Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Obama not mentioning Islamic Terrorism and more stringently denouncing violence against law enforcement as retaliation. Trump not condemning the "white nationalist" movement as racist and not referring to the attack as domestic terrorism. All wrong in my book. And yet not only did he not condemn BLM after police officers were murdered by them but he invited the motherfuckers to the White House and Hillary dragged them up on stage with her. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 here's what I don't get. All this outrage over Trump not saying the white nationalists are bad.... but making a general statement. would they want him to talk about the black guy with a homemade hand flamethrower? I saw that clearly on Fox News. sure..."antifa not hateful"... "black lives only matter" not racist. All more fake posturing for political power leverage to stop the president that isn't the one they wanted. bunch of asswholes - both the white nationalist AND blm are very bad. and antifa is worse. I agree with what Trump said the first time. same - I had no problem with it - the POTUS didnt either and said so again today... and the media is doubling down on its contrived outrage. ( I watched NBC tonight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 and to hell with all the resignations in the name of PC dont let the door hit you on the way out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 If you listen to what the white supremacists are saying it's only a few steps further right than what some posters on here say now.... It should be simple. Your values should day when any group does some action, my response is X to that action. But for many on here, it seems like everything is first and foremost viewed through the lens of their Political affiliation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 No that's cool. We can pretend your response made sense. It made perfect sense. You're rambling on about traitors when no Confederates were ever tried as traitors and were, in fact, welcomed back into the union immediately following hostilities and ignoring that the states themselves seceded from the nation. Why don't we take away their state identities since we're so worried about nearly 200 year old treachery? Why not strip Virginia of statehood and force it to be east west Virginia? Or South Maryland? Why are we celebrating perfidy by allowing them to fly their state flag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 I'm offended by the word 'south'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sober Poet Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Ok, so Baltimore took down all their confederate statues last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Ok, so Baltimore took down all their confederate statues last night. Maryland was a union state so it's somewhat baffling why they ever had Confederate statues outside of somewhere like Sharpsburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 They're not, by the way, taking them down because it's "the right thing to do" because it's not. They're taking then down so mobs of idiots and assholes don't show up and wreck the town, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Ok, so Baltimore took down all their confederate statues last night. I would imagine the crime rate will plummet within the next few days. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Well I'm not getting rid of my Confederate money (because Trump just upped the value). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 It made perfect sense. You're rambling on about traitors when no Confederates were ever tried as traitors and were, in fact, welcomed back into the union immediately following hostilities and ignoring that the states themselves seceded from the nation. Why don't we take away their state identities since we're so worried about nearly 200 year old treachery? Why not strip Virginia of statehood and force it to be east west Virginia? Or South Maryland? Why are we celebrating perfidy by allowing them to fly their state flag? The states were part of the US before they seceded. I don't see why we'd celebrate someone that led troops in opposition to the United States of America. That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 The states were part of the US before they seceded. I don't see why we'd celebrate someone that led troops in opposition to the United States of America. That's my point. Yes how dare anyone fight for their freedom! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Yes how dare anyone fight for their freedom! WSS I hope you're just being argumentative now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 I hope you're just being argumentative now...Only partially. Sure slavery had a role but selling the cotton directly to the Europeans was a much bigger deal. Cotton was the oil of the 19th century.So tell me again what George Washington et al needed to be freed from? Taxes? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Yes how dare anyone fight for their freedom! WSS Actually that is a pretty good question to raise Steve. I have sometimes wondered what I would have done had I been in the same position of my great, great uncle. He was born and raised on one of the largest plantations in Texas and according to the number of slaves they own they qualified, in a history book about it, as one of the mega-owners in the south. I would like to think I would have been able to divorce myself from that background to make a true moral decision much as I did in rejecting anything racist (including racist language) while being raised in a very racist white community in Beaumont, Texas. In all honesty I have no idea whether I would have taken up arms to defend the way of life my uncle had. He paid for it with a severe wounding of both legs at Shiloh and ironically was saved by Union surgeons in the first ever forward battlefield surgical hospital. (#11 on the battlefield map) https://www.nps.gov/shil/planyourvisit/upload/SHILmap1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Well even though that would have been approximately 175 years ago I think, as usual, the victors dictate the terms of the history. If any of you people believe that the United States of America went to war with the secessionists in the south to free the slaves I would have to laugh and bet that story was concocted to make the slaughter of two-thirds of a million Americans seem more palatable. But let's pretend we do believe that Cock and Bull story. Do you also believe that our founding fathers butchered thousands of their English countrymen, remember we were British subjects, because of taxation without representation? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sober Poet Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Actually that is a pretty good question to raise Steve. I have sometimes wondered what I would have done had I been in the same position of my great, great uncle. He was born and raised on one of the largest plantations in Texas and according to the number of slaves they own they qualified, in a history book about it, as one of the mega-owners in the south. I would like to think I would have been able to divorce myself from that background to make a true moral decision much as I did in rejecting anything racist (including racist language) while being raised in a very racist white community in Beaumont, Texas. In all honesty I have no idea whether I would have taken up arms to defend the way of life my uncle had. He paid for it with a severe wounding of both legs at Shiloh and ironically was saved by Union surgeons in the first ever forward battlefield surgical hospital. (#11 on the battlefield map) https://www.nps.gov/shil/planyourvisit/upload/SHILmap1.pdf Cool story Ag. Shiloh was a knock-down drag out battle, really the first of its kind during the war. The folks fighting in the western theater were going at it, while much of the fighting back east, while still furious, maintained a lot of the military pomp and circumstance that just did not fit out west (think street fight versus boxing match). It is no surprise that the major generals who won the war, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan (all Ohio boys too), all came from the western theater. There is a Museum of Civil War Medicine in Frederick, Maryland, that I think you would find interesting. Basically, for the South to give up slavery, they would have had to not only give up the millions and millions of dollars that they were making at the time, but also forfeit the millions and millions of future dollars that they would have made from it. So, it was a double whammy. Triple in fact. If you remove the slavery infrastructure there really was not any basis or foundation for an economic infrastructure afterwards. It is not a wonder that people could not see past a certain point, there was no rosy future available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Keep in mind that the South could have remained in the union and kept their slaves as long as the north got their cut of the cotton money. Slavery would have died out soon enough anyway. Abe Lincoln primarily freed the slaves to fuck with the rebels. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Keep in mind that the South could have remained in the union and kept their slaves as long as the north got their cut of the cotton money. Slavery would have died out soon enough anyway. Abe Lincoln primarily freed the slaves to fuck with the rebels. WSS History can be harsh but this is actually what Lincoln said: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sober Poet Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Keep in mind that the South could have remained in the union and kept their slaves as long as the north got their cut of the cotton money. Slavery would have died out soon enough anyway. Abe Lincoln primarily freed the slaves to fuck with the rebels. WSS Keep in mind that westward expansion and the future of free or slave states in new territories was a key factor that had its origins in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (I believe) repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed future territories to vote to determine their free or slave status. The resulting violence in "Bleeding Kansas" was a direct precursor of the Civil War in my view. Given those decades of history, I do not believe that slavery would have died out "soon enough." The war kicked off with the slave and free states in somewhat of a "balance" in the houses of government. The south knew that any legislative imbalance that was not in their favor meant the end of slavery, so they tried to protect it. Like I said above, there was no foreseeable economic future without slavery, and to prove it, the South gave up about 300,000 lives to try to secure that future. I do not believe that they could have motivated their populace and troops without that vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Frankly I don't think you are taking a realistic view of world history. Slavery was more and more unacceptable and would continue that way in the United States as it had in Europe. Plus it was increasingly dangerous and very expensive. And automation was certainly making it obsolete little by little. But you can read Lincoln's own words about his views on saving the union and freeing the slaves. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Not only that but as cotton was replaced by oil as the most valuable commodity in the United States less and less human effort was needed to reap it. That was the turn of the century. All this shit is being kept alive for one reason and that's so the Democrats can get one of their biggest voting blocs back on the reservation. And while the left screams about Russia it's good to remember they are still happy to do business with countries that still involve themselves in slavery. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sober Poet Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Frankly I don't think you are taking a realistic view of world history. Slavery was more and more unacceptable and would continue that way in the United States as it had in Europe. Plus it was increasingly dangerous and very expensive. And automation was certainly making it obsolete little by little. But you can read Lincoln's own words about his views on saving the union and freeing the slaves. WSS Actually, my understanding is based in fact. I understand the pressure to drop slavery that existed at the time from Europe and elsewhere. I also understand that it was necessary to pry it from the cold, dead hands of the people that held on to it. Like I said, the war erupted because the balance of power regarding slavery was due to be potentially upset by the direct threat of adding more slave or free states. So, I am referring to the synchronic forces in play, while you seem to prefer to emphasize the diachronic forces. It's a classic tit for tat in historical discussions, or so I learned in my doctoral history courses at OSU. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Actually, my understanding is based in fact. I understand the pressure to drop slavery that existed at the time from Europe and elsewhere. I also understand that it was necessary to pry it from the cold, dead hands of the people that held on to it. Like I said, the war erupted because the balance of power regarding slavery was due to be potentially upset by the direct threat of adding more slave or free states. So, I am referring to the synchronic forces in play, while you seem to prefer to emphasize the diachronic forces. It's a classic tit for tat in historical discussions, or so I learned in my doctoral history courses at OSU. :-) Your assessment is not based on fact because those circumstances never came to pass. Your assessment is based on speculation.And the speculation isn't even based on fact. As I said before and you choose to ignore oil would soon replace cotton as the commodity of the day. The need for human labor would drop drastically. So why bear the expense and danger of keeping slaves? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2013/03/07/how-long-would-slavery-have-lasted-in-the-south-if-not-for-lincoln/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Such moral, good people on here............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Just what I expected from a narcissist. He tries to disband his two private business councils that had already decided to disband because of his Tuesday press conference. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/business/trumps-council-ceos.html?mcubz=0 https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-business-advisory-council-to-disband-1502904005 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/08/16/after-wave-of-ceo-departures-trump-ends-business-and-manufacturing-councils/?utm_term=.d3541101d4b9 Just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted August 16, 2017 Report Share Posted August 16, 2017 Fake news. No it is not fake news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.