"Things liberals are responsible for"

[thegreekdog]

Liberals are responsible for this:

Slavery was alive and well for close to 100 years at the time of the Civil War. The slave trade itself was monopolized by mostly Northerners, and the majority of them were Jewish businessmen. I know this sounds like an antisemitic statement, but it is the truth.

The politicians in DC, and before that, in Philly, had been kicking the ball on Slavery for decades. The intellectuals among them would from time to time, raise the issue. But the votes were just never there. Like I said before, money talks. The Southern agriculture industry with the help of an enormous untapped breadbasket source, coupled with free labor, was just about the most profitable industry in the world, at the time. Everyone involved in this industry were the "Fat cats" of their time. They were not just well off, they were disgustingly, filthy rich. If they had not become so greedy, and just kept to the program, Slavery would have seen many more decades of continued prosperity for all involved, except the slaves that is.

But as it happened,The Southern Fat cats became so powerful, that when the Northern Politicians yet again, jacked up their taxes on tobacco and cotton, just decided that they did NOT need them anymore. They were the minority in Congress, and could NOT successfully fight These exorbitant and ever increasing taxes. They decided just like their Teabag forefathers did, To separate from the government, that, in their eyes were imposing an unfair and out of control dominance over them.

They did NOT succeed because The North demanded an end to Slavery.

It was a matter of economics. Just like the Revolutionary war.

It was only after the South cut them out, that the North went to war. They new very well that the western expansion of the US would have fallen into the laps of the Southerners, and they would very soon, become the dominant power on the continent.

This idea did NOT set well with them at all. They would rather see the South with its lucrative industry burned to the ground, before they would allow this to happen.

They were well on their way of wiping out the Native Americans, and The Mexicans were next on the agenda. These people were NOT the idealistic saviors of the "lesser races".

On the contrary, They were poised to run off, or kill any non-white that stood in their way of conquering all the territory from sea to shinning sea.

...And that is today's "real" history lesson.

Seriously... it sears the retinas. I can only hope that no impressionable youngsters read this utter crap. Oh, another thing, I swear to all that is unholy if you type the word "succeed" again...

[jay_a2j]

I'm white yet "multi-cultural" having decedents from Germany, England and France. But no one calls me "multi-cultural", why not? Cause my skin doesn't have a tinge of color to it?

Do you speak German or French? Can you reasonable claim that you actually represent those cultures in any significant or at least somewhat significant degree? You can't, so no one's really going to call you multi-cultural; you're just American. Please use a different example.

You can keep your racist half-ass attempt at trying to portray yourself as "cultured" and "non offensive" by being PC, but I for one can see through the scam. We have had words to describe people for EVER. Now the PC patrol wants to come in and re-describe everything for a more "tolerant" world. I want to go back to a world where we can call a janitor a janitor, not a "custodial engineer" for fear of hurting his or her feelings! The world has become pussified thanks to liberalism and the PC mob. Grow a set.

Actually PC can be pretty funny if you go about it with the right sense of humor. I was kidding around with this janitor at college awhile back about being called a janitor or a custodial engineer, and he was wondering since when did he get an engineering degree.

Sure, there's a few examples where PC can be ridiculous which is why the majority of the people will not use those words. You'll probably see PC-speak in official documents in a formal business setting, but the people will nearly always still speak the same. Labelling and discouraging the use of sexist and racist phrases in turn discourages negative preconceptions, subconscious and conscious, which isn't a bad thing (like Indians gone crazy, or manning a project). But, as long as you can joke it off, it's not a big deal.

And it's not like the "PC patrol" will punish you by raping your mother while forcing you to watch, if you don't play the game. You're still free to be a racist, sexist prick, so there's no need to whine and moan about something that hardly limits your speech. You can still call a waiter a waiter, and an African-American a black, and it still depends on the situation and what meaning you carry with your words--with or without PC.

How many black "multi-cultural" people do you know who speak Swahili? Why are they not "just American"? The term "multi-cultural" is used for people of MIXED race, it has NOTHING to do with culture itself. "Multi-cultural" is just as racist as "black", "mixed", "milato" or any other term besides AMERICAN. If you want to see a "racist, sexist prick" might I suggest looking in a mirror, because you are in NO WAY describing me. You and Woody need to stop hiding behind your hoods.

[pimpdave]

[comic boy]

Jesus was very much a liberal , assuming you believe the gospels of course

[Woodruff]

If you want to see a "racist, sexist prick" might I suggest looking in a mirror, because you are in NO WAY describing me. You and Woody need to stop hiding behind your hoods.

Oh, this is hilarious...I guess Jay's only defense now is to try to pretend that we are him. Almost as funny as him making accusations against me and then refusing to actually provide ANY specificity to those accusations. How sad, and how embarrassing he's become.

Jesus was very much a liberal , assuming you believe the gospels of course

Agreed.

[porkenbeans]

In the election of 1860, the Republicans swept Abraham Lincoln into the Presidency (with only 39.8% of the popular vote) and legislators into Congress. Lincoln however, did not appear on the ballots in most southern states and his election split the nation along sectional lines. After decades of controlling the Federal Government, several of the southern states declared they had seceded from the U.S. (the Union) in an attempt to form the Confederate States of America.

Northern leaders like Lincoln viewed the prospect of a new Southern nation, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as unacceptable. This led to the outbreak of the Civil War, which spelled the end for chattel slavery in America. However, in August 1862, Lincoln wrote to editor Horace Greeley that despite his own moral objection to slavery, the objective of the war was to save the Union and not either to save or to destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, or by freeing all the slaves, or by freeing only some of the slaves, he would do it.

[thegreekdog]

In the election of 1860, the Republicans swept Abraham Lincoln into the Presidency (with only 39.8% of the popular vote) and legislators into Congress. Lincoln however, did not appear on the ballots in most southern states and his election split the nation along sectional lines. After decades of controlling the Federal Government, several of the southern states declared they had seceded from the U.S. (the Union) in an attempt to form the Confederate States of America.

Northern leaders like Lincoln viewed the prospect of a new Southern nation, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as unacceptable. This led to the outbreak of the Civil War, which spelled the end for chattel slavery in America. However, in August 1862, Lincoln wrote to editor Horace Greeley that despite his own moral objection to slavery, the objective of the war was to save the Union and not either to save or to destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, or by freeing all the slaves, or by freeing only some of the slaves, he would do it.

All true. And you used the word "secede." Thank you.

[porkenbeans]

The main point that I was trying to make is, The North did NOT go to war to end slavery. It was a much more selfish, and self serving reason.

Lincoln & others in the North, realized from the get-go, that this new country on the continent, would quickly become the dominant power in the Americas. They were NOT the calibrated, human rights advocates, that most people today, believe they were. They had no problem with slaughtering all of the native American "savages" that inhabited their neck of the woods. Do you honestly believe that they viewed Negroes to be any better than the "Indians" ? On the contrary, At least they openly married some of the Indians. Not that they wouldn't have sex with Negroes, but marriage was virtually unheard of in those days, between blacks and whites.

My point that I was trying to make is simply this, The history that we all have learned in school, is NOT the actual truth. It is full of omissions, stretched truths, and lies. It was written with a specific agenda, to slant everything, to make it appear that the USA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If all the crap that I was taught about US history, in grade school, was accurate, I would be the first one to raise my index finger and shout "we are # 1".

But fortunately I know it is NOT the true story. So instead of my index finger, I will use the one next to it. I will shout the same #1 slogan, but not under the guise of righteousness. Rather, I will raise my sword like a Spartan at a battles victory. And with my adversary bloody and dying at my feet, recite the words of the victorious, ..."We are number one".

[pimpdave]

You're all full of shit. There is no singularity to the cause for war. The reasons are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and as individual as we Americans like to think ourselves to be.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the cause of abolition.

Many thousands of men gave their lives to defend against the perceived invasion of their homes.

Stop pissing on their graves and just accept that there are no easy answers. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than a 200-300 word post on an internet forum can possibly convey.

And stop pushing this bullshit lie that the war was definitely NOT about slavery. It absolutely was to a great many people. It was also about a shit load of other things. I don't know why people are so quick to say it absolutely wasn't about slavery, but I suspect it's because they want to discount the freedom purchased in blood and remain bitter (or because they perceive it as a slight against their heritage of owning slaves). Things aren't so simple. Many white men shed their blood so the black man could be free. It's incredibly insulting to be told that is categorically false when one knows it to be true, and carries that knowledge with a sense of pride and duty to uphold those ideals.




As a side note, the truly ironic thing about the Confederacy was that in order to wage war effectively, it needed to have the same centralized power that they were rebelling against. Jefferson Davis even said that. Often.

[Snorri1234]

I'm confused....do your textbooks really say the war was solely fought for the liberation of slaves?

[thegreekdog]

I'm confused....do your textbooks really say the war was solely fought for the liberation of slaves?

No. None of them do. Not one.

[pimpdave]

No. It is listed as one of them.

There is no doubt that in the build up to the American Civil War, the question of slavery was integral to the conflict. Consider the actions of John Brown, and the reaction that brought. Consider that people in the South and Southern newspapers were decrying Lincoln's election as the surest sign that slavery would be ended and with it the South. It's amazing how similar in tone and hysteria the pro-slavery fucktards of that time were to the Teabaggers of today. And how they were so quick to wave the "Don't Tread On Me" flag to defend their desire to keep treading on people.

There are plenty of other examples, too. But the truth is that it's more complicated than just one thing, because if it was just one thing, there wouldn't have been a war.

Remember too, the USA was in the middle of a huge economic slump, perhaps even a Depression, and the prospect of getting a job and getting fed was motivation enough for many men to enlist.

[porkenbeans]

You're all full of shit. There is no singularity to the cause for war. The reasons are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and as individual as we Americans like to think ourselves to be.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the cause of abolition.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the perceived invasion of their homes.

Stop pissing on their graves and just accept that there are no easy answers. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than a 200-300 word post on an internet forum can possibly convey.

And stop pushing this bullshit lie that the war was definitely NOT about slavery. It absolutely was to a great many people. It was also about a shit load of other things. I don't know why people are so quick to say it absolutely wasn't about slavery, but I suspect it's because they want to discount the sacrifice purchased in blood for freedom and remain bitter (or because they perceive it as a slight against their heritage of owning slaves). Things aren't so simple. Many white men shed their blood so the black man could be free. It's insulting to be told that is categorically false.




As a side note, the truly ironic thing about the Confederacy was that in order to wage war effectively, it needed to have the same centralized power that they were rebelling against. Jefferson Davis even said that. Often.

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

[pimpdave]

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

Because not everyone slaughtered the Indians, you simplistic (quite possibly racist) f*ck.

[thegreekdog]

The main point that I was trying to make is, The North did NOT go to war to end slavery. It was a much more selfish, and self serving reason.

Lincoln & others in the North, realized from the get-go, that this new country on the continent, would quickly become the dominant power in the Americas. They were NOT the calibrated, human rights advocates, that most people today, believe they were. They had no problem with slaughtering all of the native American "savages" that inhabited their neck of the woods. Do you honestly believe that they viewed Negroes to be any better than the "Indians" ? On the contrary, At least they openly married some of the Indians. Not that they wouldn't have sex with Negroes, but marriage was virtually unheard of in those days, between blacks and whites.

My point that I was trying to make is simply this, The history that we all have learned in school, is NOT the actual truth. It is full of omissions, stretched truths, and lies. It was written with a specific agenda, to slant everything, to make it appear that the USA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If all the crap that I was taught about US history, in grade school, was accurate, I would be the first one to raise my index finger and shout "we are # 1".

But fortunately I know it is NOT the true story. So instead of my index finger, I will use the one next to it. I will shout the same #1 slogan, but not under the guise of righteousness. Rather, I will raise my sword like a Spartan at a battles victory. And with my adversary bloody and dying at my feet, recite the words of the victorious, ..."We are number one".

Grade school does not equal high school and grade school does not equal common knowledge. I suppose you have adequately informed those 9 year olds on CC that the American Civil War was not just about slavery. I think your approach is heavy-handed and preacheresque and has a lot of inaccuracies, which you seem to have moved away from at this point. I was a history major in college, and the American Civil War was about slavery, among other things... anyway, read pimpdave's post.

[thegreekdog]

No. It is listed as one of them.

There is no doubt that in the build up to the American Civil War, the question of slavery was integral to the conflict. Consider the actions of John Brown, and the reaction that brought. Consider that people in the South and Southern newspapers were decrying Lincoln's election as the surest sign that slavery would be ended and with it the South. It's amazing how similar in tone and hysteria the pro-slavery fucktards of that time were to the Teabaggers of today. And how they were so quick to waive the "Don't Tread On Me" flag to defend their desire to keep treading on people.

There are plenty of other examples, too. But the truth is that it's more complicated than just one thing, because if it was just one thing, there wouldn't have been a war.

Remember too, the USA was in the middle of a huge economic slump, perhaps even a Depression, and the prospect of getting a job and getting fed was motivation enough for many men to enlist.

I agree with all of this except - "It's amazing how similar in tone and hysteria the pro-slavery fucktard of that time were to the Teabaggers of today. And how they were so quick to waive the "Don't Tread on Me" flag to defend their desire to keep treading on people." My only response to that is stop equating fucking freeing the slaves with fucking universal health insurance (yeah, I'm talking to you Harry Reid, you fucking ignorant piece of trash).

[pimpdave]

Wait, really? He has been? Interesting.

I wonder how future generations will look back on our actions today. I wish more politicians thought about posterity too, instead of when they'll get their next waverunner.

[porkenbeans]

The main point that I was trying to make is, The North did NOT go to war to end slavery. It was a much more selfish, and self serving reason.

Lincoln & others in the North, realized from the get-go, that this new country on the continent, would quickly become the dominant power in the Americas. They were NOT the calibrated, human rights advocates, that most people today, believe they were. They had no problem with slaughtering all of the native American "savages" that inhabited their neck of the woods. Do you honestly believe that they viewed Negroes to be any better than the "Indians" ? On the contrary, At least they openly married some of the Indians. Not that they wouldn't have sex with Negroes, but marriage was virtually unheard of in those days, between blacks and whites.

My point that I was trying to make is simply this, The history that we all have learned in school, is NOT the actual truth. It is full of omissions, stretched truths, and lies. It was written with a specific agenda, to slant everything, to make it appear that the USA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If all the crap that I was taught about US history, in grade school, was accurate, I would be the first one to raise my index finger and shout "we are # 1".

But fortunately I know it is NOT the true story. So instead of my index finger, I will use the one next to it. I will shout the same #1 slogan, but not under the guise of righteousness. Rather, I will raise my sword like a Spartan at a battles victory. And with my adversary bloody and dying at my feet, recite the words of the victorious, ..."We are number one".

Grade school does not equal high school and grade school does not equal common knowledge. I suppose you have adequately informed those 9 year olds on CC that the American Civil War was not just about slavery. I think your approach is heavy-handed and preacheresque and has a lot of inaccuracies, which you seem to have moved away from at this point. I was a history major in college, and the American Civil War was about slavery, among other things... anyway, read pimpdave's post.

Yes, High school does indeed go more into some of the true facts on this subject. But The brainwashing has already occurred, So even when some of this truth is taught, 90% of high school graduates still believe that the North went to war to end slavery.

Also, I have not moved away from any statements. But I have noticed that you are failing to address them. You started out saying that the war was all about ending slavery. Now you are saying that there are a million reasons for the war. Seems you are the one that is backing away.

[pimpdave]

So, porkenbeans, you ignorant prick, prove to me that every single white person living in the North at the time slaughtered Indians. And don't leave out all of the examples of people co-existing or peacefully intermarrying, douche bag.

[Snorri1234]

No. It is listed as one of them.

There is no doubt that in the build up to the American Civil War, the question of slavery was integral to the conflict. Consider the actions of John Brown, and the reaction that brought. Consider that people in the South and Southern newspapers were decrying Lincoln's election as the surest sign that slavery would be ended and with it the South. It's amazing how similar in tone and hysteria the pro-slavery fucktards of that time were to the Teabaggers of today. And how they were so quick to waive the "Don't Tread On Me" flag to defend their desire to keep treading on people.

There are plenty of other examples, too. But the truth is that it's more complicated than just one thing, because if it was just one thing, there wouldn't have been a war.

Remember too, the USA was in the middle of a huge economic slump, perhaps even a Depression, and the prospect of getting a job and getting fed was motivation enough for many men to enlist.

I agree with all of this except - "It's amazing how similar in tone and hysteria the pro-slavery fucktard of that time were to the Teabaggers of today. And how they were so quick to waive the "Don't Tread on Me" flag to defend their desire to keep treading on people." My only response to that is stop equating fucking freeing the slaves with fucking universal health insurance (yeah, I'm talking to you Harry Reid, you fucking ignorant piece of trash).

It's a good point though. Dave isn't saying being in favour of slavery is the same as being against universal health insurance, he's saying that the methods of gathering support, the rhetoric and the outrage are similiar.

[porkenbeans]

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

Because not everyone slaughtered the Indians, you simplistic (quite possibly racist) f*ck.

Not everyone in the South owned slaves either.

Racist f*ck ? You certainly do not know me very well. I am not about to sugar coat things and omit them, because it might sound non-PC. The use of words such as "savages" are clearly used in a way to portray the thoughts and views of the people described, NOT my views. If you were a little more perceptive, you would understand this.

[porkenbeans]

So, porkenbeans, you ignorant prick, prove to me that every single white person living in the North at the time slaughtered Indians. And don't leave out all of the examples of people co-existing or peacefully intermarrying, douche bag.

Yes, I already spoke to the fact that intermarriage between whites and Indians occurred. I am descended myself from just such a union. My great, great grandmother was a Cherokee slave.

[pimpdave]

Ah, so you're bitter. Thanks for clearing that up.

So tell me what you know about Metacomet's War. Tell me how many white men fought on the side of King Phillip. Can you?

Tell me what you know about the Delaware, the Lene Lenape, hell, even the Mohican. Can you? Or maybe you should just get yourself an education that isn't so one-sided.

[Snorri1234]

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

Because not everyone slaughtered the Indians, you simplistic (quite possibly racist) f*ck.

Not everyone in the South owned slaves either.

And not everyone who protests the current healthcare bill is affected by it either. Nor are the people who want gay-marriage all homosexuals.


I hope you're not arguing that just because something doesn't personally affect you you can't support it....

[Snorri1234]

I mean, shit, I bet a lot of Germans around WW2 didn't give a flying f*ck about jews either way too. Probably a few high-ranking generals had no problem with them, but that doesn't mean that one of the major things wasn't the persecution of jews.