OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[bluetoe]

LOL... nothing matches the Lost Cause ignorance that you've been littering the last few pages. Don't mistake recognizing that fact as being a proposition, however.

LOL. Perfect GIF to represent your lack of anything resembling a substantive counter argument. At least it's a break from your usual 'laughing emoji' flag of surrender.

And I don't take anything you say as a proposition at this point. Your posting is more like just asking for it by exposing your dumb ass to all comers.

 

[bluetoe]

Sorry fiscal conservatives, your options suck donkey.

View embedded media

dude, have you ever stopped to consider that you generally have to resort to extreme examples of mostly unelected individuals to ridicule the right side, while all we have to do is point to the idiot you fools elected to be president of our country as arguably the most prime example of a whole host of elected leftist whackos?

 

[strummingram]

LOL. Perfect GIF to represent your lack of anything resembling a substantive counter argument. At least it's a break from your usual 'laughing emoji' flag of surrender.

And I don't take anything you say as a proposition at this point. Your posting is more like just asking for it by exposing your dumb ass to all comers.

Counter to what? It's been countered 50 times. You talk in circles, I assume to try and convince yourself that it makes sense.

Gems like this are perfect examples:

"I already answered your suggested explanation that the war was over slavery because if not for slavery, there would have been no war. That is very likely true that without the institution of slavery, there would have been no war...but that doesn't mean that the war was because of slavery. As I said, if there weren't black Africans to enslave, there would have been no war but that doesn't mean there was war because black Africans existed.

It is a fallacy that the wat was fought over and in support of slavery. It was fought because Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and that is one completely irrefutable fact."

Were you drunk when you wrote this? Did you say it aloud, to yourself, to make sure it was actually what you meant to type-out?

By the way, were there ever any WHITE Africans? "If there weren't black Africans to enslave, there would have been no war?" Wow! Good one! If there had been no ships, then Europeans wouldn't have ever made it to the North American continent, right? Blame Columbus's mother, maybe?

This goofy-ass verbal subterfuge you toss-around, like you're some kind of "State's Rights" attorney, is a magnanimous crock of shit. The Confederacy- that you so eagerly honor as some innocent and virtuous society- still lost the war. And, they lost their "black African" slaves, their land, their entire way of life, 1/4 of their able-bodied male population, and they deserved it for trying to perpetuate the institution of chattel slavery. Never mind trying to destroy the USA, in the process.

 

[bluetoe]

Counter to what? It's been countered 50 times. You talk in circles, I assume to try and convince yourself that it makes sense.

Gems like this are perfect examples:

"I already answered your suggested explanation that the war was over slavery because if not for slavery, there would have been no war. That is very likely true that without the institution of slavery, there would have been no war...but that doesn't mean that the war was because of slavery. As I said, if there weren't black Africans to enslave, there would have been no war but that doesn't mean there was war because black Africans existed.

It is a fallacy that the wat was fought over and in support of slavery. It was fought because Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and that is one completely irrefutable fact."

Were you drunk when you wrote this? Did you say it aloud, to yourself, to make sure it was actually what you meant to type-out?

By the way, were there ever any WHITE Africans? "If there weren't black Africans to enslave, there would have been no war?" Wow! Good one! If there had been no ships, then Europeans wouldn't have ever made it to the North American continent, right? Blame Columbus's mother, maybe?

This goofy-ass verbal subterfuge you toss-around, like you're some kind of "State's Rights" attorney, is a magnanimous crock of shit. The Confederacy- that you so eagerly honor as some innocent and virtuous society- still lost the war. And, they lost their "black African" slaves, their land, their entire way of life, 1/4 of their able-bodied male population, and they deserved it for trying to perpetuate the institution of chattel slavery. Never mind trying to destroy the USA, in the process.

I won't hide behind your usual tl;dr excuse, I actually read that tripe. And you spewed only off-target ridicule and one complete misundertanding of a simple point, and not one word that actually rebuts anything I have said. You are truly an idiot.

 

[uncboy10]

Did anyone ever track down that @bluetoe meltdown from the main board?

Asking for a friend

 

[strummingram]

I won't hide behind your usual tl;dr excuse, I actually read that tripe. And you spewed only off-target ridicule and one complete misundertanding of a simple point, and not one word that actually rebuts anything I have said. You are truly an idiot.

Yeah, that's what I expected.

 

[bluetoe]

Yeah, that's what I expected.

that I would point out that you are an idiot? You should expect that.

 

[bluetoe]

Did anyone ever track down that @bluetoe meltdown from the main board?

Asking for a friend

LOL, could you somehow label yourself more of a loser? Didn't think so.

 

[strummingram]

that I would point out that you are an idiot? You should expect that.

You have no point. You just attempt to paint the Confederacy as some innocent, misunderstood, much-maligned, and placid antebellum society that was forced to secede, and then maliciously-invaded, and ultimately forced to succumb to the terrible authority of the United States of America. It's weak, it's also a myth. Keep bullshitting yourself. It's antiquated bullshit.

 

[bluetoe]

You have no point. You just attempt to paint the Confederacy as some innocent, misunderstood, much-maligned, and placid antebellum society that was forced to secede, and then maliciously-invaded, and ultimately forced to succumb to the terrible authority of the United States of America. It's weak, it's also a myth. Keep bullshitting yourself. It's antiquated bullshit.

I painted no such picture. Your sick, obsessed mind requires that I painted such a picture in order for you to carry on with your irrational hatred. I clearly stated that everything is simultaneously both good and bad, and gave examples of this for clarity. I said you don't reject something just because it isn't perfectly positive. All lost on your feeble mind apparently. I particularly told you that you are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. meaning that because there was something negative about the Confederacy and the South, you simply reject it out of hand. I guess I should have known that would sail WAY over your head. I had to say I tried though. Giving your brain the benefit of the doubt is the greatest LOST CAUSE I know of.

ETA; you are the most overly emotional human I know of, whether male, female, or some combination thereof. You really should calm down and try to use reason and logic to guide you. Going through life like a little bitch is about as pathetic as it gets.

 

[strummingram]

because there was something negative about the Confederacy and the South, you simply reject it out of hand.

Good point. Aside from owning other human beings, and depriving them of any kind of human rights, they were a very advanced culture. It's a shame that they were ultimately conquered and their altruism put to an end.

 

[bluetoe]

Good point. Aside from owning other human beings, and depriving them of any kind of human rights, they were a very advanced culture. It's a shame that they were ultimately conquered and their altruism put to an end.

I completely agree that societal norms 100, 150-250 years ago should be viewed in that context. I don't judge them for who they were THEN.

 

[strummingram]

I have no issue with THEM. Those people are dead-n-buried. They lost and they should have lost. Their ideas of civilized society were obsolete and they were forced to stop.

It's the people alive, now, who try and whitewash what they did, and even pretend it was honorable, and then whine about the removal of monuments to the dead people, that never wanted them in the first place.

 

[bluetoe]

I have no issue with THEM. Those people are dead-n-buried. They lost and they should have lost. Their ideas of civilized society were obsolete and they were forced to stop.

It's the people alive, now, who try and whitewash what they did, and even pretend it was honorable, and then whine about the removal of monuments to the dead people, that never wanted them in the first place.

oh, you mean the people that "Aside from owning other human beings, and depriving them of any kind of human rights, they were (are?) a very advanced culture"?

 

[strummingram]

oh, you mean the people that "Aside from owning other human beings, and depriving them of any kind of human rights, they were (are?) a very advanced culture"?

I definitely don't think what they did was "right." And, I don't get pissed when statues that commemorate and honor them come down.

 

[bluetoe]

I definitely don't think what they did was "right." And, I don't get pissed when statues that commemorate and honor them come down.

sorry dude, not buying it I hate to tell you, but you can try for the rest of your life and you're never going to hedge your way out of having completely contradicted yourself. You're trying too hard. Just admit whatever you think you have as an argument is all wet.

 

[strummingram]

sorry dude, not buying it I hate to tell you, but you can try for the rest of your life and you're never going to hedge your way out of having completely contradicted yourself. You're trying too hard. Just admit whatever you think you have as an argument is all wet.

I'm not selling it.

 

[bluetoe]

I'm not selling it.

 

[Archer2]

I'm not selling it.

No, you’re shoveling it.

 

[Archer2]

Over 2400 shootings in Chicago this year. Where is BLM? Nowhere to be seen when it comes to blacks being shot by anyone but LEO’s. Look at the numbers in LA, Detroit, Baltimore, any large “blue state” city. Black on black crime is acceptable I guess.

 

[carolinablue34]

There are two wars in my view that have a relative 'right vs. wrong'.

World War 2. It need not be said what this world would have been if the Nazis and Japanese won.

The US Civil War. Contrary to what some on this board might feel or not have the balls to say @bluetoe but it was a damn good thing the Union prevailed. For multiple reasons but chief among them, ending the the practice of chattel slavery. In addition, the continued unity that enabled the United States to truly takes its place as a world power.

The greatest mistake made, was the series of Republican Presidents that succeeded Lincoln didn't follow through on Reconstruction. The armed forces should have stayed 50 years or more if it meant preventing the Jim Crow, white terrorist bullshit that followed.

But yeah...the war had nothing to do with reinforcing backwards, medieval racial hierarchies.

 

[strummingram]

There are two wars in my view that have a relative 'right vs. wrong'.

World War 2. It need not be said what this world would have been if the Nazis and Japanese won.

The US Civil War. Contrary to what some on this board might feel or not have the balls to say @bluetoe but it was a damn good thing the Union prevailed. For multiple reasons but chief among them, ending the the practice of chattel slavery. In addition, the continued unity that enabled the United States to truly takes its place as a world power.

The greatest mistake made, was the series of Republican Presidents that succeeded Lincoln didn't follow through on Reconstruction. The armed forces should have stayed 50 years or more if it meant preventing the Jim Crow, white terrorist bullshit that followed.

But yeah...the war had nothing to do with reinforcing backwards, medieval racial hierarchies.

And, I think it's safe to say that each soldier, each officer, had his own reason(s) for fighting for whichever side he fought.

But, history shows, unequivocally, that only one side fought to preserve, maintain, and spread the practice of legally owning and selling other human beings.

 

[carolinablue34]

And, I think it's safe to say that each soldier, each officer, had his own reason(s) for fighting for whichever side he fought.

But, history shows, unequivocally, that only one side fought to preserve, maintain, and spread the practice of legally owning and selling other human beings.

The idea of the 'noble' Confederate soldier defending their homeland is not so clear either.

Take this article for example.

Why Confederate Lies Live On

For some Americans, history isn’t the story of what actually happened; it’s the story they want to believe.

www.theatlantic.com

"But the historian Joseph T. Glatthaar has challenged that argument. He analyzed the makeup of the unit that would become Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and pointed out that “the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery.” Almost half either owned enslaved people or lived with a head of household who did, and many more worked for slaveholders, rented land from them, or had business relationships with them.

Many white southerners who did not own enslaved people were deeply committed to preserving the institution. The historian James Oliver Horton wrote about how the press inundated white southerners with warnings that, without slavery, they would be forced to live, work, and inevitably procreate with their free Black neighbors.

The Louisville Daily Courier, for example, warned nonslaveholding white southerners about the slippery slope of abolition: “Do they wish to send their children to schools in which the negro children of the vicinity are taught? Do they wish to give the negro the right to appear in the witness box to testify against them?” The paper threatened that Black men would sleep with white women and “amalgamate together the two races in violation of God’s will.”

These messages worked, Horton’s research found. One southern prisoner of war told a Union soldier standing watch, “You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to ******s”; a Confederate artilleryman from Louisiana said that his army had to fight against even the most difficult odds, because he would “never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person.”

The proposition of equality with Black people was one that millions of southern white people were unwilling to accept. The existence of slavery meant that, no matter your socioeconomic status, there were always millions of people beneath you. As the historian Charles Dew put it, “You don’t have to be actively involved in the system to derive at least the psychological benefits of the system.”

It's safe to say that many who excuse the Confederacy like to hide behind 'states rights' or the idea that it was just their homeland being invaded. I'm sure in the minds of many at the time that was the case. A good chunk of Southern whites did not own slaves. But as Dew points out, you can benefit from something without participating in it. To minimize the effect of the hierarchal, race based caste system that existed in those places is to ignore the root causes of the war itself and the inherent contradiction of a country that boasted itself as 'land of the free' when a quarter of its population was certainly not free.

And half the country would rather have seceded than look that contradiction in the eye.

 

[strummingram]

The idea of the 'noble' Confederate soldier defending their homeland is not so clear either.

Take this article for example.

Why Confederate Lies Live On

For some Americans, history isn’t the story of what actually happened; it’s the story they want to believe.

www.theatlantic.com

"But the historian Joseph T. Glatthaar has challenged that argument. He analyzed the makeup of the unit that would become Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and pointed out that “the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery.” Almost half either owned enslaved people or lived with a head of household who did, and many more worked for slaveholders, rented land from them, or had business relationships with them.

Many white southerners who did not own enslaved people were deeply committed to preserving the institution. The historian James Oliver Horton wrote about how the press inundated white southerners with warnings that, without slavery, they would be forced to live, work, and inevitably procreate with their free Black neighbors.

The Louisville Daily Courier, for example, warned nonslaveholding white southerners about the slippery slope of abolition: “Do they wish to send their children to schools in which the negro children of the vicinity are taught? Do they wish to give the negro the right to appear in the witness box to testify against them?” The paper threatened that Black men would sleep with white women and “amalgamate together the two races in violation of God’s will.”

These messages worked, Horton’s research found. One southern prisoner of war told a Union soldier standing watch, “You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to ******s”; a Confederate artilleryman from Louisiana said that his army had to fight against even the most difficult odds, because he would “never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person.”

The proposition of equality with Black people was one that millions of southern white people were unwilling to accept. The existence of slavery meant that, no matter your socioeconomic status, there were always millions of people beneath you. As the historian Charles Dew put it, “You don’t have to be actively involved in the system to derive at least the psychological benefits of the system.”

It's safe to say that many who excuse the Confederacy like to hide behind 'states rights' or the idea that it was just their homeland being invaded. I'm sure in the minds of many at the time that was the case. A good chunk of Southern whites did not own slaves. But as Dew points out, you can benefit from something without participating in it. To minimize the effect of the hierarchal, race based caste system that existed in those places is to ignore the root causes of the war itself and the inherent contradiction of a country that boasted itself as 'land of the free' when a quarter of its population was certainly not free.

And half the country would rather have seceded than look that contradiction in the eye.

A lot of the wealthier planter class, throughout the south, weren't 100% sure if seceding was in their best interest, and certainly not a war. It was going to affect their bottom line, either way. But... I guess they ultimately believed that the Republicans of that time were going to keep pushing and they'd lose their leverage eventually. The saddest irony is how that same wealthy planter class, and the notion of States Rights, is what killed the Confederacy! The Confederate government placated the wealthiest citizens (like all wars), and the military "requisitioned" property (food and horses, livestock, anything they wanted) from middle class and the poor whites all the time. The ones who owned the most slaves were never treated that way and eventually they were exempt from even serving in the military. States like Georgia, that produced materials for the war, would withhold them from the armies in the East because they only wanted them to be given to Georgia units!

 

[carolinablue34]

A lot of the wealthier planter class, throughout the south, weren't 100% sure if seceding was in their best interest, and certainly not a war. It was going to affect their bottom line, either way. But... I guess they ultimately believed that the Republicans of that time were going to keep pushing and they'd lose their leverage eventually. The saddest irony is how that same wealthy planter class, and the notion of States Rights, is what killed the Confederacy! The Confederate government placated the wealthiest citizens (like all wars), and the military "requisitioned" property (food and horses, livestock, anything they wanted) from middle class and the poor whites all the time. The ones who owned the most slaves were never treated that way and eventually they were exempt from even serving in the military. States like Georgia, that produced materials for the war, would withhold them from the armies in the East because they only wanted them to be given to Georgia units!

To your point, fear was a major part in the decision to secede because slavery had reached its geographical limits. The kind of weather and conditions needed to sustain those big ass plantations weren't sustainable past East Texas. Meanwhile Northern and Midlander culture could easily spread Westward because neither were predicated on an economy or culture of chattel slavery. In other words, the Southern elites knew they would be boxed in sooner or later and by extension, their power slowly eroded over time.

 

[bluetoe]

There are two wars in my view that have a relative 'right vs. wrong'.

World War 2. It need not be said what this world would have been if the Nazis and Japanese won.

The US Civil War. Contrary to what some on this board might feel or not have the balls to say @bluetoe but it was a damn good thing the Union prevailed. For multiple reasons but chief among them, ending the the practice of chattel slavery. In addition, the continued unity that enabled the United States to truly takes its place as a world power.

The greatest mistake made, was the series of Republican Presidents that succeeded Lincoln didn't follow through on Reconstruction. The armed forces should have stayed 50 years or more if it meant preventing the Jim Crow, white terrorist bullshit that followed.

But yeah...the war had nothing to do with reinforcing backwards, medieval racial hierarchies.

not sure why you singled me out for this unnecessary drivel unless it's your way of saying I am right about the reason the war was fought, so you now have to create some other contention. That contention exists only in your mind. OF COURSE it was good that slavery was ended, but it wasn't such a good thing that Southerners and Northerners alike continued to hold such a low opinion of black people. To change perceptions and attitudes among a large population with communication that pales compared to what we now have, takes time. Even with instant communication it takes time. Those erroneous perceptions about the negro race were not something that originated in the South. Almost all of white world thought the same way in the times leading up to the practice of slavery in America, which it so happens was first practiced in yankee land at the same time it was begun in the South. Slaves were imported into what is now NYC in 1626. Slavery was not abolished there until 1841.

So...in case it has escaped your notice somehow, slavery initially was ended federally only in those States in the Confederacy. The Union continued to allow slavery in its own States until well after the war ended. That's because the Emancipation Proclamation was a war strategy and ending slavery in its own right was far from a priority of the Victors, or even a desire of much of its population.

I have imagined a few much cheerier scenarios had the South been allowed to secede. One is that eventually slavery would have faded into non-existence with the mechanization that was right around the corner, and that the South might eventually have come to just as overtly respect black people, as they had so overtly DISrespected them before. Not saying it was probable but who knows? That would be better than the latent, more insidious racism that still prevails in the North.

Another much more possible scenario is that the two countries would reform in another alliance to become even stronger than the Bidenesque, much more profoundly divided fiasco we are now experiencing.

Ironic that you would accuse me of not having the balls to admit something when you have to make unfounded assumptions to do so. You are the one who failed to counter the facts that I presented yet don't have the balls to admit that I'm right. One way or the other, I have it over on you because I have balls AND a brain. I have stated several times in this discussion that everything we encounter has good and bad elements. Nothing is perfectly good and nothing is perfectly bad. Even Hitler loved his dog. Accordingly, I have not once even hinted that there were not positive consequences of the Civil War or unacceptable practices in the South.

Now go back and try again. Loser.

 

[gunslingerdick]

There are two wars in my view that have a relative 'right vs. wrong'.

World War 2. It need not be said what this world would have been if the Nazis and Japanese won.

The US Civil War. Contrary to what some on this board might feel or not have the balls to say @bluetoe but it was a damn good thing the Union prevailed. For multiple reasons but chief among them, ending the the practice of chattel slavery. In addition, the continued unity that enabled the United States to truly takes its place as a world power.

The greatest mistake made, was the series of Republican Presidents that succeeded Lincoln didn't follow through on Reconstruction. The armed forces should have stayed 50 years or more if it meant preventing the Jim Crow, white terrorist bullshit that followed.

But yeah...the war had nothing to do with reinforcing backwards, medieval racial hierarchies.

And, I think it's safe to say that each soldier, each officer, had his own reason(s) for fighting for whichever side he fought.

But, history shows, unequivocally, that only one side fought to preserve, maintain, and spread the practice of legally owning and selling other human beings.

Y'all are such dimwits. You act like whites in the North were morally superior. They had slaves in the North too. In my estimation, I'd say less than 10% of the soldiers in the north were fighting "to end slavery". To think otherwise is naive and done only in an effort to continue to paint the South as evil while the North was righteous.

Also, had the South won, slavery still would have died within a decade. Again, y'all can continue to believe that people in the North and South were that different but that's silliness.

 

[bluetoe]

And, I think it's safe to say that each soldier, each officer, had his own reason(s) for fighting for whichever side he fought.

But, history shows, unequivocally, that only one side fought to preserve, maintain, and spread the practice of legally owning and selling other human beings.

history shows nothing of the kind. History clearly shows, to anyone not prejudiced beyond reason, that the common soldier was simply fighting for what soldiers always fight for...their side and their comrades. The common soldier is generally not that well connected to the root causes of the conflict, and that's especially true in this case. In the case of the Civil War, that conflict was over the Union's refusal to allow the Confederate States to secede. Southern Soldiers were simply fighting for their homeland.

ETA. now imagine Union soldiers thinking to themselves, 'they want me to charge straight into that murderous fire coming from the enemy. I am scared shitless and I don't want to do it, but somehow we just HAVE to end slavery.'. Then imagine a Southern soldier thinking 'they want me to charge into all that murderous fire, and I am scared shitless and I don't want to do it, but somehow we just HAVE to save slavery even though we have never owned a slave and slavery is what allows those fat cat plantation owners to look down on us.'.

You are a dunce among dunces, a dunce's dunce.

 

[bluetoe]

Y'all are such dimwits. You act like whites in the North were morally superior. They had slaves in the North too. In my estimation, I'd say less than 10% of the soldiers in the north were fighting "to end slavery". To think otherwise is naive and done only in an effort to continue to paint the South as evil while the North was righteous.

Also, had the South won, slavery still would have died within a decade. Again, y'all can continue to believe that people in the North and South were that different but that's silliness.

yes it is. Virtue signaling is a silly practice and it often requires a near-complete disregard of the facts of a matter and any understanding whatsoever of human nature. Silly, silly people.

 

[Heels Noir]

Just think, had Joe Biden not kicked the living shit out of Donald Trump and his undereducated supporters in the November election, we might be trading nuclear missiles today with China.

 

[strummingram]

history shows nothing of the kind. History clearly shows, to anyone not prejudiced beyond reason, that the common soldier was simply fighting for what soldiers always fight for...their side and their comrades. The common soldier is generally not that well connected to the root causes of the conflict, and that's especially true in this case. In the case of the Civil War, that conflict was over the Union's refusal to allow the Confederate States to secede. Southern Soldiers were simply fighting for their homeland.

ETA. now imagine Union soldiers thinking to themselves, 'they want me to charge straight into that murderous fire coming from the enemy. I am scared shitless and I don't want to do it, but somehow we just HAVE to end slavery.'. Then imagine a Southern soldier thinking 'they want me to charge into all that murderous fire, and I am scared shitless and I don't want to do it, but somehow we just HAVE to save slavery even though we have never owned a slave and slavery is what allows those fat cat plantation owners to look down on us.'.

You are a dunce among dunces, a dunce's dunce.

Don't stop with defending the Confederacy. Teach me about how Jim Crow laws were good for America.

 

[carolinablue34]

not sure why you singled me out for this unnecessary drivel unless it's your way of saying I am right about the reason the war was fought, so you now have to create some other contention. That contention exists only in your mind. OF COURSE it was good that slavery was ended, but it wasn't such a good thing that Southerners and Northerners alike continued to hold such a low opinion of black people. To change perceptions and attitudes among a large population with communication that pales compared to what we now have, takes time. Even with instant communication it takes time. Those erroneous perceptions about the negro race were not something that originated in the South. Almost all of white world thought the same way in the times leading up to the practice of slavery in America, which it so happens was first practiced in yankee land at the same time it was begun in the South. Slaves were imported into what is now NYC in 1626. Slavery was not abolished there until 1841.

So...in case it has escaped your notice somehow, slavery initially was ended federally only in those States in the Confederacy. The Union continued to allow slavery in its own States until well after the war ended. That's because the Emancipation Proclamation was a war strategy and ending slavery in its own right was far from a priority of the Victors, or even a desire of much of its population.

I have imagined a few much cheerier scenarios had the South been allowed to secede. One is that eventually slavery would have faded into non-existence with the mechanization that was right around the corner, and that the South might eventually have come to just as overtly respect black people, as they had so overtly DISrespected them before. Not saying it was probable but who knows? That would be better than the latent, more insidious racism that still prevails in the North.

Another much more possible scenario is that the two countries would reform in another alliance to become even stronger than the Bidenesque, much more profoundly divided fiasco we are now experiencing.

Ironic that you would accuse me of not having the balls to admit something when you have to make unfounded assumptions to do so. You are the one who failed to counter the facts that I presented yet don't have the balls to admit that I'm right. One way or the other, I have it over on you because I have balls AND a brain. I have stated several times in this discussion that everything we encounter has good and bad elements. Nothing is perfectly good and nothing is perfectly bad. Even Hitler loved his dog. Accordingly, I have not once even hinted that there were not positive consequences of the Civil War or unacceptable practices in the South.

Now go back and try again. Loser.

Because you're the biggest Confederate apologizer on here. And general rule of thumb on OOTB, if you call somebody out directly, you tag them.

What I'm seeing here is yet another run around. Deflecting from the main issue. What I will agree on is often times wars aren't so cut and dry, even ones that reflect good and evil. There were many Northerners that either sympathized with the South, couldn't give two shits about slavery, or had their own reasons for fighting same as many Southerners.

But here lies the difference. You can talk about how places NYC allowed slavery for an extended period of time into the 19th century, or how Lincoln's proclamation only extended to the Southern states in rebellion. This is true. But it does not change the fact that Northern states (and I mean above the Mason-Dixon Line) did not require or predicate their culture/economy on slavery and had not done so for years. Thereby, racism, while heinous everywhere, was not as ingrained or encoded into the law system there. Think as to why millions of blacks moved north after the war up until the 40s and 50s. They could get a fairer shake in NYC than they could in Atlanta. The North had slavery. The South made it the fabric of their existence. And while the North certainly had racial issues, by and large it has done a better job moving past it than Dixie.

You can 'imagine' all you want in terms of cheerier scenarios had the South emerged victorious. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that by terrorism, sanctioned murder, and thuggery, white Southern Democrats could not accept a post racial world after the Civil War and used armed force to ensure that racial caste system endured for another 100 years. That you blame the Union for this and that somehow racism was more 'insidious' there is not only blatantly false, it is the equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand about the fundamental problem highlighted in the Atlantic article I posted. White Southerners could not bear the thought of sharing one iota of power with black people. It is your own disdain for 'Yankees' that endows you with this mindset.

It is interesting you cannot make a counter argument without coming across as unreasonably abrasive and defensive. And FYI, it's not generally a good idea to use Hitler as a method of explaining the gray area of human nature. There are many who fall under that category. Der Fuhrer is not one of them.

 

[carolinablue34]

It looks as though Newsom will be retained as the Governor of California. No shocker there.

 

[bluetoe]

Because you're the biggest Confederate apologizer on here. And general rule of thumb on OOTB, if you call somebody out directly, you tag them.

What I'm seeing here is yet another run around. Deflecting from the main issue. What I will agree on is often times wars aren't so cut and dry, even ones that reflect good and evil. There were many Northerners that either sympathized with the South, couldn't give two shits about slavery, or had their own reasons for fighting same as many Southerners.

But here lies the difference. You can talk about how places NYC allowed slavery for an extended period of time into the 19th century, or how Lincoln's proclamation only extended to the Southern states in rebellion. This is true. But it does not change the fact that Northern states (and I mean above the Mason-Dixon Line) did not require or predicate their culture/economy on slavery and had not done so for years. Thereby, racism, while heinous everywhere, was not as ingrained or encoded into the law system there. Think as to why millions of blacks moved north after the war up until the 40s and 50s. They could get a fairer shake in NYC than they could in Atlanta. The North had slavery. The South made it the fabric of their existence. And while the North certainly had racial issues, by and large it has done a better job moving past it than Dixie.

You can 'imagine' all you want in terms of cheerier scenarios had the South emerged victorious. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that by terrorism, sanctioned murder, and thuggery, white Southern Democrats could not accept a post racial world after the Civil War and used armed force to ensure that racial caste system endured for another 100 years. That you blame the Union for this and that somehow racism was more 'insidious' there is not only blatantly false, it is the equivalent of sticking one's head in the sand about the fundamental problem highlighted in the Atlantic article I posted. White Southerners could not bear the thought of sharing one iota of power with black people. It is your own disdain for 'Yankees' that endows you with this mindset.

It is interesting you cannot make a counter argument without coming across as unreasonably abrasive and defensive. And FYI, it's not generally a good idea to use Hitler as a method of explaining the gray area of human nature. There are many who fall under that category. Der Fuhrer is not one of them.

ignorance on ignorance, and now you add brainlessness.. AS I SAID, I never said there weren't negative things about the South and AS I SAID, ending slavery was a good thing. You absolutely wallow in your whiny hate for things that haven't even been part of the topic at hand. And you prattle on like some authority about things that you have no knowledge of. You're a disgusting gasbag who pouts when he loses.

All I did was explain that the war was not fought over slavery, and that's just as true now as it was when I first said it. The war was fought because Lincoln didn't want to allow the Confederate States to secede. If the topic was secession, that would be another discussion. But ask yourself this, genius. Suppose there was no slavery, and the only reason that the South wanted to secede was because of cultural differences. Would there have been a war? You damn right there would have been, because preserving the Union is why Lincoln instigated one. All this other crap you're trying to interject is because you don't have the gumption to admit that I'm right. Well suck it up, bitch. You're wrong about that and you always will be.

I'm not an apologist for the South because there's nothing to apologize for. Or maybe you also think people with Italian surnames should be currently apologizing for those held in slavery during the Roman empire. I think we should ALL be ashamed for not better acknowledging what was done to Native Americans. Why aren't you whining about that little demonstration of racism? Idiot.

And if Hitler isn't the best example to demonstrate that nothing or no one is entirely bad, then I guess Atilla the Hun might be...except I don't know if he even had a dog. You are a moron.

The mention of northern attitudes toward black people is to counter your irrational hatred of the South. Again, the notion of holding people as slaves did not originate in the South and it took place in the north at the same time it did in the South. But the South became an agrarian culture where slavery made sense, whereas the northern economy was oriented toward using raw materials to produce goods; and those lucky Irish and other immigrants were allowed to starve on starvation wages and live in filthy tenement ratholes so they could work as worse than slaves in northern factories. But it was such an idyllic place compared to the South according to you. You are a fool and a gasbag. Wait, I already said gasbag. Douchebag then. It fits.

 

[strummingram]

ignorance on ignorance, and now you add brainlessness.. AS I SAID, I never said there weren't negative things about the South and AS I SAID, ending slavery was a good thing. You absolutely wallow in your whiny hate for things that haven't even been part of the topic at hand. And you prattle on like some authority about things that you have no knowledge of. You're a disgusting gasbag who pouts when he loses.

All I did was explain that the war was not fought over slavery, and that's just as true now as it was when I first said it. The war was fought because Lincoln didn't want to allow the Confederate States to secede. If the topic was secession, that would be another discussion. But ask yourself this, genius. Suppose there was no slavery, and the only reason that the South wanted to secede was because of cultural differences. Would there have been a war? You damn right there would have been, because preserving the Union is why Lincoln instigated one. All this other crap you're trying to interject is because you don't have the gumption to admit that I'm right. Well suck it up, bitch. You're wrong about that and you always will be.

I'm not an apologist for the South because there's nothing to apologize for. Or maybe you also think people with Italian surnames should be currently apologizing for those held in slavery during the Roman empire. I think we should ALL be ashamed for not better acknowledging what was done to Native Americans. Why aren't you whining about that little demonstration of racism? Idiot.

And if Hitler isn't the best example to demonstrate that nothing or no one is entirely bad, then I guess Atilla the Hun might be...except I don't know if he even had a dog. You are a moron.

The mention of northern attitudes toward black people is to counter your irrational hatred of the South. Again, the notion of holding people as slaves did not originate in the South and it took place in the north at the same time it did in the South. But the South became an agrarian culture where slavery made sense, whereas the northern economy was oriented toward using raw materials to produce goods; and those lucky Irish and other immigrants were allowed to starve on starvation wages and live in filthy tenement ratholes so they could work as worse than slaves in northern factories. But it was such an idyllic place compared to the South according to you. You are a fool and a gasbag. Wait, I already said gasbag. Douchebag then. It fits.

 

[carolinablue34]

ignorance on ignorance, and now you add brainlessness.. AS I SAID, I never said there weren't negative things about the South and AS I SAID, ending slavery was a good thing. You absolutely wallow in your whiny hate for things that haven't even been part of the topic at hand. And you prattle on like some authority about things that you have no knowledge of. You're a disgusting gasbag who pouts when he loses.

All I did was explain that the war was not fought over slavery, and that's just as true now as it was when I first said it. The war was fought because Lincoln didn't want to allow the Confederate States to secede. If the topic was secession, that would be another discussion. But ask yourself this, genius. Suppose there was no slavery, and the only reason that the South wanted to secede was because of cultural differences. Would there have been a war? You damn right there would have been, because preserving the Union is why Lincoln instigated one. All this other crap you're trying to interject is because you don't have the gumption to admit that I'm right. Well suck it up, bitch. You're wrong about that and you always will be.

I'm not an apologist for the South because there's nothing to apologize for. Or maybe you also think people with Italian surnames should be currently apologizing for those held in slavery during the Roman empire. I think we should ALL be ashamed for not better acknowledging what was done to Native Americans. Why aren't you whining about that little demonstration of racism? Idiot.

And if Hitler isn't the best example to demonstrate that nothing or no one is entirely bad, then I guess Atilla the Hun might be...except I don't know if he even had a dog. You are a moron.

The mention of northern attitudes toward black people is to counter your irrational hatred of the South. Again, the notion of holding people as slaves did not originate in the South and it took place in the north at the same time it did in the South. But the South became an agrarian culture where slavery made sense, whereas the northern economy was oriented toward using raw materials to produce goods; and those lucky Irish and other immigrants were allowed to starve on starvation wages and live in filthy tenement ratholes so they could work as worse than slaves in northern factories. But it was such an idyllic place compared to the South according to you. You are a fool and a gasbag. Wait, I already said gasbag. Douchebag then. It fits.

Ah, yes very good. A few ad hominem attacks and some pointless angry drivel...I shudder to think how you actually talk to people face to face. But since you seem to excel at semantics, let's just get a few things straight.

1) Trying to make some weird argument the war was fought because Lincoln didn't allow the South to secede but the reasons for secession are separate doesn't hold up. You know why? Because the South didn't secede due to 'cultural differences'. If that were the case, they'd have listened to Lincoln when he said he'd preserve the Union at the cost of keeping slavery where it was already legal. Instead, a bunch of traitors seceded anyway. Why? Because they were afraid losing their power which was was again rooted in plantation style chattel human bondage. You making a bunch of irrelevant excuses doesn't change that.

2) "Nothing to apologize for" lol. Tell that to the millions who suffered for years under the yoke of Jim Crow and the legacy it's left behind. You think suddenly 1965 came around and it just went away? No big deal? The first black woman to attend an integrated school is still alive. It's only a few generations removed. The Federal Government had to drag a quarter of the country kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Let that sink in for a second.

3) I view the plight of Natives and the plight of black Americans in separate contexts. Don't use the former to deflect from the latter. I doubt you care any more than the average liberal in Massachusetts or the conservative in South Carolina about Natives. Because if we're honest, neither does, including you.

4) I would never suggest the North was some utopia compared to the South or that's the case today. Every place, every region has its ups and downs, pros and cons. However, not every culture is made equal. I've noticed you have tried to cast the Northern part of the country in an equally despicable light, which is erroneous at best. Attempting to cast the Irish, Italian, German, Polish, Eastern European, and Jewish working class as being the same as slaves is a laughable attempt at pretending the two are equivalent. They aren't. The groups I mentioned may have started out at the bottom but through labor laws, Unions, fair wages, dedication, and a more tolerant setting that enabled those things, they are as part of the American story as anyone else. They went to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, etc. and not in the swamp pits of Louisiana because A) that's where the jobs were and B) knew the hostility to their presence wasn't as extreme.

And for the record, I don't think the current culture of the South is anywhere close to that of 1865 or 1965. What I think is that there are still too many who exist in those states, who still can't come to grips with losing the war and have to justify the way things were before in order to feel better about themselves and their ancestors. It's not the right approach.

 

[strummingram]

Ah, yes very good. A few ad hominem attacks and some pointless angry drivel...I shudder to think how you actually talk to people face to face. But since you seem to excel at semantics, let's just get a few things straight.

1) Trying to make some weird argument the war was fought because Lincoln didn't allow the South to secede but the reasons for secession are separate doesn't hold up. You know why? Because the South didn't secede due to 'cultural differences'. If that were the case, they'd have listened to Lincoln when he said he'd preserve the Union at the cost of keeping slavery where it was already legal. Instead, a bunch of traitors seceded anyway. Why? Because they were afraid losing their power which was was again rooted in plantation style chattel human bondage. You making a bunch of irrelevant excuses doesn't change that.

2) "Nothing to apologize for" lol. Tell that to the millions who suffered for years under the yoke of Jim Crow and the legacy it's left behind. You think suddenly 1965 came around and it just went away? No big deal? The first black woman to attend an integrated school is still alive. It's only a few generations removed. The Federal Government had to drag a quarter of the country kicking and screaming into the 20th century. Let that sink in for a second.

3) I view the plight of Natives and the plight of black Americans in separate contexts. Don't use the former to deflect from the latter. I doubt you care any more than the average liberal in Massachusetts or the conservative in South Carolina about Natives. Because if we're honest, neither does, including you.

4) I would never suggest the North was some utopia compared to the South or that's the case today. Every place, every region has its ups and downs, pros and cons. However, not every culture is made equal. I've noticed you have tried to cast the Northern part of the country in an equally despicable light, which is erroneous at best. Attempting to cast the Irish, Italian, German, Polish, Eastern European, and Jewish working class as being the same as slaves is a laughable attempt at pretending the two are equivalent. They aren't. The groups I mentioned may have started out at the bottom but through labor laws, Unions, fair wages, dedication, and a more tolerant setting that enabled those things, they are as part of the American story as anyone else. They went to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, etc. and not in the swamp pits of Louisiana because A) that's where the jobs were and B) knew the hostility to their presence wasn't as extreme.

And for the record, I don't think the current culture of the South is anywhere close to that of 1865 or 1965. What I think is that there are still too many who exist in those states, who still can't come to grips with losing the war and have to justify the way things were before in order to feel better about themselves and their ancestors. It's not the right approach.

Read the Articles of Secession for each state, or Alexander Stephens'- the vice president of the Confederacy- Cornerstone Speech. They explain in great detail how their country, their entire social structure is predicated on the "natural law" that the white race is superior to the black race.

 

[prlyles]

I grew up during the Jim Crow era. Blacks and whites attended different schools until they were integrated in the seventh grade. The black schools got whatever books the white schools didn’t need, the black schools were not funded like white schools. I can remember “white only” water coolers, bathrooms, etc. One of the movie theaters here in town has a back entrance that lead straight to the balcony and that was where blacks had to go.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I grew up during the Jim Crow era. Blacks and whites attended different schools until they were integrated in the seventh grade. The black schools got whatever books the white schools didn’t need, the black schools were not funded like white schools. I can remember “white only” water coolers, bathrooms, etc. One of the movie theaters here in town has a back entrance that lead straight to the balcony and that was where blacks had to go.

 

[gunslingerdick]

In other words, Democrats hate America.

Media push narrative that patriotism is 'adjacent to something evil,' analysts say

In the immediate months and years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, surveys revealed a surge in patriotism among Americans of all stripes. But that trend has steadily decreased in the 20 years since, and a clear partisan gap has emerged, with far fewer Democrats and independents...

www.foxnews.com