The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: BannedFromDU on May 24, 2009, 12:17:18 PM
-
Mr. Ected (1000+ posts) Fri May-22-09 04:13 PM
Original message
Meg White: Why Obama Should Give Neo-Confederate Bigots What They Want This Memorial Day
http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/773
Ever since Woodrow Wilson's administration, American presidents have been honoring a group with racist and secessionist undertones, which is influenced by religious extremism. This Memorial Day, President Barack Obama will have the choice to either break with this shameful tradition or continue it.
My advice to him is this: Keep it going.
Presidents have consistently sent a wreath to a monument in Arlington National Cemetery honoring the Confederate side of the Civil War every year for decades. In recent years, this has taken place on Memorial Day, though in the past, presidents have favored the June birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The monument goes further than just honoring dead soldiers, however. The language inscribed upon it glorifies the ideals of the Confederacy itself, and detractors say it is used as an excuse to embrace racism and neo-Confederate ideology.
There is a movement brewing to encourage Obama to stop legitimizing neo-Confederates by refusing to send the obligatory wreath to the monument. The effort is led by a group of thoughtful scholars influenced by good intentions. While I agree that it is morally reprehensible to honor the deaths of those who killed their own brothers in an effort to destroy our country, I respectfully disagree with their interpretation of the reality of the situation facing our president.
<snip>
My humble suggestions:
Send the wreath for the fundamentalist religious zealots, but make gay marriage legal and never again invite the intolerant Rick Warren to pray over the country.
Send the wreath for the flag-waving ditto-heads, but give every veteran PTSD screening and lend support to a truth commission to find out how we got into the Iraq war.
Send the wreath for the backwards racists, but give the country fair immigration reform and stop neo-redlining and other discriminatory practices in lending.
In other words, let the bigots have their pomp and circumstance, but whistling Dixie is not the change I voted for.
They hold grudges longer than muslims do (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5705005&mesg_id=5705005)
I think a good definition of "insane" is: taking up a position that was (a) settled almost 100 years ago, (b) goes against a tradition observed by every President since Wilson, and (c) involves an issue that they don't have a personal stake in.
DU just plain hates the South. Now that Obama is in the White House, notice how it's suddenly OK over there to trash the South. Notice how no Southerners call them on it anymore.
In this day and age, when you can walk into a mall in South Carolina that has the same Sunglass Hut, Victoria's Secret, and Cinnabon as they have in Philadelphia, and when a meal at an Atlanta Macaroni Grill is exactly the same as the one they serve in Chicago, and when you can work in an office in Birmingham and not be shocked to hear a shitty Boston accent, DUmmies STILL think there is something substantially different about the South. Idiots.
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri May-22-09 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. There's an article full of bad advice.
Not for nothing but they lost the war right? WTF should any president do any damn thing to honor these treasonous bastards. This coddling is part of the reason why the clueless neo-confederates are under the impression that what they're backing is in no way nasty or evil.
Hugabear (1000+ posts) Fri May-22-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. I say dig those traitorous corpses out of the ground, send them back to the South
Why in god's name should we be honoring these ****ing traitors in our nation's most sacred cemetery?
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri May-22-09 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Disagree. End the treasonous tradition now.
Sigh. Depressing, the stupidity and hatred over there. The irony, of course, is that the "enlightened" ones at DU tend to live in filthy hovels under conditions pretty much equivalent to the white trash they ridicule in the South, and their minds are equally closed.
-
H5! I love this part of your comments the best. Especially as a Southerner who has to put up with this nonsense.
I think a good definition of "insane" is: taking up a position that was (a) settled almost 100 years ago, (b) goes against a tradition observed by every President since Wilson, and (c) involves an issue that they don't have a personal stake in.
DU just plain hates the South. Now that Obama is in the White House, notice how it's suddenly OK over there to trash the South. Notice how no Southerners call them on it anymore.
In this day and age, when you can walk into a mall in South Carolina that has the same Sunglass Hut, Victoria's Secret, and Cinnabon as they have in Philadelphia, and when a meal at an Atlanta Macaroni Grill is exactly the same as the one they serve in Chicago, and when you can work in an office in Birmingham and not be shocked to hear a shitty Boston accent, DUmmies STILL think there is something substantially different about the South. Idiots.
-
The irony, of course, is that the "enlightened" ones at DU tend to live in filthy hovels under conditions pretty much equivalent to the white trash they ridicule in the South.....
I take it, sir, you've been to Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, New York City, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, and all these other big cities dominated by corrupt Republican party machines?
I've noticed exactly the same thing.
If I had to make a choice, I'd sooner live in the poorest county in the south, than in the richest neighborhood in Boston. It's a matter of cleanliness and health; I wouldn't want to catch anything, and besides, my Nebraska nostrils resent bad odors.
-
Hugabear (1000+ posts) Fri May-22-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. I say dig those traitorous corpses out of the ground, send them back to the South
Why in god's name should we be honoring these ****ing traitors in our nation's most sacred cemetery?
Hey DUmbass. Arlington is in the South. :loser:
Are the DUmmies even aware that the Mason Dixon is also known as the Maryland/Pennsylvania line?
-
Hey DUmbass. Arlington is in the South. :loser:
Are the DUmmies even aware that the Mason Dixon is also known as the Maryland/Pennsylvania line?
Naaah . . . Remember, the DUmmies are products of the publik skool systm.
-
Hugabear (1000+ posts) Fri May-22-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. I say dig those traitorous corpses out of the ground, send them back to the South
You didn't study Geography much in Jr High did you DUmmie?
The Mason-Dixon line...the geographical point that separates the North from the South...is NORTH of D.C.....in MARYLAND!!!!!
Why in god's name should we be honoring these ******* traitors in our nation's most sacred cemetery?
First off they were NOT traitors. Secondly at least they had the balls to fight and die for what they believed in.
Unlike 99.9% of teh DUmp.
-
I was bewildered as a child, angry in my youth, and now amused in my saged age about how non-southerners (the poor souls) judges our modern southern culture, especially when it pertains to black folk and white folk. I could write an essay about how a growing mutual respect between us was partially destroyed by know-nothing liberal radicals who did not like the peaceful co-existence we enjoyed. It was a social work in progress, for sure, but it was completely positive.
When I was a child I was in awe of the black folk. I really never saw any of them around until the weekends when leisure time took over the work week. They were always dressed to the nines and looked so classy. I had a completely different idea about social rank.
-
The damn Civil War was NOT about ending slavery. Honest Abe admitted it. He was willing to use keeping slavery or ending it to preserve the union. He admitted that too. He personally was against slavery, but he would have sold every slave down the drain to Tpreserve the union. The first Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves of Confederate states. Slavery in Union states was still legal. Slaves would escape to the Union states, and people didn't know what to do with them. They sometimes were sent back home. How's that for favoring the freedom of slaves? Ending slavery did become a useful tool idea for preserving the Union as former slaves became soldiers for the Union, but that was NOT why the Civil War was started.
Meanwhile, did you know that there were blacks who fought on the Confederate side? I'm not making that up. It's true.
I do think slavery played a big role in things because everytime there was a state acquired that became slave, they had to get a state that was free and vice versa. This would have to be settled at some point. However, the big issue was whether federal government should have a right to force the states to do things (and I would agree that states should have no say on the slavery subject because it's just wrong). Federalism vs. Anti-federalism was a big issue since the start of the country. There probably would have been a war with or without slavery because of this.
Oh, and I learned most of that from liberal professors.
-
The damn Civil War was NOT about ending slavery. Honest Abe admitted it. He was willing to use keeping slavery or ending it to preserve the union. He admitted that too. He personally was against slavery, but he would have sold every slave down the drain to Tpreserve the union. The first Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves of Confederate states. Slavery in Union states was still legal. Slaves would escape to the Union states, and people didn't know what to do with them. They sometimes were sent back home. How's that for favoring the freedom of slaves? Ending slavery did become a useful tool idea for preserving the Union as former slaves became soldiers for the Union, but that was NOT why the Civil War was started.
Meanwhile, did you know that there were blacks who fought on the Confederate side? I'm not making that up. It's true.
I do think slavery played a big role in things because everytime there was a state acquired that became slave, they had to get a state that was free and vice versa. This would have to be settled at some point. However, the big issue was whether federal government should have a right to force the states to do things (and I would agree that states should have no say on the slavery subject because it's just wrong). Federalism vs. Anti-federalism was a big issue since the start of the country. There probably would have been a war with or without slavery because of this.
Oh, and I learned most of that from liberal professors.
And one last thing. The North could not have been that much against slavery since their companies benefited from it.
-
Meanwhile, did you know that there were blacks who fought on the Confederate side? I'm not making that up. It's true.
Oh, and I learned most of that from liberal professors.
I think I learned that in third grade. What the hell were they teaching you northerners?
-
And one last thing. The North could not have been that much against slavery since their companies benefited from it.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter anymore. Our real racist enemies are the ones who want it to matter forever. That would be modern American liberals (like your professors).
It was a black co-worker who once told me he gets down on his knees and thanks the Lord above for slavery. If it hadn't been for those ancient events, he wouldn't be the co-owner of an accounting firm in one of the most dynamic cities in the greatest country the world had ever known - the United States of America. He said he would probably be one of those kids in Africa with flies sticking to him in the UNICEF commercials.
It's ok to try to put yourself in the place of others. It's a totally different thing to rob them of their dignity to make yourself feel useful. I learned that in Jr. high.
:-*
-
The damn Civil War was NOT about ending slavery. Honest Abe admitted it. He was willing to use keeping slavery or ending it to preserve the union. He admitted that too. He personally was against slavery, but he would have sold every slave down the drain to Tpreserve the union. The first Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves of Confederate states. Slavery in Union states was still legal. Slaves would escape to the Union states, and people didn't know what to do with them. They sometimes were sent back home. How's that for favoring the freedom of slaves? Ending slavery did become a useful tool idea for preserving the Union as former slaves became soldiers for the Union, but that was NOT why the Civil War was started.
Meanwhile, did you know that there were blacks who fought on the Confederate side? I'm not making that up. It's true.
I do think slavery played a big role in things because everytime there was a state acquired that became slave, they had to get a state that was free and vice versa. This would have to be settled at some point. However, the big issue was whether federal government should have a right to force the states to do things (and I would agree that states should have no say on the slavery subject because it's just wrong). Federalism vs. Anti-federalism was a big issue since the start of the country. There probably would have been a war with or without slavery because of this.
Oh, and I learned most of that from liberal professors.
You really want to blow some DUmmie minds start talking about all the blacks in the south that were slave owners. An interesting one to look up is William Ellison. He was one of the wealthier people in South Carolina where he manufactured cotton gins. He was born a slave, gained his freedom and eventually became one of the larger slave owners and breeders in the area.
-
You really want to blow some DUmmie minds start talking about all the blacks in the south that were slave owners. An interesting one to look up is William Ellison. He was one of the wealthier people in South Carolina where he manufactured cotton gins. He was born a slave, gained his freedom and eventually became one of the larger slave owners and breeders in the area.
I had forgotten that one! It also blows the little liberal peabrain to powder when you tell them the first female self-made millionaire of the 20th century was a black. I can't think of her name now. She was a textile giant.
-
The damn Civil War was NOT about ending slavery. Honest Abe admitted it. He was willing to use keeping slavery or ending it to preserve the union. He admitted that too. He personally was against slavery, but he would have sold every slave down the drain to Tpreserve the union. The first Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves of Confederate states. Slavery in Union states was still legal. Slaves would escape to the Union states, and people didn't know what to do with them. They sometimes were sent back home. How's that for favoring the freedom of slaves? Ending slavery did become a useful tool idea for preserving the Union as former slaves became soldiers for the Union, but that was NOT why the Civil War was started.
Meanwhile, did you know that there were blacks who fought on the Confederate side? I'm not making that up. It's true.
I do think slavery played a big role in things because everytime there was a state acquired that became slave, they had to get a state that was free and vice versa. This would have to be settled at some point. However, the big issue was whether federal government should have a right to force the states to do things (and I would agree that states should have no say on the slavery subject because it's just wrong). Federalism vs. Anti-federalism was a big issue since the start of the country. There probably would have been a war with or without slavery because of this.
Oh, and I learned most of that from liberal professors.
When I was in 8th grade history class (1977-1978) it was still admitted that the Civil War was about economics of the north exploiting the south,not slavery.
It doesn`t change the reality that slavery was an evil and ridding ourselves of it was a good thing but the facts are facts.
A h5 for posting honesty as a somewhat liberal person too.
-
I had forgotten that one! It also blows the little liberal peabrain to powder when you tell them the first female self-made millionaire of the 20th century was a black. I can't think of her name now. She was a textile giant.
Someone sent me an email a while back that listed out some of the most famous/prominent people in the world today. They were all black. Funny how that works....DUmmies don't pay attention though.
-
And one last thing. The North could not have been that much against slavery since their companies benefited from it.
What a load of horse excrement.
The FF's built a sunset clause into the Constitution in an attempt to curb slavery.
And despite what your friends at the DUmp will try to tell you about the "3/4ths Clause"...that was an attempt to blunt the attempt by Southern Slave owners to use their slaves to influence the make up of Congress.
-
I had forgotten that one! It also blows the little liberal peabrain to powder when you tell them the first female self-made millionaire of the 20th century was a black. I can't think of her name now. She was a textile giant.
There was Madam C.J. Walker that had a cosmetics/skin care line.
-
You really want to blow some DUmmie minds start talking about all the blacks in the south that were slave owners.
Even better...point out that the Cherokee Indians held slaves until the Government forced them onto the reservation in Oklahoma.
To this day the Cherokee Nation refuses to allow the descendants of Cherokees who had children with black slaves to claim their Indian heritage and add their names to the Indian Rolls.
-
Someone sent me an email a while back that listed out some of the most famous/prominent people in the world today. They were all black. Funny how that works....DUmmies don't pay attention though.
Yes, funny how that is. The facts are most of us who don't have the last name of "King George" have a history of a sorry past. My family were mostly indians (of the native sort). I have a great x4 or x5 grandmother who was half black. I'm as white as a snowman.
Grandma, give me some of those pigments.....please! I burn easily.
-
There was Madam C.J. Walker that had a cosmetics/skin care line.
Thanks. I don't know why I was thinking it was textiles. Maybe it's my southern conservative bigotry which lead me to believe it had to be something which constitutes manual labor.
:lmao:
-
^LOL! Yeah, we're tri-colored here too but I look like snow white. My brother on the other hand....people used to ask my mom why she adopted a little brown kid.
-
I think I learned that in third grade. What the hell were they teaching you northerners?
I'm from the south. My history classes before college were pretty much nothing but stuff from the pov of the
victor regarding American wars. So naturally, most Civil War stuff was taught from the pov of the Union.
-
Ultimately, it doesn't matter anymore. Our real racist enemies are the ones who want it to matter forever. That would be modern American liberals (like your professors).
It was a black co-worker who once told me he gets down on his knees and thanks the Lord above for slavery. If it hadn't been for those ancient events, he wouldn't be the co-owner of an accounting firm in one of the most dynamic cities in the greatest country the world had ever known - the United States of America. He said he would probably be one of those kids in Africa with flies sticking to him in the UNICEF commercials.
It's ok to try to put yourself in the place of others. It's a totally different thing to rob them of their dignity to make yourself feel useful. I learned that in Jr. high.
:-*
All "Thank America for slavery" BS aside, why are my liberal professors still the bad guys? They're the ones who told us stuff about the Civil War that general education classes did not, including things on the southern side of the Civil War. I read writings from the POV of southern women during the Civil War in my Women's History class. I didn't read that in regular school. Why are liberal professors still the bad guys here?
-
When I was in 8th grade history class (1977-1978) it was still admitted that the Civil War was about economics of the north exploiting the south,not slavery.
It doesn`t change the reality that slavery was an evil and ridding ourselves of it was a good thing but the facts are facts.
A h5 for posting honesty as a somewhat liberal person too.
I think in 11th Grade my teacher admitted it was about Federal Rights vs. State's rights. That's the most honesty I got out of regular classes on that subject. I agree a war to end slavery is just. I just don't agree that this was ultimately about slavery.
-
I'm from the south. My history classes before college were pretty much nothing but stuff from the pov of the
victor regarding American wars. So naturally, most Civil War stuff was taught from the pov of the Union.
That POV stuff is why I'm glad I was educated in an era when all that mattered were the facts. I was educated by folks who gave information instead of opinion.
-
All "Thank America for slavery" BS aside,
Just because you don't want to hear it - it messes with your worldview - doesn't make it bullshit for everyone. I've heard Dr. Walter Williams express the same sentiments. He is a brilliant man.
why are my liberal professors still the bad guys? They're the ones who told us stuff about the Civil War that general education classes did not, including things on the southern side of the Civil War. I read writings from the POV of southern women during the Civil War in my Women's History class. I didn't read that in regular school. Why are liberal professors still the bad guys here?
Liberals are poison to free people. The sooner you accept that indisputable fact the better off you and I and everyone else will be.
-
What a load of horse excrement.
The FF's built a sunset clause into the Constitution in an attempt to curb slavery.
And despite what your friends at the DUmp will try to tell you about the "3/4ths Clause"...that was an attempt to blunt the attempt by Southern Slave owners to use their slaves to influence the make up of Congress.
Courts targeted those companies.
http://books.google.com/books?id=31my_ppvd00C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=slavery+%2B+%22northern+companies%22&source=bl&ots=z7VDLk70j2&sig=2KOy8qWBZRqPEOCZuke0lfAfxlg&hl=en&ei=mgYbSpiPOYjFtgfC9-H2DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
I didn't learn anything from DU about the 3/4th Clause. I already knew about it. It was pretty crappy to deny people their freedom, but count them as 3/4 of a person to get more representation.
-
All "Thank America for slavery" BS aside, why are my liberal professors still the bad guys? They're the ones who told us stuff about the Civil War that general education classes did not, including things on the southern side of the Civil War. I read writings from the POV of southern women during the Civil War in my Women's History class. I didn't read that in regular school. Why are liberal professors still the bad guys here?
Well it was my conservative republican professors that clued me in.....both of'em.
-
Courts targeted those companies.
Courts target a lot of companies to make them scapegoats for other people failings.
Your point?
I didn't learn anything from DU about the 3/4th Clause. I already knew about it. It was pretty crappy to deny people their freedom, but count them as 3/4 of a person to get more representation.
And like your idiot brethren at the DUmp...the reason it was really done flies right over your pointy little head.
-
Just because you don't want to hear it - it messes with your worldview - doesn't make it bullshit for everyone. I've heard Dr. Walter Williams express the same sentiments. He is a brilliant man.
Liberals are poison to free people. The sooner you accept that indisputable fact the better off you and I and everyone else will be.
If it wasn't for American government killing 3/4 of Cherokee Indians during the Trail of Tears, I might be living on a reservation right now, but I'm not about to thank America for that. I'm sure we might all be better off because of some BS that has happened in the past. Doesn't make the BS morally okay. Conservatives say they're about morals. This is a moral issue.
As for the last part, maybe you can prove to me that liberals are poison instead of pointing the finger at them, even when they do something good like tell the truth about History.
Note: Debate style, not wanting to get personal style. Let me know if I need to stop.
-
Courts target a lot of companies to make them scapegoats for other people failings.
Your point?
And like your idiot brethren at the DUmp...the reason it was really done flies right over your pointy little head.
Okay, cotton is picked on a plantation. Clothing made is made in a factory. Where were the factories at?
http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/node/2188
From seed to cloth, Northern merchants, shippers, and financial institutions, many based in New York, controlled nearly every aspect of cotton production and trade.
Only large banks, mostly located in Manhattan, or in London, could extend the credit to plantation owners, the credit they needed between planting and selling their crop. If a farmer wanted to expand his operations during those boom decades, he required Northern bankers' deep pockets for the money to buy more equipment, as well as additional labor. Slaves were usually bought on credit.
What do you think was the real reason why the 3/4th clause was done, and why would the real reason not still make the action wrong?
-
If it wasn't for American government killing 3/4 of Cherokee Indians during the Trail of Tears, I might be living on a reservation right now, but I'm not about to thank America for that. I'm sure we might all be better off because of some BS that has happened in the past. Doesn't make the BS morally okay. Conservatives say they're about morals. This is a moral issue.
Who said it was moral? History is what it is. It cannot be changed. Every piece of history has brought us to where we are now, good and bad. I cannot see how a black person, who is allowed an independent thought in my world, understanding what got him to where he is in life and appreciating the sacrifices that got him here is a bad thing. I think it's a pretty intelligent way to think about something you cannot possibly change anyway.
As for the last part, maybe you can prove to me that liberals are poison instead of pointing the finger at them, even when they do something good like tell the truth about History.
Note: Debate style, not wanting to get personal style. Let me know if I need to stop.
Prove that liberals are poison? You have to be kidding. It would be the utmost in redundancy. You and I both know the modern liberal ideology is based almost word for word on the Communist manifesto. How can liberals not be poison to free people? Why don't you prove they aren't. Give me a "for instance", outside of their illogical war on individual morality and unending promotion of sexual deviancy, when a liberal pet cause has been about an individual freedom.
-
Okay, cotton is picked on a plantation. Clothing made is made in a factory. Where were the factories at?
http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/node/2188
What do you think was the real reason why the 3/4th clause was done, and why would the real reason not still make the action wrong?
The south paid most of the federal tax bill. Without the south, 'dem Yankee business men were going to have to pay dem taxes. ...so Lincoln ordered the Union Navy to commit an act of aggression to spark the war.
-
All "Thank America for slavery" BS aside, why are my liberal professors still the bad guys? They're the ones who told us stuff about the Civil War that general education classes did not, including things on the southern side of the Civil War. I read writings from the POV of southern women during the Civil War in my Women's History class. I didn't read that in regular school. Why are liberal professors still the bad guys here?
did they even mention the black slave owners in the south?? really! look it up. "Black Masters" is a book about it.
-
Okay, cotton is picked on a plantation. Clothing made is made in a factory. Where were the factories at?
You're kidding right? Please tell me you said that as a joke and weren't serious.
NO ONE..not even you is that dumb.
What do you think was the real reason why the 3/4th clause was done, and why would the real reason not still make the action wrong?
The three fifths legislation was put into the Constitution to reduce the influence the Southern states would have had in the House of Representatives for the purpose of apportioning seats.
See the Southern states tried to influence how many seats they got in the House by demanding that their slaves be counted in the population. The FF's seeing that...tried to head them off at the pass with the 3/5th's clause.
I bet you didn't know that there was a wording put into the Constitution at the time it was written to abolish the importation of slaves twenty years after the Constitution was ratified did you?
Nah... you get your education on American History from the DUmp...choosing to swallow ignorant and incorrect propaganda over the facts.
-
You're kidding right? Please tell me you said that as a joke and weren't serious.
NO ONE..not even you is that dumb.
The three fifths legislation was put into the Constitution to reduce the influence the Southern states would have had in the House of Representatives for the purpose of apportioning seats.
See the Southern states tried to influence how many seats they got in the House by demanding that their slaves be counted in the population. The FF's seeing that...tried to head them off at the pass with the 3/5th's clause.
I bet you didn't know that there was a wording put into the Constitution at the time it was written to abolish the importation of slaves twenty years after the Constitution was ratified did you?
Nah... you get your education on American History from the DUmp...choosing to swallow ignorant and incorrect propaganda over the facts.
What about the link I sent showing I was right about the companies? Not just factories, but banks too.
I already told you I don't hardly go to DU. In fact, you know where I get most of my ideas about History. You've only known me how many years now? Let me know when you want to actually discuss what you learned and what I learned, make our points, etc instead of blaming everything on a message board I hardly look on.
Nevermind. Happy Memorial Day.
-
What about the link I sent showing I was right about the companies? Not just factories, but banks too.
Yeah I'm still laughing over that one too. Thanks.
In fact, you know where I get most of my ideas about History.
No I don't...but where ever you get it from...is mostly wrong.
-
Yeah I'm still laughing over that one too. Thanks.
No I don't...but where ever you get it from...is mostly wrong.
Then you haven't paid attention to my posts or anything about me in the entire I guess three to four years you've conversed with me on the net. Interesting. Have a good night.
-
Lanie,
You do realize almost all the cotton was shipped out of the south to other places, then made into cloth, right?
Raw cotton was THE cash crop that paid for imports to the southern States. It was the source for English Cotton- replaced by Indian Cotton.
-
Lanie, you ignorant ****, do you really believe the crap you post?
If it weren't for your buddies in the liberal left, we might actually have black men supporting their children.
Amazing isn't it, that you can't get welfare if the man lives in the house. Truly amazing that they leave and let the state take care of it, isn't it? Wonder why they vote DemonRat?
Could it be it's the only way they can feed their kids and still hang out on the street corner? Do you really think they don't stop by to get their dick wet? What a good deal! You get the gov to take care of your offsprin, and you don't have to lift a finger! Yet you can still drop by for a piece o' tail, whenever you feel the need. What a system! All thanx to you and your buddies!
Until we go back to making men responsible for bringing new life into this world, instead of giving a paycheck to women who are into a marathon of baby makin', we are never going to have the black society taking care of themselves!
I'm sure the first thing out of your mouth will be "you racist SOB, how dare you!" TRUTH HURTS! Get used to it! Most sane people know it!
You and your bretheren have damn near destroyed the black culture in this country! We liberated them, and look what you have done to them!
-
Lanie, you ignorant ****, do you really believe the crap you post?
If it weren't for your buddies in the liberal left, we might actually have black men supporting their children.
Amazing isn't it, that you can't get welfare if the man lives in the house. Truly amazing that they leave and let the state take care of it, isn't it? Wonder why they vote DemonRat?
Could it be it's the only way they can feed their kids and still hang out on the street corner? Do you really think they don't stop by to get their dick wet? What a good deal! You get the gov to take care of your offsprin, and you don't have to lift a finger! Yet you can still drop by for a piece o' tail, whenever you feel the need. What a system! All thanx to you and your buddies!
Until we go back to making men responsible for bringing new life into this world, instead of giving a paycheck to women who are into a marathon of baby makin', we are never going to have the black society taking care of themselves!
I'm sure the first thing out of your mouth will be "you racist SOB, how dare you!" TRUTH HURTS! Get used to it! Most sane people know it!
You and your bretheren have damn near destroyed the black culture in this country! We liberated them, and look what you have done to them!
You're a racist ****. It's people like you who give DU the ammunition it needs. BS and ignored.
-
You're a racist ****. It's people like you who give DU the ammunition it needs. BS and ignored.
Despite my saying that just now, I think the others have good points, and I do plan on addressing them.
-
You're a racist ****. It's people like you who give DU the ammunition it needs. BS and ignored.
So you disagree the dems have not done this, seriously? I cannot believe anyone with an ounce of sense does not see this! It's asshats like you that have downgraded the black population until they no longer feel they have a chance. I have to live with it every day. Just what the hell do you do in order to help? Just curious, idiot!
You call ME racist? I'll lay odds I have more minority friends than you have met in your entire life! Do you have any idea what business I am in? You call ME racist?
I see this shit first hand every single ****ing day! I doubt seriously you have any idea what you are taliking about!
edited: sorry I can't spell for shit when a DUmmie pisses me off
-
You're a racist ****.
Actually it is people like you who call names at the bearers of truths who is the racist one. This may be hard for you to understand, but you, your ideology, and your inability to admit the damage our black citizens have endured due to "caring" liberalism, is as racist as Alabama's Bubba "Coondog" Smith and his Rebel flagged truck. The only difference is Bubba is honest about it.
-
I think 22 hundred and 71 bitch slaps, tells me everything I need to know about you, DUmbAss!
edited to add: go ahead and BS me, I consider it a "well done" when coming from asshats like you!
-
Who said it was moral? History is what it is. It cannot be changed. Every piece of history has brought us to where we are now, good and bad. I cannot see how a black person, who is allowed an independent thought in my world, understanding what got him to where he is in life and appreciating the sacrifices that got him here is a bad thing. I think it's a pretty intelligent way to think about something you cannot possibly change anyway.
Good point, but I don't really think I can have appreciation for the dark side of why I'm free today. Other people had to suffer. I think that might be how some blacks feel.
Prove that liberals are poison? You have to be kidding. It would be the utmost in redundancy. You and I both know the modern liberal ideology is based almost word for word on the Communist manifesto. How can liberals not be poison to free people? Why don't you prove they aren't. Give me a "for instance", outside of their illogical war on individual morality and unending promotion of sexual deviancy, when a liberal pet cause has been about an individual freedom.
I think liberal ideas existed before the Communist manifesto. Think of the countries in which their values were based on a "we" and not an "I" basis. Take care of the collective. Don't do anything that is harmful to the collective because it's "selfish". I think that's had a lot to do with *some* leftist ideas.
"I" isn't completely a bad thing. Individuals can be hurt to help the collective at times. Many people believe there should be a mixture of the two ideas in politics.
Next, it needs to be made clear that conservativism is typically about wanting things to stay the same or wanting to go back to a time when things were supposedly better. It's not about wanting a change that will change society forever. It's about wanting things to stay the same. Liberals are the ones who tend to say that change can be a good thing. In the United States, Capitalism is considered to be a conservative position, while Socialism is a liberal one. That's because Socialism would be a change to society. In Europe, the idea of having a lot of Capitalism and not relying on the government is actually the liberal position, from where the idea of relying on the government is actually the conservative position. So conservativism is about wanting things to stay the same, not about change most of the time.
Individual pet causes about freedom. Women's rights. Most conservatives agree with it, but they'll bash the heck out of the people who fought for it the most. Conservativism is about keeping things the same, not changing them. Therefore, women's rights used to be a liberal concept. It's not so much one now since a lot of freedom was won and feminists (economically on the left and the right) are now arguing about which direction to go in next. For the north, anti-slavery was a conservative position because that's what they all supposedly believed in. In the south, anti-slavery was a liberal position because that's asking for a change. Asking for blacks to have their individual rights in the 1960s and 1950s was not about wanting to keep things the same. Therefore, it wasn't a conservative position. It was a liberal one. Now, it's a conservative and a liberal one.
-
Sorry guys, I didn't know it was that time of the month! Didn't mean to upset the resident DUmmie.
-
Actually it is people like you who call names at the bearers of truths who is the racist one. This may be hard for you to understand, but you, your ideology, and your inability to admit the damage our black citizens have endured due to "caring" liberalism, is as racist as Alabama's Bubba "Coondog" Smith and his Rebel flagged truck. The only difference is Bubba is honest about it.
So the liberals have caused black guys to not take responsibility for themselves? They're not capable of supporting their child unless the mean liberals leave them alone? That's racist. I think blacks and whites are capable of thinking on their own. I also think black men are capable of paying back child support/welfare once Social Services tracks them down. I believe that so much that I favor getting rid of loopholes which enable "fathers" and "mothers" to not pay their child support for months at a time and get away with it. BTW, welfare recipients are mostly white women. I've yet to see evidence that most blacks are on welfare.
-
Lanie,
You do realize almost all the cotton was shipped out of the south to other places, then made into cloth, right?
Raw cotton was THE cash crop that paid for imports to the southern States. It was the source for English Cotton- replaced by Indian Cotton.
I'm not going to deny that. I am thinking maybe it's possible that it went to both foreign countries and the north in light of other stuff I've read. However, I'm not certain of all the details, so I'm going to have to get back to you on that.
Note: I'm admitting to not knowing all the answers.
-
For the north, anti-slavery was a conservative position because that's what they all supposedly believed in. In the south, anti-slavery was a liberal position because that's asking for a change. Asking for blacks to have their individual rights in the 1960s and 1950s was not about wanting to keep things the same. Therefore, it wasn't a conservative position. It was a liberal one. Now, it's a conservative and a liberal one.
You do realize it was the Dems who fought Lyndon Johnson on passing the civil rights bill, right, and the repubs who pushed it thru?
-
Lanie, you ignorant ****,
hi-5 for the SNL reference.
-
I also think black men are capable of paying back child support/welfare once Social Services tracks them down. I believe that so much that I favor getting rid of loopholes which enable "fathers" and "mothers" to not pay their child support for months at a time and get away with it. BTW, welfare recipients are mostly white women. I've yet to see evidence that most blacks are on welfare.
So would you like to explain the 60% ratio of unwed black mothers? And yes you are right, most welfare recipients are white for the pure fact they are 70% of the population who receive welfare! Now would you like to look up what percentage of each group according to population is receiving welfare? Didn't think so, because that would blow a hole in your whole premise!
Most Blacks are NOT on welfare! Not one of us has ever uttered that BS! You are putting words in our mouths in order to pull your racist BS. Guess what "toots", it ain't workin'! And you call us racist!
-
I'm not going to deny that. I am thinking maybe it's possible that it went to both foreign countries and the north in light of other stuff I've read. However, I'm not certain of all the details, so I'm going to have to get back to you on that.
Note: I'm admitting to not knowing all the answers.
You can wiki it if you want. While you are at it, wiki the cotton gin. It will explain why slavery extended it's lifespan about 40 years.
In Short- it was expensive to pick cotton. You had to pick the heads, then clean it of the seeds. Slavery made part of the expense go WAT down, but you still have to feed, cloth, etc etc etc. The next big problem was the time it took to clean the raw cotton. The cotton gin made it so very much faster- with less hands. Now more could be picking the cotton. More cotton produced, more money for the South.
Also, look up jean-cloth. Prior to this invention you got to wear wool, cotton, or silks. Wool was good but expensive. Silks were even more so. Cotton was cheap, but not hard wearing.
Most of the manufacturing was in the north. Why? A couple of reasons. One was the weather couldn't support a cash crop like cotton or rice. However, it did have high concentrations of ores. So you mine it. Now- you can ship out tons of cotton much cheaper than you can iron ore. So, smelters are in the north as well. Besides, why should the South manufacture cotton or jean cloth? The raw product makes then enough money, and who would run the factories anyway? Not them dumb darkies.
-
You can wiki it if you want. While you are at it, wiki the cotton gin. It will explain why slavery extended it's lifespan about 40 years.
In Short- it was expensive to pick cotton. You had to pick the heads, then clean it of the seeds. Slavery made part of the expense go WAT down, but you still have to feed, cloth, etc etc etc. The next big problem was the time it took to clean the raw cotton. The cotton gin made it so very much faster- with less hands. Now more could be picking the cotton. More cotton produced, more money for the South.
Also, look up jean-cloth. Prior to this invention you got to wear wool, cotton, or silks. Wool was good but expensive. Silks were even more so. Cotton was cheap, but not hard wearing.
Most of the manufacturing was in the north. Why? A couple of reasons. One was the weather couldn't support a cash crop like cotton or rice. However, it did have high concentrations of ores. So you mine it. Now- you can ship out tons of cotton much cheaper than you can iron ore. So, smelters are in the north as well. Besides, why should the South manufacture cotton or jean cloth? The raw product makes then enough money, and who would run the factories anyway? Not them dumb darkies.
And that was my point. Since most of the manufacturing was up in the north, they were guilty too. My original theory was right. Both the north and foreign countries profited. I'll look up jean cloth soon.
http://www.geocities.com/civilwarstudy101/essay1.html
-
did they even mention the black slave owners in the south?? really! look it up. "Black Masters" is a book about it.
I think they did speak about it. I know I learned about it somewhere.
-
Good point, but I don't really think I can have appreciation for the dark side of why I'm free today. Other people had to suffer. I think that might be how some blacks feel.
THE POINT BEING....there is NOTHING we can do about history, so to wriggle in some misplaced "guilt mudhole" is ridiculous. There is a positive to every negative. I, being a conservative, am a naturally happy person. Some black people have conservative thoughts too. That means they are not going to spend their one chance at life raging against the past. They, like me, plan to make the most of what IS.
I think liberal ideas existed before the Communist manifesto.
Of course they existed. Those liberal ideas was from where the Communist Manifesto was born. Get a clue, Lanie.
Think of the countries in which their values were based on a "we" and not an "I" basis. Take care of the collective. Don't do anything that is harmful to the collective because it's "selfish". I think that's had a lot to do with *some* leftist ideas.
The USA was born from the idea of individual freedom. It went from a dream to the most dynamic nation the world has ever known in a very short (historically speaking) time. It wasn't until modern liberalism was incorporated in our lives that this nation began it's slow slide into the confusing hell we now see (and live).
You do the math:
Nation dedicated to the idea of individual freedom = a beacon of success and light for the world.
Nation poisoned by modern liberalism = Today's growing shithole.
This nation isn't going to hell because of freedom. It is going to hell because modern liberals have spent over 100 years trying to redesign what was working.
"I" isn't completely a bad thing. Individuals can be hurt to help the collective at times. Many people believe there should be a mixture of the two ideas in politics.
It's a society. Some "we" is understood. "We" need stop signs. "We" need sewer systems. "We" don't need social security and food stamps.
Up until FDR, our family, friends, and churches were our social security and food....this is what we call "the last great generation" had. Why is it the last great generation, I must ponder?
Next, it needs to be made clear that conservativism is typically about wanting things to stay the same or wanting to go back to a time when things were supposedly better. It's not about wanting a change that will change society forever. It's about wanting things to stay the same.
The ridiculous notion that societal "change" is always something in which to strive is absurd, childish, and more likely than not, evil. It also involves stepping on the rights of individuals. All these things are why modern liberals embrace "change", which is almost always at odds with the foundation of the United States of America.
Face it, Lanie. If you embrace modern liberalism, you are an enemy of free people. "Change" is very personal to every individual. It may sound "collective", but that's a lie.
Liberals are the ones who tend to say that change can be a good thing. In the United States, Capitalism is considered to be a conservative position, while Socialism is a liberal one. That's because Socialism would be a change to society.
And a complete destruction of the United States of America. But I don't have to tell you that.
In Europe, the idea of having a lot of Capitalism and not relying on the government is actually the liberal position, from where the idea of relying on the government is actually the conservative position. So conservativism is about wanting things to stay the same, not about change most of the time.
I think you need to slap your professors. They have done you wrong. I can put the pepper in the salt shaker and the salt in the pepper shaker, but in the end, they are still salt and pepper.
Individual pet causes about freedom. Women's rights.
"Women's Rights" is not about the individual. It is about controling women within the confines of modern liberalism. If liberals really gave two shits about "women's rights" they would have been burning the streets over the treatment of Sarah Palin and (especially) Condeleesa Rice (a two-fer!- she's black). If liberals really gave a flying **** about "women's rights" liberals would be leading the outrage against the muslim world (where women are cattle). Instead, what do liberals do? Hmmm?
Liberals and radical muslim have a common interest.
Most conservatives agree with it, but they'll bash the heck out of the people who fought for it the most. Conservativism is about keeping things the same, not changing them. Therefore, women's rights used to be a liberal concept. It's not so much one now since a lot of freedom was won and feminists (economically on the left and the right) are now arguing about which direction to go in next. For the north, anti-slavery was a conservative position because that's what they all supposedly believed in. In the south, anti-slavery was a liberal position because that's asking for a change. Asking for blacks to have their individual rights in the 1960s and 1950s was not about wanting to keep things the same. Therefore, it wasn't a conservative position. It was a liberal one. Now, it's a conservative and a liberal one.
See above. Repeat.
Liberalism is never about the betterment of anyone. Liberalism is Satan's hand working the weak minded through his dark angels here on earth.
Where are you in this picture, Lanie?
-
This nation isn't going to hell because of freedom. It is going to hell because modern liberals have spent over 100 years trying to redesign what was working.
H5 Undies! That hits the nail right on the head! We need to make that into a bumper sticker!!!!!
-
And that was my point. Since most of the manufacturing was up in the north, they were guilty too. My original theory was right. Both the north and foreign countries profited. I'll look up jean cloth soon.
http://www.geocities.com/civilwarstudy101/essay1.html
what
the
****?
Your original theory? Holy shit, girl. You think that everyone in the Republican thinks that way back in the good ol days of 1861, everybody south of the Mason-Dixon line was teh debil cause they held slaves, and everyone north was on the side of righteousness- just because they was Northerners?
Got news for you Ms Lanie- people back then were just as ****ed up as they are now. Hell- they had liberals back then. The Democratic party was a MACHINE! Bought votes, immigrant 'slave' wages in factories (the unions were first used to break such things- and in turn became them), you name it and it was going on.
Social Order was a given in the North too. One of the things that makes Lincoln such a great man was that he was a self-mad man. Sadly, it's something you just won't see anymore. You think Social Order doesn't count for anything- think again.
One word of advice- have someone read through your paper. It has a few small grammar issues. Nothing too huge or anything, but it's always good to have a fresh set of eyes on any project.
-
THE POINT BEING....there is NOTHING we can do about history, so to wriggle in some misplaced "guilt mudhole" is ridiculous. There is a positive to every negative. I, being a conservative, am a naturally happy person. Some black people have conservative thoughts too. That means they are not going to spend their one chance at life raging against the past. They, like me, plan to make the most of what IS.
Of course they existed. Those liberal ideas was from where the Communist Manifesto was born. Get a clue, Lanie.
The USA was born from the idea of individual freedom. It went from a dream to the most dynamic nation the world has ever known in a very short (historically speaking) time. It wasn't until modern liberalism was incorporated in our lives that this nation began it's slow slide into the confusing hell we now see (and live).
You do the math:
Nation dedicated to the idea of individual freedom = a beacon of success and light for the world.
Nation poisoned by modern liberalism = Today's growing shithole.
This nation isn't going to hell because of freedom. It is going to hell because modern liberals have spent over 100 years trying to redesign what was working.
It's a society. Some "we" is understood. "We" need stop signs. "We" need sewer systems. "We" don't need social security and food stamps.
Up until FDR, our family, friends, and churches were our social security and food....this is what we call "the last great generation" had. Why is it the last great generation, I must ponder?
The ridiculous notion that societal "change" is always something in which to strive is absurd, childish, and more likely than not, evil. It also involves stepping on the rights of individuals. All these things are why modern liberals embrace "change", which is almost always at odds with the foundation of the United States of America.
Face it, Lanie. If you embrace modern liberalism, you are an enemy of free people. "Change" is very personal to every individual. It may sound "collective", but that's a lie.
And a complete destruction of the United States of America. But I don't have to tell you that.
I think you need to slap your professors. They have done you wrong. I can put the pepper in the salt shaker and the salt in the pepper shaker, but in the end, they are still salt and pepper.
"Women's Rights" is not about the individual. It is about controling women within the confines of modern liberalism. If liberals really gave two shits about "women's rights" they would have been burning the streets over the treatment of Sarah Palin and (especially) Condeleesa Rice (a two-fer!- she's black). If liberals really gave a flying **** about "women's rights" liberals would be leading the outrage against the muslim world (where women are cattle). Instead, what do liberals do? Hmmm?
Liberals and radical muslim have a common interest.
See above. Repeat.
Liberalism is never about the betterment of anyone. Liberalism is Satan's hand working the weak minded through his dark angels here on earth.
Where are you in this picture, Lanie?
Depends. Do dark angels get a motorcycle or a shitty Cavalier? lol.
I think we disagree about what freedom is. I do agree that freedom is about trying to financially make a better life for yourself. However, I also tend to think that freedom is about being able to see a doctor when you're sick instead of suffering. I think freedom would be about not having to choose between your baby's healthcare and working a job where you won't be able to afford their healthcare. That's not freedom. That's entrapment. I think freedom is about not having to choose between working tonight and your child's safety at home (due to not having a babysitter). That is not freedom. That's crap disguised as freedom. To me, freedom is about ways to train people for jobs, not a sink or swim survival of the fittest society. I don't believe in people living off of the government, but I do believe in helping people out when they're in bad shape. I also believe in taking care of our elderly. They took care of us. Living to be old wasn't as common during the supposed "Great Generation" (I don't think).
How is the women's rights movement about controlling women? So a woman's right to vote is controlling her? A woman's right to stay at home with the kids or to work a full time job is controlling her?
I agree about the hypocrisy regarding people like Palin. I remember asking conservative women that same question. I told them that I was glad they were taking up for a persecuted woman, but where were they when liberal women went through the same stuff? Nowhere to be found. The hypocrisy runs both ways. For a while, I thought a brand new women's movement was about to start and conservative women were about to lead it. I saw conservative women reacting the same way I had seen liberal women reacting for years. The outrage. I have to admit I was excited about it (the outrage) even though I'm not conservative.
Women in Islamic countries. Go look on websites other than NOW.
In regards to what Europe thinks of as liberal and conservative, I first heard that from a Canadian, not a professor.
-
I think we disagree about what freedom is. I do agree that freedom is about trying to financially make a better life for yourself. However, I also tend to think that freedom is about being able to see a doctor when you're sick instead of suffering. I think freedom would be about not having to choose between your baby's healthcare and working a job where you won't be able to afford their healthcare. That's not freedom. That's entrapment. I think freedom is about not having to choose between working tonight and your child's safety at home (due to not having a babysitter). That is not freedom. That's crap disguised as freedom. To me, freedom is about ways to train people for jobs, not a sink or swim survival of the fittest society. I don't believe in people living off of the government, but I do believe in helping people out when they're in bad shape. I also believe in taking care of our elderly. They took care of us. Living to be old wasn't as common during the supposed "Great Generation" (I don't think).
To begin with, freedom has nothing to do with your financial well being unless the government is taking it away from you. Much like what your partners in crime advocate.
Having got that out of the way, just where in the hell does this shit happen? I have been married for 36 years and none of this shit has ever happened to me or my wife. If it did, we would certainly have improved our situation by our own means. If you are stupid enough to put up with the bullshit you describe here, you absolutely deserve it!
Or are you just makin' this crap up to appear the victim? They have better Bouncy's at the DUmp!
-
Depends. Do dark angels get a motorcycle or a shitty Cavalier? lol.
I understand Nancy Pelosi has a limo. That should give you hope.
I think we disagree about what freedom is. I do agree that freedom is about trying to financially make a better life for yourself. However, I also tend to think that freedom is about being able to see a doctor when you're sick instead of suffering.
Walk into any ER in the country. They are bound by law to treat you for free. But for some reason, that's not good enough. I find the idea of "free health care for all" stupidly simplistic and idiotic. Who the hell in their right minds would want to, on purpose, make their health issues a liability to the government? You think "the poor" have it shitty now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Your desire to have people (I assume you think of yourself being exempt like most liberals) surrender one of the most basic areas of their lives to be controlled by government is just about the most anti-humanitarian idea I have ever encountered.
You, Lanie, don't think things through to their logical conclusion. Not doing so is how Type A liberals are able to sell their crap to Type B liberals like yourself. If you are not familiar with my definition of Types A and B, let me know. I will be glad to educate you about your fellow travellers.
I think freedom would be about not having to choose between your baby's healthcare and working a job where you won't be able to afford their healthcare. That's not freedom. That's entrapment.
That's amusing. You haven't seen entrapment until you are trapped in the non-mercy of a government run "health care" system which weighs whether or not your little sickly baby is worth the precious tax dollars it takes to save him.
"Madam, this is your child's fourth bout with chronic diarrhea this year. The Ministry of Health says we cannot waste any more resources trying to keep this flawed child alive."
I think freedom is about not having to choose between working tonight and your child's safety at home (due to not having a babysitter). That is not freedom.
Where's the father and why do we collectively think it's just great to dismiss him? Answer: Modern liberalism. Any more confusion?
That's crap disguised as freedom. To me, freedom is about ways to train people for jobs, not a sink or swim survival of the fittest society.
You can't disguise freedom. It's like the air we breath. It's invisible, but entirely necessary in order to live a healthy life.
I don't believe in people living off of the government, but I do believe in helping people out when they're in bad shape. I also believe in taking care of our elderly. They took care of us. Living to be old wasn't as common during the supposed "Great Generation" (I don't think).
Yes, people lived to ripe old ages even as far back as The Bible. The idea of life expectancy is entirely subjective and based on very arbitrary standards. It has less to do with health conditions than situational realities. We don't die near as often by being kicked in the head by a horse as we use too. We do die much more often in car wrecks these days, but current analysis doesn't take that into consideration.
People use to take care of there own. They usually had no other choice, nor would they have wanted one. It's part of being moral and having strong character - you know, those two things modern liberals have spent a century trying to weed out of the American gene pool.
How is the women's rights movement about controlling women? So a woman's right to vote is controlling her? A woman's right to stay at home with the kids or to work a full time job is controlling her?
Women voting was hardly a liberal accomplishment. In fact, the more I hear from you, the more I think it was a bad idea. Voting is an individual freedom. That makes it a conservative issue.
I agree about the hypocrisy regarding people like Palin. I remember asking conservative women that same question. I told them that I was glad they were taking up for a persecuted woman, but where were they when liberal women went through the same stuff? Nowhere to be found. The hypocrisy runs both ways. For a while, I thought a brand new women's movement was about to start and conservative women were about to lead it. I saw conservative women reacting the same way I had seen liberal women reacting for years. The outrage. I have to admit I was excited about it (the outrage) even though I'm not conservative.
What liberal woman who was in the right has been attacked just for being liberal? I must stress "in the right" to mean their goal was not the destruction of the American way of life. I'm intrigued. I must know this woman's name.
Women in Islamic countries. Go look on websites other than NOW.
What's wrong with looking at the New York Times? It's the same shit. Modern American liberals and the radical muslims have a common goal. The Modern American liberal embraces the radical muslims over their own countrymen because the Modern American liberal thinks the radical muslim can hasten the downfall of the United states of America.
That is why when it comes to radical muslims, the modern American liberal can forgive the fact they treat women like cattle and hang homosexuals. Nothing beats beating America! Why is that? What is the motivation for forsaking one's own worldview when convenient?
In regards to what Europe thinks of as liberal and conservative, I first heard that from a Canadian, not a professor.
Well, you've answered your own problem.
Lanie, have you EVER given a thought to who is going to support the world when the world's piggy bank known as the United States of America is no longer able to support the socialist nations of Europe or the unchangeable third world hellholes of Africa?
Given that state of the world, one must really hate mankind to wish upon the world a socialist United States of America.
Think about it, dear. Think long and hard. Think it all the way through until logic takes you to an oasis of understanding.
The first tool in the Bag to Reality is a new understanding that there is no gray area. The world really is black and white. The gray area is for children, adult fools, and the Tooth fairy.
-
Just imagine what those on welfare are gonna do when there is no longer anyone paying taxes to support them.
it won't be pretty
-
The gray area is for children, adult fools, and the Tooth fairy.
and DUmmies like Lanie!
-
and DUmmies like Lanie!
Now, now. Lanie is still young. She is trying to grasp hold of some arguments against her modern liberal education. I respect that.
I may seem to be brutal with her, but I am really just laying out the facts. Sometime the truth is brutal.
Lanie is a young woman who still deals with life through her emotions. She cannot yet allow logic to overrule what she feels. It is a tough transition, made more problematic by being taught by so many "adults" who want her to continue on the path she is on. She is reaching out for truth, so I cannot dismiss her.
Lanie and I have a short long history. I use to be reactionary and mean to her. I regret that now. She is a lady who has a positive intellect looking for direction. She is not scared of debate, and I find that refreshing.
I will still take her to school as necessary, which sometimes seems like I am being mean, but in the end, I think we have a mutual respect.
(I'm sorry, Lanie, for talking about you in the third person in your presence.)
-
The damn Civil War was NOT about ending slavery. Honest Abe admitted it. He was willing to use keeping slavery or ending it to preserve the union. He admitted that too. He personally was against slavery, but he would have sold every slave down the drain to Tpreserve the union. The first Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves of Confederate states. Slavery in Union states was still legal. Slaves would escape to the Union states, and people didn't know what to do with them. They sometimes were sent back home. How's that for favoring the freedom of slaves? Ending slavery did become a useful tool idea for preserving the Union as former slaves became soldiers for the Union, but that was NOT why the Civil War was started.
Meanwhile, did you know that there were blacks who fought on the Confederate side? I'm not making that up. It's true.
I do think slavery played a big role in things because everytime there was a state acquired that became slave, they had to get a state that was free and vice versa. This would have to be settled at some point. However, the big issue was whether federal government should have a right to force the states to do things (and I would agree that states should have no say on the slavery subject because it's just wrong). Federalism vs. Anti-federalism was a big issue since the start of the country. There probably would have been a war with or without slavery because of this.
Oh, and I learned most of that from liberal professors.
Good post.
Spending 9 years in Illinois public skools :thatsright: it was all about Honest Abe making black people free.
-
Now- you can ship out tons of cotton much cheaper than you can iron ore.
What weighs more? A ton of cotton or a ton of ore? :-)
-
My dad picked cotton in the 30's- early 40's
they worked hard, child or not, for a pittance
-
What weighs more? A ton of cotton or a ton of ore? :-)
An ounce of your bullshit? :beer:
-
The "changes" that the modern liberal seeks are simply examples of what our first settlers came to avoid.
-
Walk into any ER in the country. They are bound by law to treat you for free. But for some reason, that's not good enough. I find the idea of "free health care for all" stupidly simplistic and idiotic. Who the hell in their right minds would want to, on purpose, make their health issues a liability to the government? You think "the poor" have it shitty now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
True.
There is not anyone that is not allowing kids to have access to emergency health care.
The problem is most welfare moms think any little sniffle is a chance to get out of the house and hang out in the waiting room of the hospital. Why should they have to cut back on smokes, just so they can purchase a four dollar bottle of over the counter cough syrup?
-
An ounce of your bullshit? :beer:
:rotf:
-
If it wasn't for American government killing 3/4 of Cherokee Indians during the Trail of Tears, I might be living on a reservation right now, but I'm not about to thank America for that. I'm sure we might all be better off because of some BS that has happened in the past. Doesn't make the BS morally okay. Conservatives say they're about morals. This is a moral issue.
As for the last part, maybe you can prove to me that liberals are poison instead of pointing the finger at them, even when they do something good like tell the truth about History.
Note: Debate style, not wanting to get personal style. Let me know if I need to stop.
# 1. Andy Jackson didn't really want to move the Cherokees, politically he had no choice. It was the state of Georgia that forced them out. Jackson tried to give them some place to go. Though he was correct in that it was foolish to have treaties with "nations" that are inside your territorial boundaries.
# 2. The Cherokee did not live on a reservation, they lived on their own tracts of land, much as their white neighbors. You mention living on a reservation as if that is a good thing. I assume you have never been on one or dealt with tribal politics while trying to accomplish something. Most tribal councils would make New Jersey's government appear to be the height of moral governance, and their worse than democrats about wanting to keep their little welfare machines on the reservation, and they hold nasty gudges when one escapes.
# 3. History usually revolves around a people pushing aside another people who have either grown to weak and decadent or too technologically backwards to keep what they say belongs to them, morality be damned. The Cherokee had been pushed out of the Chesapeake area and invaded ond occupied the Georgia area. The Cherokee were at war with every tribe around them when they encountered the Europeans. Was the tribe that pushed the Cherokee out any better than the Europeans? Were the Cherokees any better than the Europeans for attacking and enslaving neighboring tribes?
# 4. Liberals distort history to their own ends. Liberals supported the state of Israel right up until it successfully defended itself. Since then, Israel has always been an oppressor, even before the modern state existed according to liberals.
I am a descendant of the Cherokee tribe myself. I thank God that I never lived under the tribal system.
-
Besides, why should the South manufacture cotton or jean cloth? The raw product makes then enough money, and who would run the factories anyway? Not them dumb darkies.
Actually, some manufacturing activities in the South did use slave labor. There is no indication that they were any worse at it than their northern "free" counterparts.
-
What weighs more? A ton of cotton or a ton of ore? :-)
smart ass
-
Actually, some manufacturing activities in the South did use slave labor. There is no indication that they were any worse at it than their northern "free" counterparts.
No, they weren't. But the fact remains the South saw they could make more shipping out raw product that manufacturing it. This came to bite them in the ass during the war when they just didn't have the factories to turn out modern war requirements.
Up til '65 they were still getting uniforms and boots shipped in from England.
Gettysberg happened more because of a shoe factory in the region than some over arching military strategem.
-
Actually, some manufacturing activities in the South did use slave labor. There is no indication that they were any worse at it than their northern "free" counterparts.
From what I understand the slaves had it easy in comparison to their northern counterparts. A slave will always have his or her living expenses taken care of for life (until the emancipation that is) whereas the factory workers in northern cities lived in slums and a families very existence counted on the wage earner.
Another interesting comparison is slave vs indentured servant.
-
No, they weren't. But the fact remains the South saw they could make more shipping out raw product that manufacturing it. This came to bite them in the ass during the war when they just didn't have the factories to turn out modern war requirements.
Up til '65 they were still getting uniforms and boots shipped in from England.
Gettysberg happened more because of a shoe factory in the region than some over arching military strategem.
So you are going to tell me that slaves were not in fact employed by Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, VA?
-
So the liberals have caused black guys to not take responsibility for themselves? They're not capable of supporting their child unless the mean liberals leave them alone? That's racist. I think blacks and whites are capable of thinking on their own. I also think black men are capable of paying back child support/welfare once Social Services tracks them down. I believe that so much that I favor getting rid of loopholes which enable "fathers" and "mothers" to not pay their child support for months at a time and get away with it.
You're right it's racist. It's racist as hell how you liberals think blacks can't compete without your f'n help...and you've been socially-engineering this shit for decades.
BTW, welfare recipients are mostly white women. I've yet to see evidence that most blacks are on welfare.
Not by percentage of population.
-
So you are going to tell me that slaves were not in fact employed by Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, VA?
~no, they weren't, as in no they weren't any 'worse' than the immigrant labor in the north. Sorry for not being clearer.
The South were the first to put on the table the idea of Black Regiments to fight, as you probably well know. One wonders the twisting and turning a la DUmpmonkie fashion the Confederate Congress went through with that idea.
Of course, the North also had problems with the concept. In the end- it worked out.
Until 1915, that is.
-
Gettysberg happened more because of a shoe factory in the region than some over arching military strategem.
Actually, no.......Gettysburg was selected by Lee because of it's network of roads feeding into the hamlet. The ten roads leading into the town gave Lee options to move on Baltimore or Washington itself. The shoe situation is a misnomer in the fact that the Confederate army under Early on his way to Harrisburg a week before had been through Gettysburg. The surrounding region had been pretty well plundered by Confederate units. The legend that A.P. Hill's division was looking for shoes that brought the battle on is just that legend. The battle was brought on because Hill felt he was facing local militia, not Union troops. It wasn't until his division was fully engaged that he realized he was facing the Army of the Potomac......the rest is history.
Two questions for the room.
(1.) Would Stonewall Jackson made a difference at Gettysburg?,
(2.) What would have been the outcome if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and slide to the South on ground between Meade and Washington at Rock Creek?
-
You need to take a look at why the Conf. Army was in Penn, RfR.
There was no strategic reason for a battle to be fought at Gettysberg. At Longstreet pushed for, rightly, the better call would have been to position the Army between the AotP and Washington DC, however, that could have left them open to a flank attack by defensive troops in the DC area. If he had moved south, then he'd be traveling along the flank of the union army. If he had moved north, he'd be stretching his lines further north of his supply base- and a possible attack by union troops while thusly stread out.
However, Lee took a risk since the AotP had a new commander, and not knowing all the disposions of the Union troops, that he could bat them aside and continue to march.
Lee had to get out of the South in order to keep the enemy off the lands long enough to get a good crop into the ground. Also, you have to keep in mind the 'peace' party in the north would use this invasion as a plank to unseat Lincoln. If Lee could defeat the AotP, or even fight them to a draw- he'd win.
Supplies were a factor in moving to Gettysberg, although not the most important one. The road junctions simply served to bring all the various Corps to the battle quicker. Seazing them didn't do anything to help Lee's plan. It would have tied him to a geographical objective- rather than the political objective of the campaign.
Lee’s reasons for invading the North were political, military, and
economic. Politically, the prospect of European intervention on the side
of the Confederacy would be greatly enhanced by a decisive victory on
northern soil. The military objective was the capture of Harrisburg, the
capital of Pennsylvania. With Harrisburg in his hands, Lee could threaten
Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington as circumstances might make
advisable, and he could also cut the Pennsylvania Railroad, a vital supply
line for the Union armies. Such a campaign was a sound if bold concept,
particularly as Lee counted on outmarching the Army of the Potomac
and meeting with no opposition except that of militia.
The economic reason for the campaign had to do with such mundane
things as food, forage, horses, shoes—in fact almost everything an
army needs except ammunition, with which the Confederates were well
supplied. The Confederate commissary system, never good, had so broken
down that the army had no alternative but to “live off the countryâ€â€”
not in the friendly Shenandoah Valley, but in the hostile Hagerstown
and Cumberland Valleys.
As for your two questions;
Would have Stonewall made a difference?
Probably not. Although if he had been leading the lead divisions odds are he would have pushed on and taken the 'high-ground', that would still mean, what? The AotP would have still came on, and simply positioned themselves further east in defensive positions. Lee would have still been forced to attack- or wait in position and been flanked. Pickett's Charge may have happened in a different location.
If Lee would have moved south, more south east really, what would have happened?
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/education/es5/es5.pdf
Meade, however, did not want to fight at Gettysburg, desiring a
stronger position. The line which he selected, generally known as the
Pipe Creek or Westminster line, might be better described as the Parrs
Ridge line. Parrs Ridge, in the western edge of the Piedmont, extends
northeast and southwest through Westminster. It forms the divide between
the Monocacy River drainage on the west and the direct drainage
to the Chesapeake Bay on the east. The ridge near the Pennsylvania-
Maryland State line stands at more than 1,000 feet above sea level, and
at Westminster about 800 feet; this compares with the usual Piedmont
elevations of 400 to 500 feet. Pipe Creek, flowing through the Triassic
basins north of the ridge and into the Monocacy River, is not particularly
formidable, but Parrs Ridge, to the east, upheld by highly resistant
schists and quartzites, has not only height, but widths of 4 to 10 miles that
could have been fortified into an almost impregnable defensive position
-
(2.) What would have been the outcome if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and slide to the South on ground between Meade and Washington at Rock Creek?
Did you read Newt's book? He addresses this very point.
-
Did you read Newt's book? He addresses this very point.
No , I didn't........what happened?
-
No , I didn't........what happened?
The North won. :hammer:
:bolt:
-
To the stupid DUmmie who hates Southerners being buried at Arlington and want them out of "their" cemetary--DUmbazz, the cemetary came from property of General Robert E Lee.
-
I take it, sir, you've been to Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, New York City, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, and all these other big cities dominated by corrupt Republican party machines?
I've noticed exactly the same thing.
If I had to make a choice, I'd sooner live in the poorest county in the south, than in the richest neighborhood in Boston. It's a matter of cleanliness and health; I wouldn't want to catch anything, and besides, my Nebraska nostrils resent bad odors.
Thank you Mr Frank, I am of exactly the same opinion. I can't take seriously the opinions of people who think having a Starbucks is the height of civilisation, and the south will still be doing just fine, when the liberal strongholds are marching to work in their little grey Mao suits.
-
I had forgotten that one! It also blows the little liberal peabrain to powder when you tell them the first female self-made millionaire of the 20th century was a black. I can't think of her name now. She was a textile giant.
Are you thinking of Madame CJ Walker, who became rich from hair products for blacks, primarily straightening formulas?
-
No , I didn't........what happened?
It's a great book, read it. Lee wins Gettysburg, destroys the Army of the Potomac, and forces Lincoln to get Grant in the game earlier.
-
~no, they weren't, as in no they weren't any 'worse' than the immigrant labor in the north. Sorry for not being clearer.
The South were the first to put on the table the idea of Black Regiments to fight, as you probably well know. One wonders the twisting and turning a la DUmpmonkie fashion the Confederate Congress went through with that idea.
Of course, the North also had problems with the concept. In the end- it worked out.
Until 1915, that is.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Also, I'm not sure what convulutions the confederate congress went through, but as I recall General Lee was possibly the main proponent of creating all black regiments. He cited historical occurences, including the revolution, where countries had freed slaves who fought in their armed forces. Considering the average sorry state of the confederate supply system, it is probably just as well they didn't to any large degree.
-
Two questions for the room.
(1.) Would Stonewall Jackson made a difference at Gettysburg?,
(2.) What would have been the outcome if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and slide to the South on ground between Meade and Washington at Rock Creek?
1.) Unlikely. Stonewall Jackson, to form, in the place of Longstreet would have organized whatever troops were handy and launched a probably unsuccessful attack against Union forces that had gained good defensive positions on the first day. Longstreet didn't beleive in wasting troops, that meant that he probably took to long organizing that attack, but Jackson's earlier, smaller attack would have likely fared no better. It is not possible to know whether or not Jackson would have suggested a flanking maneuver (visible from Big Round Top anyway) before or after Pickett arrived with the Supply wagons and essentially fixed the AoNV in the position at Gettysburg. Since any flanking maneuver could have been seen from Union observation posts on Big Round Top, it is likely Sedgwick or Sykes would have advanced to stopping the flanking movement, but possible exposing the Round Tops.
2.) Lee could not use the advice by that point. If he were going to make such a maneuver, it needed to be complete prior to the arrival of Pickett and the Supply wagons which required good roads. Though it would have offered the chance for the voctory that the AoNV needed. Gettysburg did not, there were two good roads leading away from Gettyburg to the south and east, meaning even if the AoNV forces the Union off of cemetary ridge, most of the Union Army will escape. Not that a shot to pieces AoNV that had taken the ridge would be in any shape to pursue.
Longstreet's suggestion to fall back into defensive terrain has some merit, but that would have exposed Confederate supply lines. It is doubtful that the AoP would have launched another attack into a heavily fortified defensive position, after their severe losses attempting that at Fredericksburg. Then again, Lee had had a similiar experience at Malvern Hill in Virginia about a year before Gettysburg, and it didn't stop him.
I've stood on the Confederate position on Day 3 of the battle and tried to guess what Lee must have been thinking. Why send men across one mile of open terrain under fire the whole time? The only reasoning I have ever come up with is that Lee knew that Pickett's charge was really the last chance the Confederacy had. He gambled his men's lives away when he could not hope to have achieved the vicory he needed.
-
No , I didn't........what happened?
As the other's have already said, it's a good book. Also note that Longstreet presses his opinion one day earlier than IRL. It is also worth noting that historically, Longstreeet and Lee had a personality conflict that may have contributed to the AoNV staying to long at Gettysburg.
-
1.) Unlikely. Stonewall Jackson, to form, in the place of Longstreet would have organized whatever troops were handy and launched a probably unsuccessful attack against Union forces that had gained good defensive positions on the first day. Longstreet didn't beleive in wasting troops, that meant that he probably took to long organizing that attack, but Jackson's earlier, smaller attack would have likely fared no better. It is not possible to know whether or not Jackson would have suggested a flanking maneuver (visible from Big Round Top anyway) before or after Pickett arrived with the Supply wagons and essentially fixed the AoNV in the position at Gettysburg. Since any flanking maneuver could have been seen from Union observation posts on Big Round Top, it is likely Sedgwick or Sykes would have advanced to stopping the flanking movement, but possible exposing the Round Tops.
2.) Lee could not use the advice by that point. If he were going to make such a maneuver, it needed to be complete prior to the arrival of Pickett and the Supply wagons which required good roads. Though it would have offered the chance for the voctory that the AoNV needed. Gettysburg did not, there were two good roads leading away from Gettyburg to the south and east, meaning even if the AoNV forces the Union off of cemetary ridge, most of the Union Army will escape. Not that a shot to pieces AoNV that had taken the ridge would be in any shape to pursue.
Longstreet's suggestion to fall back into defensive terrain has some merit, but that would have exposed Confederate supply lines. It is doubtful that the AoP would have launched another attack into a heavily fortified defensive position, after their severe losses attempting that at Fredericksburg. Then again, Lee had had a similiar experience at Malvern Hill in Virginia about a year before Gettysburg, and it didn't stop him.
I've stood on the Confederate position on Day 3 of the battle and tried to guess what Lee must have been thinking. Why send men across one mile of open terrain under fire the whole time? The only reasoning I have ever come up with is that Lee knew that Pickett's charge was really the last chance the Confederacy had. He gambled his men's lives away when he could not hope to have achieved the vicory he needed.
I'm no expert; I'm also way out of my league, so please don't think I'm disputing your opinion.
One thing to take into consideration--Which is one of the reasons I love New's book, btw, is that Meade was a brand-new general, FORCED into taking charge of the AoP, and uncomfortable in his role. Gen. Renolds, who ironically, died during day 1, refused it because he wasn't allowed a free hand.
Gingrich contends that Meade would have been forced to give chase to the ANV due to political pressure. If the Army of Northern Va. would have been able to find a defensive position, Gingrich contends, the AoP would have given chase.
Again, I don't have the chops for this debate, but it's an interesting argument, I think.
-
Couldn't it also be reasoned that had Chamberlain's single file line not held during the battle on Little Round Top that the attack by the CSA would have been successful?
-
Couldn't it also be reasoned that had Chamberlain's single file line not held during the battle on Little Round Top that the attack by the CSA would have been successful?
Had Chamberlain's line been forced to retreat, then yes the Confederacy would have captured the hill but are unlikely to have held it for very long, given it is closer to Union lines and is an important tactical location. Something close to what occured in the Devil's Den would have been the likely outcome.
Would the Confederacy have been able to hold Little Round Top, and convert it into an unassailable defensive position? In my opinion, No. Little Round Top is heavily wooded and rocky terrain. The Confederacy could not have emplaced artillery on Little Round Top in time for the Union counter attack. The Union took a long time to emplace their artillery on Little Round Top.
Big Round Top was the more important tactical location. It was actually clear and a good position to get artillery support in quickly.
-
I'm no expert; I'm also way out of my league, so please don't think I'm disputing your opinion.
One thing to take into consideration--Which is one of the reasons I love New's book, btw, is that Meade was a brand-new general, FORCED into taking charge of the AoP, and uncomfortable in his role. Gen. Renolds, who ironically, died during day 1, refused it because he wasn't allowed a free hand.
Gingrich contends that Meade would have been forced to give chase to the ANV due to political pressure. If the Army of Northern Va. would have been able to find a defensive position, Gingrich contends, the AoP would have given chase.
Again, I don't have the chops for this debate, but it's an interesting argument, I think.
Gingrich relied on Lee severing the Union supply route to force that attack. Meade may have chosen to wait until the Union supply lines had been restored and then attacked the Confederate supply lines. Further, the Union had a division at their disposal with absolutely nothing between it and Richmond. Gingrich wrote a good book, but he ignored any other option the Union had available to excercise.
-
Personally, I would have retreated to Cashtown, back up the Chambersburg Pike and dared the Union to attack. With the mountains to his back, Lee could have held the position with very few men and consolidated his forces to meet any feint the AoP could throw at him. If Meade chose to exploit the South Mountain passes, again, small units with artillery support would have battles of attrition like Malvern Hill and Fredericksburg. If Mead heads North to flank Lee, then Lee moves South behind the Blue Ridge Mountains and pops out toward D.C......... shoulda, coulda, woulda. :thatsright:
-
As the other's have already said, it's a good book. Also note that Longstreet presses his opinion one day earlier than IRL. It is also worth noting that historically, Longstreeet and Lee had a personality conflict that may have contributed to the AoNV staying to long at Gettysburg.
Longstreet was a defensive genius......his theories on defensive warfare were a precursor to the trench warfare of World War I, over 50 years into the future. The command of Lee, Jackson and Longstreet were magnificent