Who flies this flag?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:00 am

MODuckkiller wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:The fact that you can't see the pin point doesn't change the fact that it's right in your eyeball

It amazes me how you fail to comprehend and/or acknowledge facts......

.......Haaaaaa :sarcmark: :lol3:

You're a decomocrat, of course you don't believe in facts if it disagrees with your personal opinions or what is told to you. This is commonplace of most democrats I've come across, and the gentlemen on this site are no different; if something disagrees with a belief or opinion they just close their ears, and yell "Nananana, I'm not listening! I'm not listening!".....that or they just argue it with nothing more than repetition of loose facts and opinionated statements. And this is my quarrel with you, BDD2, as with many other gentlemen on this site, and in reality. You have complete disregard for the facts, however compelling they may be. Of course, slavery had a HUGE role in the shaping of pre-civil war American politics, and played a pivotal part in the events leading to secession, but this seems to be where you cease belief in anything else. History is history. The facts aren't regurgitated numbers or stats factcheckers blog about during debates, their FACTS. THEY HAPPENED. Why don't you believe?! Simply because it goes against what you were taught to believe? Why?

Documentation from South Carolina to the US Government regarding its secession from the Union talks mostly of the US Constitution and how the government was infringing on their rights as a state; but later on the Fugitive Slave Act is clearly mentioned. So if you were to just skim the documentation, BDD2, you would be satisfied to see nothing mentioned of economics; and this is where you would end your studies. However, this is poor scholarly practice. One must peel the information back layer by layer, retaining as much as you can as you go until reaching the core, the heart of it all, before you can truly form an opinion based on fact (again, I must laugh aloud because I realize this probably seldom happens :lol3: ). Instead, you go about things more like a scratch'n'sniff, you're a scratch'n'sniff kinda guy. Your own, personal research goes about as far as you scratching the surface of the information, retaining all of about 5 seconds worth of information, then "DONE! I know everything there is to know on this topic!"

But since it is late, and I realize that there is a good likelihood that I am just arguing with a wall built sideways (that one may go above your head), I will stop here and just give you a few key points to base your studies on:

+You say that the south fought the war for the sole purpose of slavery, yet over 90% of fightin' men (not ranking officers) were not slave owners. And only 30% of confederate soldiers listed pro-slavery convictions as to why they were fighting in the war. What were they fighting for? Slaves they don't own? Beneficial cheap/free labor that leads to wealth they won't achieve, and jobs they won't have?



+The South felt the need to own slaves was stronger than ever after a few key tariffs and taxes were levied preventing business overseas, primarily in the cotton market. Do you feel this is just a coincidence? Why or why not?



+Lastly, this one may be difficult to grasp, if slavery was so beneficial to economics in the South, why didn't the North exploit slavery in factories, mills, etc on a large-scale like the South? (i.e. Why was there a need for slavery in the South that wasn't exhibited in the North? Was the economy of the North just THAT strong? Or was the economy of the South just THAT crippled?)
*Although it may be an appealing answer for the narrow-minded to latch onto, try to stray away from moral beliefs of the South vs. that of the North in the response to this question. The South wasn't full of god-hating, immoral people; nor was the North full of perfect, moral citizens. Also noteworthy, keep in mind only ~10% of white southerners were slave owners (some sources would argue less).*


Sources:
General Lee's Army, Joseph T. Glatthaar
For Cause and Comrades, James M. McPherson

For those nay-sayers, which I know there are to be many, I read these books because they were recommended to me by my grandfather, prior to the men of the family taking a cross-country two week trip visiting civil war battlefields, museums, etc. Don't believe me? That's an opinion you're allowed to have. (But only if the left-wing higher ups say it's okay :thumbsup: )
Which of your "facts" have I disputed? I dispute your facile, self-serving conclusions. Once again, waayy over your head
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am


Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MODuckkiller » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:14 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:Which of your "facts" have I disputed? I dispute your facile, self-serving conclusions. Once again, waayy over your head

The use of the phrase "once again" would lead one to conclude you have argued this point to me before and I didn't understand. That's just not the case here BDD2; I suggest a different approach to your insults, as this will not suffice.

blackduckdog2 wrote:... self-serving....

Now that's something I thought I'd never hear out of a liberal. :lol3:


But in all serious, self-serving? Really ? In what way is my presentation of and belief in FACTUAL history self-serving? Did I ever say that the civil war was NOT based upon slavery? No, if you would have read my previous post you would have read that I indeed agreed with you, that slavery was a pivotal role in the events leading to the civil war. I just disagreed with your disbelief in the facts, the truth that the southern economy was subject to the North's stranglehold, and that this too played a part in secession of many states. So to be honest I don't really know where you were headed there BDD2. :huh: But to be honest, I doubt you did either. :lol3:

Another thing, I wouldn't recommend quoting someone if you're not going to bother to take the time to read what was wrote or attempt to understand it; for it is painfully obvious that one of those two things is the case here.

Also, I would still advise a little research into the questions I raised. You know, the ones you included in your quote.
Last edited by MODuckkiller on Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ohioboy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:17 am

vincent, where are all these links?
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2325
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:37 am

I haven't kept up or gone back and read, but I did a little homework.

People mentioned New York, but it looks like their right to secede failed.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/1850.htm

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise. In doing so, they made clear to everyone -- in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest -- that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession. Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning -- one nation, democratic and indivisible -- emerged with crystal clarity. Move over, Philadelphia. New York, too, deserves credit this week as Americans commemorate our Constitution.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MODuckkiller » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:46 am

SpinnerMan wrote:I haven't kept up or gone back and read, but I did a little homework.

People mentioned New York, but it looks like their right to secede failed.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/1850.htm

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise. In doing so, they made clear to everyone -- in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest -- that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession. Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning -- one nation, democratic and indivisible -- emerged with crystal clarity. Move over, Philadelphia. New York, too, deserves credit this week as Americans commemorate our Constitution.

Interesting read for sure, but I don't see how:
1) it applies to states who have entered the union reserving the right to secede, or any state entering the union after the specified date.
and
2) it differs from any other argument had on this thread. You say federal government, I say state government. You say the federal government withdrew the right of a state to secede, but I say it's a right that lies solely with the state. It's the same argument now as it was back in the mid 1800's.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:10 pm

MODuckkiller wrote:it applies to states who have entered the union reserving the right to secede
Who did this?

New York was mentioned, but this reference says it was brought up, but not included in the ratification.

Texas looks like they lost that right after they lost the Civil War.

This was post Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

That seems to be part of the basis of the ruling in my very, very, very fast skimming of Texas v. White.

MODuckkiller wrote:2) it differs from any other argument had on this thread. You say federal government, I say state government. You say the federal government withdrew the right of a state to secede, but I say it's a right that lies solely with the state. It's the same argument now as it was back in the mid 1800's.
I don't understand this point.

The Articles of Confederation were perpetual. This replacement would seem to so as well because it was a replacement and in large part to increase the power of the federal government.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=3&page=transcript
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.


Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

If the purpose was to end the perpetual union, it just seems really odd to me to not explicitly do that. This was the understanding of the union at the time. Everything in the Constitution seems consistent with Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation. Particularly given that the goal was to increase the power of the federal government and not weaken it.

It just seems that you could not secede by simple vote in the state legislature. It seems that if it was not a perpetual union any longer once the Articles of Confederation were replaced, they would have provided the mechanism for secession as they did for modifications and revisions. However, if it is a perpetual union, there is no mechanism to be provided because none exists.

Like I said at the outset, I don't know, but nothing so far seems very convincing that it is not as it seems.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:11 pm

The Supreme Court would have no say whatsoever- if a state secedes, what the SCOTUS says matters not one bit, as they are no longer subject to those laws. If you don't believe that a state has the right to secede, then you believe in the concept of a forced coercion. No different than the Iron Curtain, which prevented citizens from leaving the Soviet Union or its vassals. There is no middle ground. And I refuse to believe that our country was founded on the concept of forced subservience to whatever the federal government decides to do, at the point of a gun, if necessary.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:15 pm

assateague wrote:If you don't believe that a state has the right to secede, then you believe in the concept of a forced coercion. No different than the Iron Curtain, which prevented citizens from leaving the Soviet Union or its vassals.

Can a county secede from a state? OMG, we've got the iron curtain.

The Articles of Confederation did not create an Iron Curtain, did they? That was unquestionably a perpetual union for which you could not leave. Yet, it was ratified by the U.S. right after our war for independence. I'm not think they were in the mood to create such a condition. Yet, apparently our founders created the Iron Curtain. No wonder the liberals have no respect for our founding principles.

Come on AT, the hyperbola is not warranted in a question of facts. It does no such thing.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:20 pm

How is it possibly hyperbole? The STATES granted the existence of the federal government, the STATES are sovereign entities, but yet you claim that they cannot leave. So how is that different than the Soviet Union prohibiting anyone from leaving, under penalty of death? And the Civil War most certainly meets the "penalty of death" criteria.

Simply claiming something which you cannot defend to be a gross exaggeration does not make it so.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:37 pm

MODuckkiller wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Which of your "facts" have I disputed? I dispute your facile, self-serving conclusions. Once again, waayy over your head

The use of the phrase "once again" would lead one to conclude you have argued this point to me before and I didn't understand. That's just not the case here BDD2; I suggest a different approach to your insults, as this will not suffice.

blackduckdog2 wrote:... self-serving....

Now that's something I thought I'd never hear out of a liberal. :lol3:


But in all serious, self-serving? Really ? In what way is my presentation of and belief in FACTUAL history self-serving? Did I ever say that the civil war was NOT based upon slavery? No, if you would have read my previous post you would have read that I indeed agreed with you, that slavery was a pivotal role in the events leading to the civil war. I just disagreed with your disbelief in the facts, the truth that the southern economy was subject to the North's stranglehold, and that this too played a part in secession of many states. So to be honest I don't really know where you were headed there BDD2. :huh: But to be honest, I doubt you did either. :lol3:

Another thing, I wouldn't recommend quoting someone if you're not going to bother to take the time to read what was wrote or attempt to understand it; for it is painfully obvious that one of those two things is the case here.

Also, I would still advise a little research into the questions I raised. You know, the ones you included in your quote.
Which of your facts have I disagreed with? We each appear to be fighting the other at cross-purposes. Clearly I lumped you in with the many on this thread and in this forum who protest mightily that the Civil War was based on slavery. My apologies for that, but I don't see which of the historical facts I have disputed
Like I said earlier, I'm trying (and not very well) to lay out some of the ideas an old friend had on the issue. He was a Jesuit priest, a historian (though not with any academic specialty in the Civil War) and a scholar. His very interesting, to me at least, theory that all wars take place in a dysfunctional, perverted spiritual climate is not the sort of thing that is going to get mainstream historians all excited. But the idea that an addiction (slavery) existed that was nearly impossible for it's practitioners to see, in any way, the evil they were involved with, while at the same time knowing, on a deeper level (through the light of Christ, according to Father Tom. I'd say conscience) that the circumstances simply could not continue, and then applying that social model (the addict in denial and spinning out of control) to the steps taken that finally led to abolition is nothing short of genius, if you ask me.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MODuckkiller » Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:55 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Like I said earlier, I'm trying (and not very well) to lay out some of the ideas an old friend had on the issue. He was a Jesuit priest, a historian (though not with any academic specialty in the Civil War) and a scholar. His very interesting, to me at least, theory that all wars take place in a dysfunctional, perverted spiritual climate is not the sort of thing that is going to get mainstream historians all excited. But the idea that an addiction (slavery) existed that was nearly impossible for it's practitioners to see, in any way, the evil they were involved with, while at the same time knowing, on a deeper level (through the light of Christ, according to Father Tom. I'd say conscience) that the circumstances simply could not continue, and then applying that social model (the addict in denial and spinning out of control) to the steps taken that finally led to abolition is nothing short of genius, if you ask me.


The theory is sound, and I would agree that it is indeed, a brilliant theory. However, I still do not see how it would be relevant if only 10% of white southerners owned slaves, and less than 1/3 of Confederate soldiers listed pro-slavery convictions as reasoning for fighting. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic, for we have come to an impasse.

Although I will not stray from my personal beliefs, views, etc., ones that I am sure contradict yours, I would like to apologize for last night's post. It was rude, insulting, and could have been posted in a more appropriate fashion.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:15 pm

assateague wrote:How is it possibly hyperbole? The STATES granted the existence of the federal government, the STATES are sovereign entities, but yet you claim that they cannot leave. So how is that different than the Soviet Union prohibiting anyone from leaving, under penalty of death? And the Civil War most certainly meets the "penalty of death" criteria.

Simply claiming something which you cannot defend to be a gross exaggeration does not make it so.

So was the Articles of Confederation like the Soviet Union? Simple question because there is no doubt that there was no way to leave.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.


That is exactly what these states had agreed to just 10 years prior to the Constitutional Convention when they met to revise the articles of their perpetual union when instead they decided to completely redraft the frame of the government of our perpetual union.

Same states, same country, two documents intended for the same basic purpose. The second a replacement of the first. Yet, it is death penalty to leave. Who fired the first shots? Would they abide by a contrary decision in court? That analogy is truly hyperbole.

I guess you feel that the Articles of Confederation were unquestionable like the Soviet Union to use your analogy. When they amended them, by complete replacement, it looks like to me like they remained like the Soviet Union.

BTW, I have provided evidence to support your hyperbole and that the Constitution like the Articles of Confederation formed a perpetual union. Proven it definitively. Nope, but it is certainly defensible. Thanks for pushing me to do my homework. Part of the reason I like posting here.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:48 pm

In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:09 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
possumfoot wrote: its funny, liberals pride them selves on being free thinkers, but the truth of the matter is, all you are are drones repeating what a talking head told you..
its really sad.. but thats why this country is doomed..

Please point out to me where you have EVER seen any iteration whatsoever of my take on this issue repeated elsewhere. You seem like a reasonable man, you ought not trade in outright falsehood. I am no historian (but then, neither are you, although you are surely more conversant with the matter than I am there is nothing to suggest even the remotest hint of original thinking in your posts) but I know what makes the beast a beast. Look, I know this is over your head (well, actually I just think that…prove me wrong), but the fact that you can't comprehend such forces does nothing to obviate them. Spin all you want, the vast majority of free thinkers will recognize you for the Confederate apologist you truly are, and more power to them



you couls not be much firther from the truth.. lol.. you seem to think that i care.. i don't care about the situatuion, i care about the facts..

the only way you can make your argument work is to say without slaves, cotton would not have been the main commodity of the south, therefor the civil war would not have taken place.. and that is one heck of a stretch.. as for original though, well, there is no such thing when one simply deals in facts... however i do form my opinions on said facts.. i'm not chained by social pressures and i do not form opinions and my beliefs based on how they may affect someone else.. but hey, you can say your over my head all you want, and you would be partially right in so much as your head is in the clouds..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:14 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:So was the Articles of Confederation like the Soviet Union? Simple question because there is no doubt that there was no way to leave.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the Articles were abandoned, the STATES were the ones who got to say yea or nay to the new Constitution. Why didn't the proposal for a new constitution go to the congress, as it should have? How could states, something which you seem to feel are suborned to the federal government, get to give final approval rather than the duly constituted government?

Furthermore, the fact that the Articles of Confederation placed so much weight on the concept of a state as a sovereign nation, in a "confederation" with each other NOT forming an overarching central government (hence the very title of the document) leads me to believe that a state could leave any time they wanted. "Abiding by" and "being a permanent party to, never allowed to leave" are two amazingly different things.

Just to be clear- you believe that the states VOLUNTARILY entered the union, and now cannot leave?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:19 pm

texas entered the union with the option to leave at any time.. after the fact the courts decided they could not... well, sorry, they don't get a say...
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:52 pm

oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal... and most of the slaves had a choice.. they chose slavery over the altenative.. that was death... either by the hands of those that sold them (other africans) or by their own.. yea, cold hard truth.. if the dutch or whom ever else had not been buying, those that came over to be slaves would have been killed.. yea, slavery was a horrid institution, but, it happened.. i would also guess that it was not as bad as made out to be.. examples.. look at what they had to live in.. yea, small cramped quartes.. what did they live in in africa?? work.. what did they do in africa?? sit around and swat flys?? no, they were on a constant look for food to stay alive.. main reason tribes were always at war.. there was not enought to go around.. pretty much population control.. yes, i know that is a very cold caloused way to view it, but other people are the only ones who even care.. nature is a cruel bitch and gives no shits.. i know this is a tangent, but trying to look at history from an emotional stand point is counter-productive..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:01 pm

You don't even have to go to Africa for that. Just look at the sweatshops and working conditions at the factories in the North. The average wage worker was FAR more expendable (there were dozens, if not hundreds just waiting to take their place) than the average slave. Furthermore, the average wage worker in the North could no more quit their job and walk away than a slave could. The fact is, as uncomfortable as it may be for some, that it was more in the best interests of the slave owner to keep their slave healthy and productive than it was for the factory owner to care for his workers. Slaves were expensive and hard to replace- factory workers, not so much. A word is only a word- and calling a slave a slave certainly applies to more than one color, even more so at the time we're talking about.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:44 pm

possumfoot wrote:oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal... and most of the slaves had a choice.. they chose slavery over the altenative.. that was death... either by the hands of those that sold them (other africans) or by their own.. yea, cold hard truth.. if the dutch or whom ever else had not been buying, those that came over to be slaves would have been killed.. yea, slavery was a horrid institution, but, it happened.. i would also guess that it was not as bad as made out to be.. examples.. look at what they had to live in.. yea, small cramped quartes.. what did they live in in africa?? work.. what did they do in africa?? sit around and swat flys?? no, they were on a constant look for food to stay alive.. main reason tribes were always at war.. there was not enought to go around.. pretty much population control.. yes, i know that is a very cold caloused way to view it, but other people are the only ones who even care.. nature is a cruel bitch and gives no shits.. i know this is a tangent, but trying to look at history from an emotional stand point is counter-productive..

you win dude……….my puny liberal guilt pales before the power of your southern strain
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:15 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
possumfoot wrote:oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal... and most of the slaves had a choice.. they chose slavery over the altenative.. that was death... either by the hands of those that sold them (other africans) or by their own.. yea, cold hard truth.. if the dutch or whom ever else had not been buying, those that came over to be slaves would have been killed.. yea, slavery was a horrid institution, but, it happened.. i would also guess that it was not as bad as made out to be.. examples.. look at what they had to live in.. yea, small cramped quartes.. what did they live in in africa?? work.. what did they do in africa?? sit around and swat flys?? no, they were on a constant look for food to stay alive.. main reason tribes were always at war.. there was not enought to go around.. pretty much population control.. yes, i know that is a very cold caloused way to view it, but other people are the only ones who even care.. nature is a cruel bitch and gives no shits.. i know this is a tangent, but trying to look at history from an emotional stand point is counter-productive..

you win dude……….my puny liberal guilt pales before the power of your southern strain



ah, trying to make it about where i'm from.. like that is supposed to influence my thinking.. sorry, thats not going to get me fired up.. just shows how truely ignorant of the facts you are.. emotions are dangerous.. tring to apply them to histor is even more so.. those that do not understand history are doomed to repeat it..

you have still avoided my main question.. had slavery not existed, with nothing else changed (i.e. cotton production and the tariffs imposed) would the civil war have still taken place??
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:20 pm

assateague wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:So was the Articles of Confederation like the Soviet Union? Simple question because there is no doubt that there was no way to leave.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the Articles were abandoned, the STATES were the ones who got to say yea or nay to the new Constitution. Why didn't the proposal for a new constitution go to the congress, as it should have? How could states, something which you seem to feel are suborned to the federal government, get to give final approval rather than the duly constituted government?

Furthermore, the fact that the Articles of Confederation placed so much weight on the concept of a state as a sovereign nation, in a "confederation" with each other NOT forming an overarching central government (hence the very title of the document) leads me to believe that a state could leave any time they wanted. "Abiding by" and "being a permanent party to, never allowed to leave" are two amazingly different things.

Just to be clear- you believe that the states VOLUNTARILY entered the union, and now cannot leave?



very good point. i was going to get to that, but i was hesitant as my comparison was sled dogs in the north, or a cowboys horse.. or a truck drivers truck.. or even a persons lab.. its tough to compare a person to an animal (even though we all are) or a peice of equipment..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:24 pm

possumfoot wrote:oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal...
don't give up the day job
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ohioboy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:03 pm

vincentpa wrote:
ohioboy wrote:vincent, where are all these links?



I'll tell you what retard. Why didn't you type this into Google:

S-C-H-O-O-L-S T-E-A-C-H C-L-E-O-P-A-T-R-A W-A-S B-L-A-C-K

You can then read all about it. Maybe next time I can write it in crayons for you and post it online.

While you are at it, you can also Google, "the new math" and "social promotions in elementary schools".

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223962/afrocentrism-problem/linda-chavez

http://www.solargeneral.com/jeffs-archive/revision/what-our-schools-are-teaching-our-children/

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/11/us/afrocentrism-balancing-or-skewing-history.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/not-out.htm

http://archive.org/stream/Not-Out-Of-Africa/NotOutOfAfrica_djvu.txt

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199112_asante.pdf

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/01/afrocentrism-as-therapeutic-mythology/

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/02/the-fraud-of-black-history/


thanks.

before my time in the classroom and was not taught this in ohio, that is for sure.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2325
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:32 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
possumfoot wrote:oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal...
don't give up the day job

and again.. another deflection..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:56 pm

possumfoot wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
possumfoot wrote:oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal...
don't give up the day job

and again.. another deflection..

deflection is what happens to reality when it gets within about a lightyear of your awareness, possum foot….but I don't hold that against you
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andy W, Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests