Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:37 pm
States' rights?but I disassociate myself from the vile causes they fought for..
Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:54 pm
I was thinkin' the same thing, only singular. Yeah, I know that states' rights was the official reason given for the Confederate states' secession. But we all know that it was one right in particular. Anyone here actually believe that were it not for the dispute over slavery, there woulda still been a Civil War?OCmike wrote:States' rights?but I disassociate myself from the vile causes they fought for..
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:57 pm
the north was awful snobby to the south.
south needed to restore pride in the mosquito infected toilets they called "cities" with a war.
south needed to restore pride in the mosquito infected toilets they called "cities" with a war.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:13 pm
Wish in one hand and shit in the other ...Jsc810 wrote:I truly wish that people would do neither.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:37 pm
The South had plenty of opps to leave the union if it were about states rights: the railroad expansion, the banks, education, ect.... However, they didnt leave until an abolistionist prez was elected. To conclude that the seccession was about anything other than slavery is flat out ignorantOCmike wrote:States' rights?but I disassociate myself from the vile causes they fought for..
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:07 pm
Jsc810 wrote:Mississippi Neck wrote:Fuck those idiots who believe its a symbol of heritage and years of sacrifice. They're lying to themselves. We all know what it means.
As a born and (in)bred Southerner, my opinion is that the Confederate flag is definitely a symbol of racism and all that was wrong with the Old South. Its just wrong on many levels. First of all, it was used by the Confederacy in its struggle against the United States. Second, right or wrong, it has been taken over as a symbol of racism by virulent repugnant racists to the point that it is very offensive to many, both white and black.
My relatives fought and died for the Confederacy...but I am repelled by what they fought for. I don't fault the courage of their convictions or their sacrifices but I disassociate myself from the vile causes they fought for..
Just get rid of the damn flag and if you want to fly it, this son of the South says, you can kindly stick it up your ass.
Well said, I agree with everything but the conclusion. I believe that they should be able to fly it if they want, just as I believe that people should be able to celebrate Kwanzaa if they want, freedom of speech and association you understand.
But I truly wish that people would do neither.
Yes, they have the right to fly it. I didnt say they couldnt. But they can still stick it up their ass.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:13 pm
mvscal wrote:And which "state right", specifically, are we talking about?OCmike wrote:States' rights?but I disassociate myself from the vile causes they fought for..
Was the war about slavery? Yes.
But was it only about slavery? No.
Short response to a lloooonngg answer.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:20 pm
True
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:28 pm
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:30 pm
With that theroy you'd believe that without the Wright Bros. we wouldn't be flying in space right nowmvscal wrote:Without slavery there is no Civil War and that is pretty much the bottom line.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:02 pm
jtr wrote:With that theroy you'd believe that without the Wright Bros. we wouldn't be flying in space right nowmvscal wrote:Without slavery there is no Civil War and that is pretty much the bottom line.
Well, that makes no sense whatsoever. Please elaborate.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:18 pm
I'm just saying even without slavery there probably would have been a Civil War, just like even without the wright brothers we still would be flying around the world these days.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:23 pm
I've said this before and it bears repeating here:jtr wrote:With that theroy you'd believe that without the Wright Bros. we wouldn't be flying in space right nowmvscal wrote:Without slavery there is no Civil War and that is pretty much the bottom line.
On those rare occasions where mvscal and I actually agree on something, if you happen to disagree, feel free to assume that we're right and you're wrong.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:55 pm
jtr wrote:I'm just saying even without slavery there probably would have been a Civil War, just like even without the wright brothers we still would be flying around the world these days.
Yep, it was inevitable the ever widening gulf over grits would have led to massive bloodshed.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:44 pm
What, do I have to post a smilie at the end of every post when I'm goofing around now? Sheesh, one smartass comment and this thread turns more vaginal than "The View".Ace wrote:The South had plenty of opps to leave the union if it were about states rights: the railroad expansion, the banks, education, ect.... However, they didnt leave until an abolistionist prez was elected. To conclude that the seccession was about anything other than slavery is flat out ignorantOCmike wrote:States' rights?but I disassociate myself from the vile causes they fought for..
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:49 pm
A lot of people around here need pictures with their instruction manual you know.
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:30 pm
1. There were several people working on powered human flight at the same time as the Wright Bros, and in fact, Glenn Curtiss was in a huge legal battle with the Wrights as to which of them was first. For a time, Curtiss was even recognized as being the first to achieve powered flight. Bode to teh jewfro on this point.jtr wrote:I'm just saying even without slavery there probably would have been a Civil War, just like even without the wright brothers we still would be flying around the world these days.
2. Slavery, as an institution, existed all over the world, yet only in the US was it ended by a civil war. It's pretty clear that regardless how much slavery played a part in the civil war, there were other issues in the mix. Then, as now, douchebags from the north-east wanted to dominate the rest of the country.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:04 am
Yeppers.Terry in Crapchester wrote:I've said this before and it bears repeating here:jtr wrote:With that theroy you'd believe that without the Wright Bros. we wouldn't be flying in space right nowmvscal wrote:Without slavery there is no Civil War and that is pretty much the bottom line.
On those rare occasions where mvscal and I actually agree on something, if you happen to disagree, feel free to assume that we're right and you're wrong.
Oh, and Terry and mvscal are right.
Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice president, in his "Cornerstone Speech" pretty much put it all out for posterity to see:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
...
"Our new government [the Confederacy] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Any yutz who tries to argue that slavery didn't really have anything to do with the Civil War is either clueless or a shameless Southern apologist trying to diminish the racist grounding of the South. Sure, the South fought for states' rights....the "right" to own humans as property. Nothing at all noble about that side of the struggle.
The North (and Europe) sure as hell weren't sinless with regards to how far slavery had gone, but at least they were the first to wake the hell up and try to address the moral stain that it always was. The South, OTOH, wanted to keep that system going, as Stephens unabashedly states above.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:44 am
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:yadda, yadda, yadda...
Cuda wrote: Then, as now, douchebags from the north-east wanted to dominate the rest of the country.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:47 pm
As always, a well-thought out, intelligent rebuttal from a proud representative the left-hand side of the intellectual bell curve.Cuda wrote:Mike the Lab Rat wrote:yadda, yadda, yadda...Cuda wrote: Then, as now, douchebags from the north-east wanted to dominate the rest of the country.
Must be nice to live one's life without having to actually put any kind of burden on your synapses.
Carry on.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:01 pm
did someone say synapses ??
I detect a biology teacher on vacation !!
Merry Christmas all !!
I detect a biology teacher on vacation !!
Merry Christmas all !!
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:53 pm
Kwanzaa is a joke to most any intelligent person
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:44 pm
The attempted incursions of the waffle franchises into areas north of Virginia did play a role in the dispute. Northern states, particularly Vermont, were threatened by the appearance of the so-called "devil's pancakes," and the rumor that they were actually Belgian in origin struck many as an attempt of the "faux French" to infiltrate American culture and deplete our precious maple resources (popular rumor at the time had the Canadian's also involved, via their own "faux French," the Quebecois). Alternative topping resources were researched, and in time blueberries, strawberries, etc., were used to temporarily supplement and extend the American maple reserves until more trees could be planted and tapped. Their legacy can still be found in the presence of these alternative "syrups" in pancake houses across the world.Mace wrote:Are you shittin' me? And all this time I thought it was about the South being pissed because they didn't have a Major League Baseball franchise and the northern states not allowing Waffle Houses above the Mason-Dixon. I'll be damned.
Mace
A lingering mistrust of waffles, however, remains in many areas of New England.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:52 pm
I'm game. Where's the bitch?Smackie Chan wrote:
Wish in one hand and shit in the other ...
sin,
Dinsdale
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:29 pm
My attitude is basically...whatever. I wonder how many people actually celebrate the festivities of Kwanzaa as opposed to Christmas, I mean the candles and thinking about and acting on the principles and that stuff. I'm betting Christmas still wins that competition. Even in the 'hood. I've always suspected "Kwanzaa" comes from the Swahili for "let's see if we can get the brothers and sisters to overspend on the holidays just like the white folks do". I'm guessing Christmas still wins that competition, too. Even in the 'hood.
But as I say...sending out warm wishes doesn't cost much or hurt anybody.
But as I say...sending out warm wishes doesn't cost much or hurt anybody.
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:35 pm
You've completely overlooked what had already become a drain on our maple resources by the real frogs - French toast. The added pressure of the "faux French" - Quebecois from the north and the Waffle Houses from the south - made full-blown armed conflict all but inevitable.Mike the Lab Rat wrote:The attempted incursions of the waffle franchises into areas north of Virginia did play a role in the dispute. Northern states, particularly Vermont, were threatened by the appearance of the so-called "devil's pancakes," and the rumor that they were actually Belgian in origin struck many as an attempt of the "faux French" to infiltrate American culture and deplete our precious maple resources (popular rumor at the time had the Canadian's also involved, via their own "faux French," the Quebecois).Mace wrote:Are you shittin' me? And all this time I thought it was about the South being pissed because they didn't have a Major League Baseball franchise and the northern states not allowing Waffle Houses above the Mason-Dixon. I'll be damned.
Mace
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:49 pm
Sorry to get in on this thread so late...Dinsdale wrote:Racial relations in this country. It speaks volumes about how the "African American Community" has no desire whatsoever to have an integrated society in this country.Ingse Bodil wrote:What does it hurt?
It's a celebration of racism.
If blacks were the dominant racial group in this country, do you think that they'd be bending over backwards to try to help whites, as many white institutions do for them? Somehow, I doubt it, but, somehow, we're still the bad guys; still "Whitey."
the_ouskull
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:40 am
hey wolfman ever been here?Wolfman wrote:did someone say synapses ??
I detect a biology teacher on vacation !!
Merry Christmas all !!
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:09 am
This article goes over the details of the origins of Kwanzaa including the felon who actually created it. If there was any chance to feel some support for this "holiday", this definitely squelches it all in one fell swoop
[URL]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=5251[URL/]
[URL]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=5251[URL/]