedly by others including her produce and meat.

Maybe the grocery stores were sick of seeing these:



My brother and his wife had one for their son. Made me sick. One time I was visiting, and my brother, his son and I went to the grocery store to get some steaks. He pulls this thing out of the back of the car, and I was like "What the fuck is that?" He said "It's a comfort pad for the cart." Well, my nephew was damn near a year old, and my anal sister-in-law still required people to wash their hands before handling him. So I knew this was a directive from her. I just told my brother "That's the stupidest most anal-retentive thing I have ever seen."

Anyhow, after spending a couplefew minutes getting the thing attached, we go shopping. The steaks at the SAfeway were very sub-par so my brother wants to go to Kroger. Same song and dance with the damn cover. This was me:



Kroger had no filets and their ribeyes has some green on them. Off to Albertsons.



Finally. Bought 1/2 a tenderloin and got the fuck out. Sitting down at dinner with my brother and his wife and my parents, I say this "I can't believe you guys put Nephew-A in that shopping cart cover. That looks stupid." Sis-in-law smirks and conversation moves to another direction. My brother told me that 2 weeks later, they discontinues the use of it. I'd like to think I had a small part in that.

Too late to say long story short, but I kind of like the idea of the wipes. Once our son was able to ride in the cart and sit up by himself, he was teething. He always tried to knaw on the shopping cart handle. So, whenever I put him in, I would get one of his wipes from the diaper bag and wipe down the handle and if he decided to go to town, so be it. I don't think that is too overbaord. I would never do this to my child:



That says "come kick my dad's ass" like no other.

Left Seater wrote:Further State's Rights weren't just a Southern Rally cry. The Hartford convention was called by the Federalist Party to discuss states rights way back in the 1810s. Cartoons of the time showed some of the NE states going back under the Crown.

Yes, but we're discussing a period of time that was 40-50 years later. By the 1850's-1860's, states' rights had been successfully tied in with slavery.

If slavery were the only issue, why did the Southern States secede? Lincoln stated he would continue slavery before the war. He further only freed slaves in the "outlaw" states with the EP, not in Union controled states.

Most of them certainly didn't secede because of anything Lincoln did or failed to do as President. Seven southern states already had seceded by the time Lincoln was inaugurated. http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Republican Party (originally formed as an anti-slavery party) in general, and Lincoln (the first President elected under the aegis of the Republican Party, and who did not have much of a record in elected office) in particular, were unknown quantities in the South. The failure of the Republican Congress to adequately safeguard the interests of the South, at least in the perception of many Southern leaders, in December 1860 also was an issue.

Here's my brash Civil War statement - if you're pretending to be personally motivated by those events in your daily life, then...you're a moron. I sometimes run a little smack on the South here, but it's wholly facetious, I assure you.

I am pretty sure that my central PA forebears that took part in the Civil War had some salty attitudes on race. I am sure that many slave-owning Southerners were far more compassionate towards their charges than many of the NY draft rioters.

Sudden Sam wrote:I hope you never read what ol' Abe's opinion of blacks was! You'd shit.

Not to defend Schmick here, but in fairness, even the most enlightened person from Lincoln's time would come across as a flaming racist if viewed by today's standards. Lincoln, I suspect, was more enlightened about race than most of his contemporaries were.

Sudden Sam wrote:Then you have those like SoCal who find it necessary to trash an entire region of the country... a region in which he has undoubtedly never spent any time.

since you don't have airplanes in the south, it's not like schmick has had the chance to see one of you in person and change his opinion accordingly.

Left Seater wrote:...the population in slavery was declining.

that must have prompted the invention of the baby daddy.

Believe the Heupel wrote:Heh. You went to three different grocery stores looking for a perfect steak and you're calling someone ELSE anal retentive? :D

FYI-local butcher FTW.

The local butcher (only one of them) is not open on weekends where they live...fyi.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I hope you never read what ol' Abe's opinion of blacks was! You'd shit.

Not to defend Schmick here, but in fairness, even the most enlightened person from Lincoln's time would come across as a flaming racist if viewed by today's standards. Lincoln, I suspect, was more enlightened about race than most of his contemporaries were.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

...he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."


Terry, you can find Lincoln's comments about the inferiority of blacks and his intention to ship them all to Haiti or Africa on numerous sites. He held opinions that were similar to others of his time.

And that last sentence was my point. Lincoln's statements about blacks would be considered racist by today's standards, but not by the standards of the time in which he lived.

Hell, for that matter, while the abolitionist position was based on an enlightened principle (i.e., that blacks were human and therefore should not be property of others), most abolitionists probably wouldn't have challenged the idea that blacks were inferior to whites.

I have been to the South, New Orleans several times, been to Fayetteville, Memphis, Atlanta and Auburn, even been to Tuscaloosa, just drove through but had to stop for ribs. None come close to Southern California but by no means do I want anyone else to move to California, in fact Orange county should have a rule that no one who moved here after 1970 or were born here within this county should be permitted to live here in Oranmge County

SoCalTrjn wrote:... or were born here within this county should be permitted to live here in Oranmge County

so you can only live there if you moved there before 1970? sucks for portland considering everyone born in oc after 1970 has moved here and started doing meth.

SoCalTrjn wrote: in fact Orange county should have a rule that no one who moved here after 1970 or were born here within this county should be permitted to live here in Oranmge County

Hmmmmm..... so, you can live there if you moved there before 1970, but if you're born there you have to move?

Where do you call home now?

Trust me, no Californian would ever move to "Oranmge County" unless they truly enjoyed self abuse or their clan suffered from poor GPA's.

in fact Orange county should have a rule that no one who moved here after 1970 or were born here within this county should be permitted to live here in Oranmge County

Funny there are many in Texas that feel this same way about immigrants from Cali.

I thought Orange County was pretty decent, frankly. I love Newport Beach.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

in fact Orange county should have a rule that no one who moved here after 1970 or were born here within this county should be permitted to live here in Oranmge County

Funny there are many in Texas, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Colorado and Arizona that feel this same way about immigrants from Cali.

Fixed.

Fix fixed.

Guess most of the West feels the same about Cali residents. I guess the Cali arguement would be that with all the immigrants the "locals" can't stand it and have to go somewhere.

people tend to love the economic growth that goes hand in hand with immigration, they just want someone to blame for all the traffic jams and knife fights.

my experiences with calis in eugene was similar to the ones i had with new yorkers in ann arbor. great, you're here, now stfu about how shite the midwest/oregon is and how great ny/ca is. perhaps you should've been more intelligent so you would've been accepted to at least your fifth choice school.

The running joke in the 80s was that happiness was defined by a southbound Okie with two Texans under each arm.

Funnny, we had one around the same time too. "Did you hear about the aggie that moved to Oklahoma? Yeah, turns out he raised the IQ of both states."

my bad should have said unless you moved here before 1970 or were born here to parents who moved here before 1970....

I was born In Newport beach and lived there most of my life, lived with my Mom in Lake forest during High School and live in Coto De Caza with the family now, but want to move back to Newport or Corona Del Mar

I don't personally have anything against SoCal transplants either. At least they know not to drive 65 in the far left lane. Plus, nobody in PHX is actually from PHX, so it's not like anyone has a right to complain, but they still do. There was probably more bitterness against Cali transplants in Colorado, which also didn't make a lot of sense. Why anyone would want to live where it snows is just beyond me...

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Plus, nobody in PHX is actually from PHX, so it's not like anyone has a right to complain

Alongside Phoenix, Portland ranks right up there with the elite "nobody is actually from there" cities.

But... I am, so I have a "right" to complain. Like for example, about the SoCals being the worst drivers on the road, and leading the region in whining-per-minute.

And on the rare occasions it does snow, the SoCals at least earn their keep by ebtertaining us with their comedic driving stylings... although they do kinda monopolize the tow trucks during those times, which is annoying if you need a tow for a legit reason, other than stuffing your car because you thought it was a good idea to drive 65 through town on someone's bumper with snow on the ground... freaking tards. The license plate frame with the names of SoCal car dealers filling the body shops' parking lots after a dusting of snow is one of the few things these rejects contribute to our society, by way of entertaining the rest of us.

Left Seater wrote:

The running joke in the 80s was that happiness was defined by a southbound Okie with two Texans under each arm.

Funnny, we had one around the same time too. "Did you hear about the aggie that moved to Oklahoma? Yeah, turns out he raised the IQ of both states."

as an OU texan I can only laugh at that and not because of it's attempt at humor...