| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Comments:
<0> gloriae: you're a ****ing racist. admit it.
<1> especially when historically its proven, the revolutionary war was not popular with the people at the time
<2> grandfather, father, and son
<3> glo is so not racist.
<1> US-Male i have people in my family who faought in it as well, including iroquois
<0> then what's her point?
<0> she's exonerating slave owners
<2> RustyFord yeah I might have some of those
<2> RustyFord: which side ? ;P
<3> is she?
<2> hehehe
<3> or is she providing meaningful historic context
<0> i don't know timur...can you give me an alternative rational explanation?
<4> the revolutionary war was popular, the constitution was not
<2> no Iriqois that I know of
<3> korematsu: explanation for what, precisely
<5> Is human trade market immoral? yes should the south have used them? no did the south's use of slaves almost stop the declaration of independence? yes was slavery an abominable practice that was a thorn in the side of many in the intervening years? yes
<0> meaningful historic context? the fact that .0001% of blacks owned slaves in america?
<3> and so what
<4> the regular army's role in it is wildly overblown, it was the more "uncivilized" formations that really won it
<0> exactly
<0> that only allows a few logical inferences
<0> she refuses to state her motives...
<3> why is motive relevant, particularly, in this case
<3> few blacks owned black slaves, fact
<3> so what
<2> should we type questions just to answer them? no ;P
<4> so what indeed
<1> US, according to TimWT apparently him and I are related somewhere down the line
<1> hahahhaa
<4> some whites owned black slaves too
<0> Timur: of all the meaningful historic contexts....why that?
<2> RustyFord be afraid!
<2> be very afraid...
<6> "A year ago, Guatemalan inventor Carlos Armando Amado sued Microsoft for stealing an Office idea he had tried to sell them in '92. They were found to be infringing on his patent and had to pay him $9 million in damages, but they refused and appealed the decision. Today, just a year after they appealed, the Court confirmed the verdict: Microsoft loses. If that wasn't enough, the amount was raised to $65 million for continuing infringement."
<0> people made soap back in 1861...is that meaningful?
<6> hahaha
<6> nice
<0> so she stated a historic "fact"...how is it meaningful?
<5> the south had created a new world aristocracy on the backs of slavery
<4> backs of a lot of poor whites too
<4> north was similar
<3> korematsu well, if the issue is slavery, then what's the appropriate response, beyond that 1. many cultures used (and some still use it) and it's wrong, morally, from an American perspective.
<4> north had slavery earlier
<0> Timur: exactly....it boils down to an exoneration of slavery
<0> who cares if other people did slavery. it's wrong.
<3> how's that an exoneration
<5> loco: is that why bill is stepping down? company tired of a spirit of stealing ideas and actually wants to run a moral and ethical company?
<3> it existed
<7> the fact that some free blacks in the south owned slaves bothers simplistic slavery rhetoricians very much
<2> well as long as the only point is "it was fairly common at the time" then it's correct
<3> and still exists
<8> the South had so many slaves because it was the world'd supplier of cotton; and the world eagerly bought it up
<1> US, during the time the mohawks and the akwesasne broke up
<3> that's independent from a moral judgement on it
<7> there's more to history than demogoguery
<1> so i have family on both sides
<4> having cotton doesn't mean you need slaves
<0> Timur: what % of blacks owned slaves in america?
<7> it's freaky that just mentioning the fact led at least one ircer to conclude I was attempting to show that slavery is ok!
<4> slavery is actually a pretty bad economic arrangement on a whole
<1> same in the ****ing civil war, i had southern and northern family on both sides
<4> it's good in the short term for some people
<0> you do agree that the % matters, no?
<4> but very bad as a whole
<0> or is 1 black slave owner in america good enough to make that point?
<1> it makes it interesting when the families get together
<5> the south's ideas of "states rights" did not supercede the egregious human rights violation going on with slavery
<2> Sh0t: yeah great for owners, not so good for slaves
<2> sheesh
<8> sh0t, these weren't saints, they were normal people
<1> which i don't even bother with now
<4> bad for the slaves, but for general public usually
<4> bad for the owners in the long run
<1> it ends up degrading into past debates and bull****
<4> states' rights wasn't just a southern idea
<7> the view of africans as childlike simple dependent people is not supported by historical african empires, for example, the wealth of which was most commonly based on three things: slaves, woods, and precious metals, primarily gold
<7> too many leftoids see africans as childlike simple dependents
<8> slavery wasn't considered a bad thing, especially for people who were trying to provide the lowest-cost goods
<7> and they are soooooooo wrong and extremely racist
<2> "state's rights" was an excuse to continue owning slaves, whch they feared would be taken away
<4> slavery was a part of the states right fight, but not really as a moral issue and it was just one of many
<4> the basic idea was state soveirgnity
<6> from the "Things Are Back To Normal" Dept: NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Five people ranging in age from 16 to 19 were killed in a street shooting early Saturday, the most violent crime reported in this slowly repopulating city since Hurricane Katrina hit last August.
<4> not so much keeping slavery
<5> shot: no kidding but the South and continuing Southern apologists cloak themselves in the mantra of "states rights" and the revisionist misnomer "war of northern aggression"
<7> and too many leftoids think the entire discussion of slavery is best limited to its later phase, a few hundred years in north america
<2> it was a huge part of the economics, which was the major factor
<4> but the 3/5s compromise had a lot to do with it
<7> and consider it entirely legitimate to entirely ignore the historical global context
<4> the major factor was avoiding the hamiltonian/whig plan
<4> to use the south as a tax base and spend the omney in the north
<4> among other things
<2> nah the major factor was ecomomic viability
<0> the fact is: slavery was abolished nearly everywhere but America by the time of the civil war
<0> how about that for historical context?
<4> Kalomine: states rights was legit, and i thinkt he civil war was indeed a war of northn aggression
<7> slave owners in the american south were latecomers on the slavery scene
<1> US to this day the "St Lawrence" reservation mohawks are still not considered a "tribe"
<1> hehehe
<4> it wsan't just a southern idea
<2> RustyFord why not
<1> its interesting
<0> indeed not
<0> but who cares? slavery is WRONG
<8> the US had so many slaves because it was so prosperous, economically, and thus needed a huge supply of cheap labor. It's nothing any other people in the world would've done if they had been so properous
<1> because they broke off from the Akwesasne's to support the Americans during their revolution
<4> slavery is the way to have the cheapest goods
<4> isn't rather
<4> isn't
<0> so yes. i'm glad abe lincoln ****ed up those slave owners
<1> that whole "George Washinton" thing
<4> licnoln favored a constitutional amendment to make slavery perm
<4> lincoln didn't like slavery because he didnt like blacks
<4> he wanted to keep slavery, and thus blacks out
<4> as in his home state
<5> shot: but it is a cloudy and awful thing that humans devise when they use ideas and politics over practical human morality
<2> Sh0t but apparently the southern states refused to implement a better way
<1> I don't recall the indian word for george washington but it breaks down that it calls him "Burner of Villages"
<2> or any alternate way
<4> he had some moral compunction against it but he wsa more politician than moralist
<8> Kalo, welcome to the real world
<5> airbuster: no kidding
<2> Sh0t they didn't believe Lincoln
<4> they believed him
<2> hence the war
<4> he promised to invade
<2> no, not at all
<4> they believed him
<1> and the St Lawrence "tribe" helped Washington burn them down hehhe
<4> that's why they struck first
<4> they totally believed him
<10> 11:49:31 17/06/2006 LOG
<4> he promised to invade to get his tariff money
<2> no, he didn't. Lincoln said he would allow slavery if that would keep the Union together
<4> and that's what he did
<5> Shot: if you read his lettes...by the end of the war he was against slavery morally...he reveals his thoughts about how he didn't used to be against slavery but was by the end of the war
<1> US, i have that speech, i have a collection of Lincolns speeches and letters
<2> the South did not believe that
<4> he did indeed promise to invade if he didn't get his tariff
<1> all in one book=)
<4> lincoln also did say slavery wsa fine to keep the union together
<2> tarriff is not abolition
<1> written in 1908
<4> why did he want to keep teh union together? to keep the tariff money
<4> that's why he wanted the union whole
<1> VERY interesting guy
<4> no southern tariff money, no hamiltonian program
<1> he was a MAJOR politician
<2> regardless, tarriff is not abolition
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
floyy
#stocks
#delphi
#computers
#beginner
#politics
#beginner
#stocks
#firebird
#gentoo
|
|