The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tucker on July 06, 2012, 07:03:28 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002909663
alp227 (14,996 posts)
View profile
Ted Nugent: 'I'm Beginning to Wonder if it Would Have Been Best had the South Won the Civil War'
Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
Brian Tashman, Right Wing Watch
Musician and Mitt Romney backer Ted Nugent took to the Washington Times today to blast the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts in particular, for upholding the “un-American, Constitution-violating†health care reform law. “Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt,†Nugent writes, “I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.â€
Nugent, who was successfully courted by Mitt Romney in April, goes on to claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling “engineered the ultimate demise of this great experiment in self-government†and ushered in “the smothering era of socialism.â€
full: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-nugent-beginning-wonder-best-south-won-civil-war
Hmm. Some of us may actualy agree with this low-talent has-been right-wing rock star given that all the former (official) Confederate states (excluding states like Missouri that were informally claimed by the CSA) now commonly:
- have right-to-work-(for-less) laws,
- parental notification/consent laws for minor abortions,
- restrictions on same sex marriage encoded in their state constitutions (including except in TN and MS any same sex union), and
- no employment discrimination laws protecting gay employees.
- Additionally in the latest Gallup poll, 9 of the 10 most religious states were formerly part of the Confederacy.
- Also, these states tend to be the biggest leeches of federal money, all except FL and NC getting surplus federal funds per tax dollar.
So many the US would be much more progressive if we just let the Confederacy go and develop their own libertarian, unregulated, vigilante, fundamentalist paradise?
I give you this:
http://kevinschulke.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/united-states-history-of-racism-against-blacks/
-
Tucker, I put a copy of your link in Political Ammunition: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,75105.new.html#new
Oh and H5!
-
I think that Uncle Ted can sometimes be over the top, nothing really new about that.
I do have to take exception to this.
this low-talent has-been
I went to see him here in Indy the last time he came in 2010 and I rank it in the top 3 shows that I've been to.
As for the bullet points.
- have right-to-work-(for-less) laws,
- parental notification/consent laws for minor abortions,
- restrictions on same sex marriage encoded in their state constitutions (including except in TN and MS any same sex union), and
- no employment discrimination laws protecting gay employees.
- Additionally in the latest Gallup poll, 9 of the 10 most religious states were formerly part of the Confederacy.
- Also, these states tend to be the biggest leeches of federal money, all except FL and NC getting surplus federal funds per tax dollar.
None of that is getting my blood going. :yawn:
Oh, thanks Carlos, that link does deserve a place. But if one didn't allready get the gist of it then one has not been paying attention.
The detail was quite impressive though.
-
if we just let the Confederacy go and develop their own libertarian, unregulated, vigilante, fundamentalist paradise?
Heaven on Earth.
-
Hard to say what would have happened. You can play all the what if's you want but one thing is certain, you cannot stop mans natural desire to be free and the result still might have been the same just taken a longer time to get there.
-
Hard to say what would have happened. You can play all the what if's you want but one thing is certain, you cannot stop mans natural desire to be free and the result still might have been the same just taken a longer time to get there.
I'm not so sure it would have taken as long as some think. I've got to hit the hay now, but if this thread is still near the top in the morning I'll elaborate.
-
A puzzle for the ages.
I rather think, had the South succeeded, the enslavement of Blacks wouldn't have lasted but a few more years.
I also suspect, that their freedom would have been more accepted, rather than opposed.
Mental speculation that we will never know.
-
If the Democrats would have wont the Civil War we would still have slavery, the states would be adherent to the federal government, and we would be called the USSA.
It has been said before that the Republicans are, and have always been, against slavery. The Democrats champion it. If they were allowed to have their way, they would enact it again. Their biggest problem is that they hate hearing the truth. I guess it hurts.
-
If the Democrats would have wont the Civil War we would still have slavery, the states would be adherent to the federal government, and we would be called the USSA.
It has been said before that the Republicans are, and have always been, against slavery. The Democrats champion it. If they were allowed to have their way, they would enact it again. Their biggest problem is that they hate hearing the truth. I guess it hurts.
Current "social" programs seem to illustrate that particular aspect.
I don't think the words "if" and "were", are the proper tence. (did I spell that right?
-
Current "social" programs seem to illustrate that particular aspect.
I don't think the words "if" and "were", are the proper tence. (did I spell that right?
It's actually "tense," but you've got a mulligan on that one.
Chuck, I'd love to see your elaboration.
-
If the Democrats would have wont the Civil War we would still have slavery, the states would be adherent to the federal government, and we would be called the USSA.
It has been said before that the Republicans are, and have always been, against slavery. The Democrats champion it. If they were allowed to have their way, they would enact it again. Their biggest problem is that they hate hearing the truth. I guess it hurts.
The democrat party has changed the narrative.
They will tell you that what was once the democrat party is now the Republican party and that what was once the Republican party is now the democrat party.
-
It's actually "tense," but you've got a mulligan on that one.
Chuck, I'd love to see your elaboration.
This is going to be a rambling mess so I'll try to do the short version. It's easier for me to explain it verbally than with written word, but here goes.
Before I start I want to make sure that everyone knows that my opinion is that slavery is wrong. That is one of the reasons that I vote against democrats every chance that I get. I do, however, have an opinion about the past and potential past (if the south would have won) that differs from a lot of other people.
Just keep in mind that most of what I'm about to say is speculation. It's speculation based on what I know about people. It's speculation based on what I know about farmers and farming. And finally, though I'm not a trained historian like nads, it's speculation based on what little I know about the past.
The first thing I want to do for the lurking DUmmies is address one particular issue that always bothers me. There have been several occasions when I've seen interviews with black individuals discussing slavery during which the individual would say something along the lines of "we were kings and queens in Africa, and the white man captured us and put us in chains." That statement is both stupid and incorrect. There can be only so many kings and queens. In most cases the white man did NOT capture anyone in Africa. Africans enslaved other Africans and sold/traded them to the white man. I believe the last time I checked there are still, to this day, more slaves in Africa than any where else in the world.
With that off my chest, let me now ramble about slavery, the south, and the civil war.
Regardless of whether or not the war had happened or the south had won, slavery, as it was known back then, would have died out within 60 or 70 more years because of the advancements in farm equipment in general and the tractor in specific. While there were slaves who served as servants, the most prominent use of slaves was as workers doing manual labor and toiling on farms. The new farm equipment and tractors that were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s would have done away with the need for slaves on the farm. The dems, as they did in the 60s and still do now, would have treated the former slaves as somewhat subhuman, but they would not be slaves as it was known in the 1800s.
Since I'm rambling I may as well veer a bit off subject and give my opinion on whether the Civil War was fought over slavery or state rights. I say that state rights was the cause and slavery was the catalyst. Imagine a barn full of hay. You sit a burning kerosene lantern on one of the hay bales. Then someone throws a baseball that breaks and knocks over the burning lantern. The barn burns down. So what caused the barn to burn? It wasn't the baseball. It was the lantern. The baseball being thrown in just helped insure that there would be a fire. The burnt barn would be the civil war. The lantern would be state rights. The baseball would be slavery.
You'll remember that in my second sentence I mentioned that my opinion about slavery is why a vote against democrats. I want to try to explain that now.
The history books like to claim slavery is evil because the slaves had to work hard. That doesn't make slavery evil. The white people (men, women, and children) who worked the factories in the north and the small family farms in the north and south during the 1800s had to work just as hard or harder than the slaves. The history books like to claim that slavery is wrong because the living conditions of the slaves were bad. That doesn't make slavery wrong. The white people who worked the factories and small family farms during the 1800s had the same or much worse living conditions. The history books like to claim that slavery is evil because the slaves got beat as punishment. I'm not so sure how often that even happened. To a slave owner a slave was an expensive piece of farm equipment. How many times today do you see a farmer trying to destroy an expensive piece of his farm equipment?
The first sentence of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is either true or it's not. I choose to believe that it is true, and that is why I am of the opinion that slavery is wrong. Slavery is the denying of a person's unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what makes slavery evil. That is what makes slavery wrong. And that is why I vote against dems. Pay attention to what the DUmbasses at DU and many of their dem leaders say and do. If you break it down they are for slavery. Instead of one group of people being slaves with the slave owner being in the plantation house, they want the slave owner to be federal government and the slaves to be everyone.
-
The democrat party has changed the narrative.
They will tell you that what was once the democrat party is now the Republican party and that what was once the Republican party is now the democrat party.
And anyone with a brain will call that bull shit.
-
This is going to be a rambling mess so I'll try to do the short version. It's easier for me to explain it verbally than with written word, but here goes.
Before I start I want to make sure that everyone knows that my opinion is that slavery is wrong. That is one of the reasons that I vote against democrats every chance that I get. I do, however, have an opinion about the past and potential past (if the south would have won) that differs from a lot of other people.
Just keep in mind that most of what I'm about to say is speculation. It's speculation based on what I know about people. It's speculation based on what I know about farmers and farming. And finally, though I'm not a trained historian like nads, it's speculation based on what little I know about the past.
The first thing I want to do for the lurking DUmmies is address one particular issue that always bothers me. There have been several occasions when I've seen interviews with black individuals discussing slavery during which the individual would say something along the lines of "we were kings and queens in Africa, and the white man captured us and put us in chains." That statement is both stupid and incorrect. There can be only so many kings and queens. In most cases the white man did NOT capture anyone in Africa. Africans enslaved other Africans and sold/traded them to the white man. I believe the last time I checked there are still, to this day, more slaves in Africa than any where else in the world.
With that off my chest, let me now ramble about slavery, the south, and the civil war.
Regardless of whether or not the war had happened or the south had won, slavery, as it was known back then, would have died out within 60 or 70 more years because of the advancements in farm equipment in general and the tractor in specific. While there were slaves who served as servants, the most prominent use of slaves was as workers doing manual labor and toiling on farms. The new farm equipment and tractors that were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s would have done away with the need for slaves on the farm. The dems, as they did in the 60s and still do now, would have treated the former slaves as somewhat subhuman, but they would not be slaves as it was known in the 1800s.
Since I'm rambling I may as well veer a bit off subject and give my opinion on whether the Civil War was fought over slavery or state rights. I say that state rights was the cause and slavery was the catalyst. Imagine a barn full of hay. You sit a burning kerosene lantern on one of the hay bales. Then someone throws a baseball that breaks and knocks over the burning lantern. The barn burns down. So what caused the barn to burn? It wasn't the baseball. It was the lantern. The baseball being thrown in just helped insure that there would be a fire. The burnt barn would be the civil war. The lantern would be state rights. The baseball would be slavery.
You'll remember that in my second sentence I mentioned that my opinion about slavery is why a vote against democrats. I want to try to explain that now.
The history books like to claim slavery is evil because the slaves had to work hard. That doesn't make slavery evil. The white people (men, women, and children) who worked the factories in the north and the small family farms in the north and south during the 1800s had to work just as hard or harder than the slaves. The history books like to claim that slavery is wrong because the living conditions of the slaves were bad. That doesn't make slavery wrong. The white people who worked the factories and small family farms during the 1800s had the same or much worse living conditions. The history books like to claim that slavery is evil because the slaves got beat as punishment. I'm not so sure how often that even happened. To a slave owner a slave was an expensive piece of farm equipment. How many times today do you see a farmer trying to destroy an expensive piece of his farm equipment?
The first sentence of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is either true or it's not. I choose to believe that it is true, and that is why I am of the opinion that slavery is wrong. Slavery is the denying of a person's unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what makes slavery evil. That is what makes slavery wrong. And that is why I vote against dems. Pay attention to what the DUmbasses at DU and many of their dem leaders say and do. If you break it down they are for slavery. Instead of one group of people being slaves with the slave owner being in the plantation house, they want the slave owner to be federal government and the slaves to be everyone.
Kinda like the how they want the rich to pay for everything. They want to make them slaves.
Great post. Hi5
-
Current "social" programs seem to illustrate that particular aspect.
I don't think the words "if" and "were", are the proper tence. (did I spell that right?
Yep, it does.
-
Pay attention to what the DUmbasses at DU and many of their dem leaders say and do. If you break it down they are for slavery. Instead of one group of people being slaves with the slave owner being in the plantation house, they want the slave owner to be federal government and the slaves to be everyone.
This is what all big-gov totalitarian communists/socialists/fascists want.
Well said. ^5
-
This is going to be a rambling mess so I'll try to do the short version. It's easier for me to explain it verbally than with written word, but here goes.
Before I start I want to make sure that everyone knows that my opinion is that slavery is wrong. That is one of the reasons that I vote against democrats every chance that I get. I do, however, have an opinion about the past and potential past (if the south would have won) that differs from a lot of other people.
Just keep in mind that most of what I'm about to say is speculation. It's speculation based on what I know about people. It's speculation based on what I know about farmers and farming. And finally, though I'm not a trained historian like nads, it's speculation based on what little I know about the past.
The first thing I want to do for the lurking DUmmies is address one particular issue that always bothers me. There have been several occasions when I've seen interviews with black individuals discussing slavery during which the individual would say something along the lines of "we were kings and queens in Africa, and the white man captured us and put us in chains." That statement is both stupid and incorrect. There can be only so many kings and queens. In most cases the white man did NOT capture anyone in Africa. Africans enslaved other Africans and sold/traded them to the white man. I believe the last time I checked there are still, to this day, more slaves in Africa than any where else in the world.
With that off my chest, let me now ramble about slavery, the south, and the civil war.
Regardless of whether or not the war had happened or the south had won, slavery, as it was known back then, would have died out within 60 or 70 more years because of the advancements in farm equipment in general and the tractor in specific. While there were slaves who served as servants, the most prominent use of slaves was as workers doing manual labor and toiling on farms. The new farm equipment and tractors that were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s would have done away with the need for slaves on the farm. The dems, as they did in the 60s and still do now, would have treated the former slaves as somewhat subhuman, but they would not be slaves as it was known in the 1800s.
Since I'm rambling I may as well veer a bit off subject and give my opinion on whether the Civil War was fought over slavery or state rights. I say that state rights was the cause and slavery was the catalyst. Imagine a barn full of hay. You sit a burning kerosene lantern on one of the hay bales. Then someone throws a baseball that breaks and knocks over the burning lantern. The barn burns down. So what caused the barn to burn? It wasn't the baseball. It was the lantern. The baseball being thrown in just helped insure that there would be a fire. The burnt barn would be the civil war. The lantern would be state rights. The baseball would be slavery.
You'll remember that in my second sentence I mentioned that my opinion about slavery is why a vote against democrats. I want to try to explain that now.
The history books like to claim slavery is evil because the slaves had to work hard. That doesn't make slavery evil. The white people (men, women, and children) who worked the factories in the north and the small family farms in the north and south during the 1800s had to work just as hard or harder than the slaves. The history books like to claim that slavery is wrong because the living conditions of the slaves were bad. That doesn't make slavery wrong. The white people who worked the factories and small family farms during the 1800s had the same or much worse living conditions. The history books like to claim that slavery is evil because the slaves got beat as punishment. I'm not so sure how often that even happened. To a slave owner a slave was an expensive piece of farm equipment. How many times today do you see a farmer trying to destroy an expensive piece of his farm equipment?
The first sentence of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is either true or it's not. I choose to believe that it is true, and that is why I am of the opinion that slavery is wrong. Slavery is the denying of a person's unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what makes slavery evil. That is what makes slavery wrong. And that is why I vote against dems. Pay attention to what the DUmbasses at DU and many of their dem leaders say and do. If you break it down they are for slavery. Instead of one group of people being slaves with the slave owner being in the plantation house, they want the slave owner to be federal government and the slaves to be everyone.
OK, so it was the Liberal North that came down messing with the Slaves. The majoriety of Yankees had never seen a black man or woman, but the Churches said they had to free the poor soles. On Ward Christians Solders, they marched to live or die for a belief.
Interesting that the slaves did not rebel in the north, they had food clothing and shelter that they never had in Africa. Were learning to read and write and were if smart schooled.
Not too Much different from today's people that work for a company that will pay for their education. Salary that pays for a roof, food, clothing and health care, -----Pay $200.00 for a worker and one needs to keep them healthy. Not going to mistreat a slave of that value.
So the war ended and milions of slave were Freed from bondage, out on their own to fend for themselves,
No one North or South gave a thought of what would become of these people, out like a dog kicked out on the streets to defend for themselves.
War was over the Slaves were free to live or die survive as they could. No one in the North or south gave a darn, the slaves were free and it was up to them to survive .
This some did in a spectacular way, others were hung for stealing a hog.---- No big deal, don't matter the race it comes down to the man themself.