Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Methais]

Does not really suck for me personally.

He was someone willing to kill other Americans for the right to keep other human beings as slaves. How would you explain it to African American children or any child for that matter?

So in other words you don't know shit. Like how Lincoln hit him up to lead the Union, and that the only reason he turned it down was because he refused to fight against his home state of Virginia. He also thought Virginia seceding in the first place was a terrible idea.

And how he had said, “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.”

I have no expectation that you'll do any research to help with your own ignorance, and will instead just keep being an uneducated mouth breather by choice.

Do you know anything at all about the Civil War besides omgslavery?

[Back]

So in other words you don't know shit. Like how Lincoln hit him up to lead the Union, and that the only reason he turned it down was because he refused to fight against his home state of Virginia. He also thought Virginia seceding in the first place was a terrible idea.

And how he had said, “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.”

I have no expectation that you'll do any research to help with your own ignorance, and will instead just keep being an uneducated mouth breather by choice.

Do you know anything at all about the Civil War besides omgslavery?

People like you want to white wash the Confederacy into something it wasn't not the people who want to remove monuments to a failed movement willing to kill human beings to establish and maintain dominance over other human beings.

[Neveragain]

People like you want to white wash the Confederacy into something it wasn't not the people who want to remove monuments to a failed movement willing to kill human beings to establish and maintain dominance over other human beings.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bobp5OHVsWY

[Latrinsorm]

Indeed. And yet "the union" in the 1950's voted to honor confederate soldiers by giving them the same benefits as Union soldiers, including the right to be buried in national cemeteries. How does it feel to know that people from the 1950's were more tolerant than yourself? You are the exact reason the term "regressive" was coined.Not an apt analogy. Try again.

[Neveragain]

People like you want to white wash the Confederacy into something it wasn't not the people who want to remove monuments to a failed movement willing to kill human beings to establish and maintain dominance over other human beings.

I think we should start with the monuments in Rome next, we know for sure they owned slaves and were extremely imperialistic. The relics in Egypt need to go as well!

Fucking cancer.

[Back]

I think we should start with the monuments in Rome next, we know for sure they owned slaves and were extremely imperialistic. The relics in Egypt need to go as well!

Fucking cancer.

http://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/you-mad-bro-.jpg

[drauz]

I think they should be removed. Germany didn't keep all the Nazi symbols after WWII.

Should Auschwitz be closed for tours? There is a statue of George Salmon at Trinity College. He proclaimed "Women will enter this college over my dead body". Female students now take pictures after graduating next to it.

I think sometimes memorials and statues can be an homage to the person but they can also be reminders of what we were and how far we have come. George Washington owned slaves, should we remove his memorial? Or is that not the part of his life being celebrated? Same with Thomas Jefferson. A lot of white men from that era did. Should their be no monuments from that time? Or do you just have a problem with it in the south?

[Godsanvil]

We going to take down the Lincoln memorial? OR for a matter of fact any leader during that time from the north? They basically slaughtered a whole nations of people. Lincoln held the single largest public hanging of Native Americans ever. You clowns have no moral high ground. Only in your heads.

[Neveragain]

http://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/you-mad-bro-.jpg

No, I want to read more of your stupid shit.

I'm particularly entertained with the "a failed movement" part of your comment. The "movement" (those crazy Christian abolitionists) was the winning side of the war you moron. But do please tell us more about how tearing down historic monuments will help us learn from our history.

[Neveragain]

Can you show us where on the statue Robert E. Lee touched you?

8621

[Back]

Do you know anything at all about the Civil War besides omgslavery?

Slavery is what the civil war was all about. That is the defining issue.

No, I would not take down the pyramids, the Roman Colosseum, Auschwitz, or the Lincoln Memorial. To me these are not equal comparisons not to mention all but one of them are in countries other than my own.

[Godsanvil]

Slavery is what the civil war was all about. That is the defining issue.

No, I would not take down the pyramids, the Roman Colosseum, Auschwitz, or the Lincoln Memorial. To me these are not equal comparisons not to mention all but one of them are in countries other than my own.

Well how convenient for you You get to pick and choose what atrocity you think is bad enough to remove statues. Native American tribes all kept traded slaves. You going to take down all of their monuments? You going to go blow up Crazy Horse mountain? You moral outrage is targeted at one group. Self serving an agenda to make a group you don't like personally look bad. Having Slaves is worse the the systematic slaughter of Nations of Natives? Your a joke if that's what you think. My point is no group is with out atrocities. Stop acting like you are part of some moral elite.

[Godsanvil]

I won't comment on the broader discussion (there are baffling twists of logic all around) but no... not all Native American tribes kept slaves.

No just the ones that won. Also I mean each other, not African slaves. I don't know if they had those or not. They also bought and sold woman like cattle. Like I said no group is without sin. You can't tear down one and ignore the atrocities of another just because it fit the reality you wanna push.

[Methais]

Slavery is what the civil war was all about. That is the defining issue.

No, I would not take down the pyramids, the Roman Colosseum, Auschwitz, or the Lincoln Memorial. To me these are not equal comparisons not to mention all but one of them are in countries other than my own.

So in other words, you know next to nothing about the Civil War. Not surprising, considering that you typically know next to nothing in regards to anything.


Should Auschwitz be closed for tours? There is a statue of George Salmon at Trinity College. He proclaimed "Women will enter this college over my dead body". Female students now take pictures after graduating next to it.

I think sometimes memorials and statues can be an homage to the person but they can also be reminders of what we were and how far we have come. George Washington owned slaves, should we remove his memorial? Or is that not the part of his life being celebrated? Same with Thomas Jefferson. A lot of white men from that era did. Should their be no monuments from that time? Or do you just have a problem with it in the south?

He only has a problem with it when his TV and/or social media/bloggers tell him to.

Back has no capability to think for himself, which has been well documented over the years. He takes his orders on how to think from people who are just as retarded, but have their retardedness more organized. For example, time4fun would be Back's supervisor in a SJW "work" environment.

[Vorpos]

Slavery is what the civil war was all about. That is the defining issue.

No, I would not take down the pyramids, the Roman Colosseum, Auschwitz, or the Lincoln Memorial. To me these are not equal comparisons not to mention all but one of them are in countries other than my own.

How do you like being Donald Trump's slave?

[Back]

So in other words, you know next to nothing about the Civil War. Not surprising, considering that you typically know next to nothing in regards to anything.



He only has a problem with it when his TV and/or social media/bloggers tell him to.

Back has no capability to think for himself, which has been well documented over the years. He takes his orders on how to think from people who are just as retarded, but have their retardedness more organized. For example, time4fun would be Back's supervisor in a SJW "work" environment.

I'm sorry you feel that way. The civil war was absolutely about slavery. I don't think anyone would deny that. Unless you are attempting to?

[Parkbandit]

No just the ones that won. Also I mean each other, not African slaves. I don't know if they had those or not. They also bought and sold woman like cattle. Like I said no group is without sin. You can't tear down one and ignore the atrocities of another just because it fit the reality you wanna push.

Oh shit.. alert level 5. Don't bring up that there were slaves that weren't just black.. Warriorbird will call you a racist.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry you feel that way. The civil war was absolutely about slavery. I don't think anyone would deny that. Unless you are attempting to?

No, he said you had no idea who Robert E Lee was.. except "ZOMGSLAVERY!" because you are a one trick pony.

[hello]

Lee was a gentleman and the epitome of a soldier; closest equivalent to a knight during modern times. He once expelled a group of white students for harassing a black man on the street because it was 'uncivlized' and 'indecent' of an American.

[Back]

No, he said you had no idea who Robert E Lee was.. except "ZOMGSLAVERY!" because you are a one trick pony.

He asked me that two pages ago. I answered without Google'ing. He was a civil war general of the Confederacy who surrendered. I'm not wrong. I'm all kinds of right. Anything else you want to add to that is fine. Let's hear it.

After that he has the gall to accuse me of not knowing anything about the civil war except zomgslavery, just like you are now about Lee, and thats absolutely exactly indisputably what it was all about. You disagree? Let's hear about it.

[Neveragain]

He asked me that two pages ago. I answered without Google'ing. He was a civil war general of the Confederacy who surrendered. I'm not wrong. I'm all kinds of right. Anything else you want to add to that is fine. Let's hear it.

After that he has the gall to accuse me of not knowing anything about the civil war except zomgslavery, just like you are now about Lee, and thats absolutely exactly indisputably what it was all about. You disagree? Let's hear about it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yii1u2Lz-II

[Gelston]

If Lee had accepted Generalship of the Union Army, the Civil War would have ended in a couple months, we'd see him as one of the greatest American heroes ever, there'd be way more statues of him, there'd be no Arlington Cemetery, and no one would have ever heard of Grant. Hell, slavery in the US probably wouldn't have been ended by the Civil War either. Slavery would have been ended eventually, either way. It was becoming less profitable with machinery and such replacing the large amount of human labor you used to need.

We may also have gone to war with France very soon after, for violating the Monroe Doctrine, which would have been interesting because we only fought against the French twice in history in very minor and often forgotten events, the Quasi-War and Vichy French forces in WW2. While we were busy with the Civil War, the French knew we couldn't do shit so they invaded Mexico. While it would have been very soon after the hypothetical end of the Civil War, which would have been more billed as an armed insurrection in the South instead, nothing unites a nation like a good ole war against a foreign nation. In actual history it was the Spanish American that did this, even had a few Confederate Generals join the US Army as US Generals in it.

I love what-ifs.

[Candor]

I'm sorry you feel that way. The civil war was absolutely about slavery. I don't think anyone would deny that. Unless you are attempting to?

Certainly slavery was the primary reason, but it wasn't the only reason. In particular, taxes levied by the North had been an issue for years and fueled the perception that the South was being controlled by the North.

[Neveragain]

Destruction of Historical artifacts

Renewed calls for segregation.

Restrictions to free speech.

Singling out a race of people as being the causation of the worlds woes.

Calls for violence against those they perceive to be "racist"

...Sadly this is not the Nazi party from 80+ years ago, it's today's Democrat party.

[Parkbandit]

He asked me that two pages ago. I answered without Google'ing. He was a civil war general of the Confederacy who surrendered. I'm not wrong. I'm all kinds of right. Anything else you want to add to that is fine. Let's hear it.

Actually, this is what you posted:


He was someone willing to kill other Americans for the right to keep other human beings as slaves.


After that he has the gall to accuse me of not knowing anything about the civil war except zomgslavery, just like you are now about Lee, and thats absolutely exactly indisputably what it was all about. You disagree? Let's hear about it.

So far, "ZOMGSLAVERY" is all you've come up with.

Seems like his gall was smarter than you.

[Neveragain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAHk13F1bkk&list=PLJ49ZOVOjJ8gNZVPU5d5mjkXWOasvwd4K

[~Rocktar~]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAHk13F1bkk&list=PLJ49ZOVOjJ8gNZVPU5d5mjkXWOasvwd4K

I watched his speech at Arlington today, it was the best one given I think and truly shows Mattis is a warrior poet, a scholar and a fine gentleman.

[ClydeR]

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/covfefe_zpsgxtjy9cm.png
https://twitter.com/drmattdambrosio/status/869805924172484608 (https://twitter.com/drmattdambrosio/status/869805924172484608)

[Methais]

He asked me that two pages ago. I answered without Google'ing. He was a civil war general of the Confederacy who surrendered. I'm not wrong. I'm all kinds of right. Anything else you want to add to that is fine. Let's hear it.

After that he has the gall to accuse me of not knowing anything about the civil war except zomgslavery, just like you are now about Lee, and thats absolutely exactly indisputably what it was all about. You disagree? Let's hear about it.

Not only are you wrong like always, but you could have you know, used this as an opportunity to learn something that you're clearly ignorant as fuck about. Except it would assfuck your little narrative, which is always more important to you than facts.

Do you eat mustard on biscuits?

[Back]

Not only are you wrong like always, but you could have you know, used this as an opportunity to learn something that you're clearly ignorant as fuck about. Except it would assfuck your little narrative, which is always more important to you than facts.

Do you eat mustard on biscuits?

Sorry you don't like my answer. Please explain how the Civil War was not about slavery and how Robert E. Lee was not a person who killed other human beings so the human beings he fought for could keep human beings as slaves?

[Parkbandit]

Sorry you don't like my answer. Please explain how the Civil War was not about slavery and how Robert E. Lee was not a person who killed other human beings so the human beings he fought for could keep human beings as slaves?

There hasn't been a single solitary individual here that ever said the Civil War was not about slavery.

https://media.giphy.com/media/GCkzl4YYu9A9G/giphy.gif

[Gelston]

There hasn't been a single solitary individual here that ever said the Civil War was not about slavery.

https://media.giphy.com/media/GCkzl4YYu9A9G/giphy.gif

It wasn't, however, about trying to end slavery. Infact, Maryland and a few other Northern states had slavery after the war was over. Lincoln even said if he could prevent the war and keep slavery, he would.

[Latrinsorm]

It wasn't, however, about trying to end slavery. Infact, Maryland and a few other Northern states had slavery after the war was over. Lincoln even said if he could prevent the war and keep slavery, he would.Maryland ended slavery in 1864. Missouri in January 1865, West Virginia in February. Delaware and Kentucky were the only holdouts, and that lasted all of seven months.

It's a joke to say that the Civil War wasn't just as much about abolitionism as it was about slavery.

[tyrant-201]

Maryland ended slavery in 1864. Missouri in January 1865, West Virginia in February. Delaware and Kentucky were the only holdouts, and that lasted all of seven months.

It's a joke to say that the Civil War wasn't just as much about abolitionism as it was about slavery.

Take a few history courses on it. The contemporaries of the time didn't consider the war to be about slavery, outside of abolitionists. The premise was more based on whether a state has the right to secede. If you believe most northerners gave two shits about slavery at the time you're mistaken

[Tgo01]

The premise was more based on whether a state has the right to secede. If you believe most northerners gave two shits about slavery at the time you're mistaken

It's kind of funny how people nowadays viewed the North as "the good guys" that wanted to "end slavery."

Shit, even after the civil war "free blacks" in the north were still subjected to racism, hiring discrimination, education discrimination, voter discrimination, violence, and all of the other wonderful things people attribute to the south. The idea that the north were some sort of advanced people hundreds of years ahead of the south is the stuff modern people made up to feel good about the history of our country.

[Gelston]

Maryland ended slavery in 1864. Missouri in January 1865, West Virginia in February. Delaware and Kentucky were the only holdouts, and that lasted all of seven months.

It's a joke to say that the Civil War wasn't just as much about abolitionism as it was about slavery.

Well, Maryland was after the Emancipation Proclamation anyways. But yeah, those other "hold outs" were sure fighting against slavery huh? It wasn't about ending slavery, it was about preserving the Union from the northern perspective. The Emancipation Proclamation was passed to try and keep other nations out of the war.

[Latrinsorm]

Take a few history courses on it. The contemporaries of the time didn't consider the war to be about slavery, outside of abolitionists. The premise was more based on whether a state has the right to secede. If you believe most northerners gave two shits about slavery at the time you're mistakenA party founded on "free labor, free land, free men" won the Presidency and controlled both houses in the 1860 elections before retaining that control in both war elections. For people that didn't care about slavery, the North voted against it pretty resoundingly. But I'm open to dissenting evidence, should be pretty easy for you to scare up some anti-secessionist literature. I'll even go first: John Brown was first and foremost anti-slavery. Okay, your turn.
It's kind of funny how people nowadays viewed the North as "the good guys" that wanted to "end slavery." Shit, even after the civil war "free blacks" in the north were still subjected to racism, hiring discrimination, education discrimination, voter discrimination, violence, and all of the other wonderful things people attribute to the south. The idea that the north were some sort of advanced people hundreds of years ahead of the south is the stuff modern people made up to feel good about the history of our country.You've set up quite a few straw men in your day, but this has to take the cake.
Well, Maryland was after the Emancipation Proclamation anyways. But yeah, those other "hold outs" were sure fighting against slavery huh? It wasn't about ending slavery, it was about preserving the Union from the northern perspective. The Emancipation Proclamation was passed to try and keep other nations out of the war.If you want to take two states out of twenty three as evidence of the whole, that's your prerogative. I'm gonna stick with thinking that when over 90% of a polity has banned slavery, that polity is probably against slavery.

[Tgo01]

You've set up quite a few straw men in your day, but this has to take the cake.

I didn't attribute this to you or anyone in particular, it was just an observation I've noticed about people in general.

[tyrant-201]

A party founded on "free labor, free land, free men" won the Presidency and controlled both houses in the 1860 elections before retaining that control in both war elections.

The Declaration of Independence declared all men equal. We know what Jefferson meant was all white land-owning men were created equal. Politicians and parties say a lot of shit they don't particularly mean.


For people that didn't care about slavery, the North voted against it pretty resoundingly. But I'm open to dissenting evidence, should be pretty easy for you to scare up some anti-secessionist literature. I'll even go first: John Brown was first and foremost anti-slavery.

It took 3 ballots at the Republican convention to elect Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't even the front-runner. Lincoln was selected because he was seen as most moderate on the divisive issue of slavery - he stated he would allow slavery to continue to exist, but not extend into new territories. The South didn't find this acceptable, or believe that Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery.

Abolition came about as a tool of war.

John Brown wasn't a politician, and was considered a radical/terrorist by many people in his day.

[Neveragain]

Take a few history courses on it. The contemporaries of the time didn't consider the war to be about slavery, outside of abolitionists. The premise was more based on whether a state has the right to secede. If you believe most northerners gave two shits about slavery at the time you're mistaken

When talking about the Civil War an honest historian has to look at slavery through the lens of the era and not through todays magnifying glass. One can still find recorded voice interviews of soldiers that served during the Civil War, I'll post one in this response of a Confederate General. As you said, outside of the Abolitionists, to the common joe and jane it had always been a part of every day life through human history. Going by what some of what this General says it was more common that slaves were treated as more of the family unit...sort of...and more uncommon to treat them poorly.

Either way this is very interesting to listen to if one is into the history thing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE

[drauz]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/87/db/e1/87dbe1d48875882821641c7cb5906630.png

[time4fun]

It's kind of funny how people nowadays viewed the North as "the good guys" that wanted to "end slavery."

Shit, even after the civil war "free blacks" in the north were still subjected to racism, hiring discrimination, education discrimination, voter discrimination, violence, and all of the other wonderful things people attribute to the south. The idea that the north were some sort of advanced people hundreds of years ahead of the south is the stuff modern people made up to feel good about the history of our country.

Wait.. Seriously?

There are no words.

[Tgo01]

Wait.. Seriously?

There are no words.

Use your words, Ms Used To Teach History. What am I wrong about?

[Tgo01]

Use your words, Ms Used To Teach History. What am I wrong about?

Don't keep me waiting.

[Back]

Abolition came about as a tool of war.

This is absolutely incorrect. It came about through religion. It came about because good people did realize and know that keeping other human beings as slaves was wrong.

[Back]

When talking about the Civil War an honest historian has to look at slavery through the lens of the era and not through todays magnifying glass.

Bullshit. People knew back then it was wrong.

[Back]

It's kind of funny how people nowadays viewed the North as "the good guys" that wanted to "end slavery."

Shit, even after the civil war "free blacks" in the north were still subjected to racism, hiring discrimination, education discrimination, voter discrimination, violence, and all of the other wonderful things people attribute to the south. The idea that the north were some sort of advanced people hundreds of years ahead of the south is the stuff modern people made up to feel good about the history of our country.

That is exactly why the North fought the South. No, the North wasn't paradise for black folks at the time. But they weren't held against their will, beaten, raped, made to work for free, stripped from their families, lynched for trying to run, or any other hellish condition they faced in the south.

[Neveragain]

Bullshit. People knew back then it was wrong.

This is why I made the comment. At the time it was comparable to the pro-life movement of today, they knew it was wrong but did it anyway.

[Neveragain]

That is exactly why the North fought the South. No, the North wasn't paradise for black folks at the time. But they weren't held against their will, beaten, raped, made to work for free, stripped from their families, lynched for trying to run, or any other hellish condition they faced in the south.

You have a painted version of reality. It's already been stated that there were northern states that allowed for slavery.

[Back]

You have a painted version of reality. It's already been stated that there were northern states that allowed for slavery.

That may be the case but in general the North was anti-slavery and defended themselves from the pro-slavery secessionist south.

[Neveragain]

That may be the case but in general the North was anti-slavery and defended themselves from the pro-slavery secessionist south.

The North was about as anti-slavery as the dumbest Mick they could find to fight their war, it sold newspapers though.

[Back]

The North was about as anti-slavery as the dumbest Mick they could find to fight their war, it sold newspapers though.

That is factually incorrect. Why do you think that?

[Neveragain]

That is factually incorrect. Why do you think that?

Because you can't enact the conscription act and call yourself anti-slavery at the same time.

[tyrant-201]

The New York riots say so.

[Back]

Because you can't enact the conscription act and call yourself anti-slavery at the same time.

Thats an interesting and obscure opinion.

[Neveragain]

Thats an interesting and obscure opinion.

It can't be that "obscure" of an opinion when, as Tyrant mentioned, the "opinion" of the New Yorker at the time was to hang blacks from street lamps in revolt over the conscription act.

You said these things didn't happen in the North.

[Methais]

lol backlash

[tyrant-201]

This is absolutely incorrect. It came about through religion. It came about because good people did realize and know that keeping other human beings as slaves was wrong.

Are you talking about the movement? The executive order? Or the constitutional amendment? Two out of three of those came about as punishment/maneuvering against the South. It was a way to hamstring the South. It was a good thing to do, morally and strategically, but let's not act like the war was fought for the purpose of freeing slaves. Your average northerner did not feel strongly about abolition

[Back]

It can't be that "obscure" of an opinion when, as Tyrant mentioned, the "opinion" of the New Yorker at the time was to hang blacks from street lamps in revolt over the conscription act.

You said these things didn't happen in the North.

Nowhere did I say the North was heaven for blacks at that time. But it sure was a hell of a lot better than the south for many reasons.

You aren't making any sense with your statements that jump from topic to topic. You seem to refuse to believe that the reason the North went to war with the South was over slavery.

[Gelston]

Nowhere did I say the North was heaven for blacks at that time. But it sure was a hell of a lot better than the south for many reasons.

You aren't making any sense with your statements that jump from topic to topic. You seem to refuse to believe that the reason the North went to war with the South was over slavery.

The North went to war with the South to preserve the union. The South seceded from the North to preserve slavery. The average northerner gave 0 fucks about slavery.

Although to say that slavery was the sole reason for secession is a bit wrong. Was it at the root? Sure. The South felt it was being marginalized in the Senate and the House by having more free states than slave states, thereby decreasing the Southern elite's voice in the Governance of the nation.

[Back]

Are you talking about the movement? The executive order? Or the constitutional amendment? Two out of three of those came about as punishment/maneuvering against the South. It was a way to hamstring the South. It was a good thing to do, morally and strategically, but let's not act like the war was fought for the purpose of freeing slaves. Your average northerner did not feel strongly about abolition

Why do you believe that? Why do you refuse to believe it could have been because people thought slavery was immoral?

[tyrant-201]

Why do you believe that? Why do you refuse to believe it could have been because people thought slavery was immoral?

Because I know the history of this subject pretty well.

[Gelston]

Why do you believe that? Why do you refuse to believe it could have been because people thought slavery was immoral?

Why do you refuse to accept historical facts that are back by many quotations from people involved?

[Back]

The North went to war with the South to preserve the union. The South seceded from the North to preserve slavery. The average northerner gave 0 fucks about slavery.

Although to say that slavery was the sole reason for secession is a bit wrong. Was it at the root? Sure. The South felt it was being marginalized in the Senate and the House by having more free states than slave states, thereby decreasing the Southern elite's voice in the Governance of the nation.

The anti-slavery movement was well documented so I think you are incorrect about people from the north giving zero fucks about slavery.

In fact it is absolutely absurd to even suggest that. It sounds like sore loser excuses from Southerners who lost.

[Gelston]

The anti-slavery movement was well documented so I think you are incorrect about people from the north giving zero fucks about slavery.

In fact it is absolutely absurd to even suggest that. It sounds like sore loser excuses from Southerners who lost.

I said the AVERAGE person, not EVERY person. The Irish people fresh off the boat who were forced into a blue uniform and sent south sure as fuck didn't care about black slaves in the south.

[tyrant-201]

The anti-slavery movement was well documented so I think you are incorrect about people from the north giving zero fucks about slavery.

In fact it is absolutely absurd to even suggest that. It sounds like sore loser excuses from Southerners who lost.

Not a Southerner, and my great great grandfather fought and died for the union. Try again

[Gelston]

My ancestors were on both sides.

[Methais]

Why do you believe that? Why do you refuse to believe it could have been because people thought slavery was immoral?

Why do you refuse to believe documented facts? No matter how hard you try, you can't just will what you want your version of history to be like into existence. Not to mention you have a track record of being wrong like 99.89% of the time on most topics anyway.


My ancestors were on both sides.

My ancestors were still in Italy. I'm sure I owe reparations anyway for reasons that Backlash will hopefully entertain us with an explanation for.

[Neveragain]

Why do you believe that? Why do you refuse to believe it could have been because people thought slavery was immoral?

So we agree that slavery was an evil tool of convenience and abolishing slavery was the right thing to do? (just making sure we agree on this before moving forward)

[Back]

Why do you refuse to believe documented facts? No matter how hard you try, you can't just will what you want your version of history to be like into existence. Not to mention you have a track record of being wrong like 99.89% of the time on most topics anyway.

Which documented fact are you talking about?


So we agree that slavery was an evil tool of convenience and abolishing slavery was the right thing to do? (just making sure we agree on this before moving forward)

Yes.

[Methais]

Which documented fact are you talking about?

Things like...


Are you talking about the movement? The executive order? Or the constitutional amendment? Two out of three of those came about as punishment/maneuvering against the South. It was a way to hamstring the South. It was a good thing to do, morally and strategically, but let's not act like the war was fought for the purpose of freeing slaves. Your average northerner did not feel strongly about abolition

To which your response was (paraphrased), "Why do you believe that because zomgslavery I don't actually know what I'm talking about but still zomgslavery anyway because reasons and what do any of you know the civil war was about slavery because feelings?!"

I'd put money on it that you haven't bothered using Google once since this topic came up that you pretend to know so much about without actually knowing anything because it's much easier to just act like Backlash, which involves not wasting energy on things like thought.

[Back]

Things like...



To which your response was (paraphrased), "Why do you believe that because zomgslavery I don't actually know what I'm talking about but still zomgslavery anyway because reasons and what do any of you know the civil war was about slavery because feelings?!"

I'd put money on it that you haven't bothered using Google once since this topic came up that you pretend to know so much about without actually knowing anything because it's much easier to just act like Backlash, which involves not wasting energy on things like thought.

Your Civil War "expert" (tyrant) claimed abolition came about as a tool of the war which is completely false. So I'm not sure he is the best "expert" about why the Civil War was fought.

You have yet to provide anything to the conversation other than trying to deride me, call me names, question my intelligence, or deny what the civil war was really about. Which is perfectly within your rights to do. Why? You disagree with me? You disagree with history? You don't think the Civil War was about slavery?

[Parkbandit]

Your Civil War "expert" (tyrant) claimed abolition came about as a tool of the war which is completely false. So I'm not sure he is the best "expert" about why the Civil War was fought.

You have yet to provide anything to the conversation other than trying to deride me, call me names, question my intelligence, or deny what the civil war was really about. Which is perfectly within your rights to do. Why? You disagree with me? You disagree with history? You don't think the Civil War was about slavery?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951138#post1951138

Also

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951138#post1951138

and

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951138#post1951138

[Parkbandit]

I think they should be removed. Germany didn't keep all the Nazi symbols after WWII.

Remember when you posted this under Smart things Conservatives say?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?107784-Smart-things-conservatives-say&p=1949687#post1949687

You should have said this.. you would have looked so much less retarded at this point.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17053/sad-full-long-list-hillary-excuses-election-loss-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal

The Complete (And Ever Expanding) List Of Hillary's Excuses For Election Loss

Here's a full list of all the people, organizations, government entities, and abstract concepts Hillary Clinton has blamed for her loss thus far:


1. Former FBI Director James Comey​


2. Sexism


3. The electoral system


4. WikiLeaks


5. "Minions"


6. Right-wing media


7. Mainstream media


8. Democratic National Committee


9. Democrat Party


10. 1,000 Russian agents


11. Vladimir Putin


12. Donald Trump


13. Republican-enabled voter suppression


14. Citizens United


15. Facebook


16. "Millions" of Twitter bots


17. Steve Bannon


18. Netflix


19. "Alt-right" media like Infowars


20. Bernie Sanders


21. Suburban women


22. Rural women


23. "Anti-American forces"


24. Bad polling


25. Low-information voters


26. "Content farms in Macedonia"


27. Fake news


28. Colluding Trump campaign officials


29. Stupid Americans who can't tell the difference between real and "fake news"


30. The "broad assumption I was going to win"


31. Goosefer


32. DCLeaks


33. Data from the Republican National Committee


34. Technology


35. The FBI

[Latrinsorm]

The Declaration of Independence declared all men equal. We know what Jefferson meant was all white land-owning men were created equal. Politicians and parties say a lot of shit they don't particularly mean.

It took 3 ballots at the Republican convention to elect Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't even the front-runner. Lincoln was selected because he was seen as most moderate on the divisive issue of slavery - he stated he would allow slavery to continue to exist, but not extend into new territories. The South didn't find this acceptable, or believe that Lincoln had no interest in abolishing slavery.

Abolition came about as a tool of war.

John Brown wasn't a politician, and was considered a radical/terrorist by many people in his day.Maybe I'm misreading you so straighten me out if so. You seem to be making the point that people cared more about not going to war than about ending slavery. That's certainly true! And the reason why is obvious: they didn't need to go to war to end slavery. The free market was already tipping the scales further and further in the favor of freedom lovers. Three states in a row had been admitted as free (that is, three states in a row had a majority of Northerners that wanted to live in an explicitly free state), and in a fourth anti-slavery sentiment was so strong that people literally went to war (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas) to fight for it. Immigration was surging with abolitionist leaning peoples such as the Germans. Couple that with the slave states that were about to flip to free, and the United States could have simply abolished slavery in Congress in short order.

That's the whole reason why the South seceded in the first place. They could see the writing on the wall, that they were becoming more and more outnumbered by people who explicitly did not want slavery. If the average Northerner really didn't care about slavery in the South, why secede at all? Where was the threat to provoke such an extreme response?

[tyrant-201]

Your Civil War "expert" (tyrant) claimed abolition came about as a tool of the war which is completely false. So I'm not sure he is the best "expert" about why the Civil War was fought.


I'm not an expert. I have read about the war and the causes of it pretty extensively. Think of it this way - when in life is anything so simple as a one word answer? If you took a history course and had to write an essay for your final paper about the causes of the civil war, do you honestly believe "slavery" would suffice as an answer? How about the Missouri compromise? The election of Lincoln? The economic ramifications on the North if the South was allowed to leave the Union? (Textile mills).

Your one word answer doesn't suffice.

[drauz]

This is absolutely incorrect. It came about through religion. It came about because good people did realize and know that keeping other human beings as slaves was wrong.

Religion was one of the reasons used that slavery should be legal... I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[tyrant-201]

Maybe I'm misreading you so straighten me out if so. You seem to be making the point that people cared more about not going to war than about ending slavery. That's certainly true! And the reason why is obvious: they didn't need to go to war to end slavery. The free market was already tipping the scales further and further in the favor of freedom lovers. Three states in a row had been admitted as free (that is, three states in a row had a majority of Northerners that wanted to live in an explicitly free state), and in a fourth anti-slavery sentiment was so strong that people literally went to war (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas) to fight for it. Immigration was surging with abolitionist leaning peoples such as the Germans. Couple that with the slave states that were about to flip to free, and the United States could have simply abolished slavery in Congress in short order.

That's the whole reason why the South seceded in the first place. They could see the writing on the wall, that they were becoming more and more outnumbered by people who explicitly did not want slavery. If the average Northerner really didn't care about slavery in the South, why secede at all? Where was the threat to provoke such an extreme response?

You're viewing this through a modern moral lens that I assure you most people did not have back then.

That said, I'm still at work. I'll answer more extensively later.

[Back]

Religion was one of the reasons used that slavery should be legal... I don't think you know what you're talking about.

You have the right to think what you want but I would say that the main reason slavery was considered legal was because of the laws at the time. Abolition and anti-slavery movements were well pre-Civil War and mainly sprang from religious groups.

[drauz]

That's the whole reason why the South seceded in the first place. They could see the writing on the wall, that they were becoming more and more outnumbered by people who explicitly did not want slavery. If the average Northerner really didn't care about slavery in the South, why secede at all? Where was the threat to provoke such an extreme response?

I would guess because the average northerner's voice wasn't what was going into legislation, similar to today.

[Back]

You're viewing this through a modern moral lens that I assure you most people did not have back then.

That said, I'm still at work. I'll answer more extensively later.

I would dispute that fully. Clearly there were anti-slavery sentiments to the extent a war was fought over it.

[drauz]

You have the right to think what you want but I would say that the main reason slavery was considered legal was because of the laws at the time. Abolition and anti-slavery movements were well pre-Civil War and mainly sprang from religious groups.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

You realize there are different religions that have different views on subjects, right?

[Tgo01]

Clearly there were anti-slavery sentiments to the extent a war was fought over it.

No. No it wasn't. The civil war wasn't "fought over" slavery, it was fought because the north wanted to keep the union together. You could argue state's rights and slavery were pretty much interchangeable on the south's part for why they wanted to secede, but the north's goal was to keep the union together.

Brainwashed people like yourself think the north started the war to "free" the slaves in the south. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[Back]

No. No it wasn't. The civil war wasn't "fought over" slavery, it was fought because the north wanted to keep the union together. You could argue state's rights and slavery were pretty much interchangeable on the south's part for why they wanted to secede, but the north's goal was to keep the union together.

Brainwashed people like yourself think the north started the war to "free" the slaves in the south. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I know the South started the war and slavery was the reason for it. No matter how you get to it the reason is always slavery.

Why are you and others so adamant about refusing to acknowledge this? Is it such a horrible thing that people decided slavery was wrong and did something about it?

[Latrinsorm]

I would guess because the average northerner's voice wasn't what was going into legislation, similar to today.Again though, we have a record in this period of free state after free state being admitted to the Union. These are states that have made an explicit and intentional choice against slavery. Slave state doesn't mean that everyone has to own a slave, it just means slavery is allowed. If it were actually the case that Northerners were for the most part indifferent, surely they would have acceded to this option, no? We're not talking about fat cat Senators hundreds of miles away, these were choices made by popular vote.

[Ardwen]

The south wanted any new states to either be slave states or have that right, so as not to be outnumbered and have slavery made illegal etc etc
'

[Latrinsorm]

No. No it wasn't. The civil war wasn't "fought over" slavery, it was fought because the north wanted to keep the union together. You could argue state's rights and slavery were pretty much interchangeable on the south's part for why they wanted to secede, but the north's goal was to keep the union together.You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. The Confederate Constitution explicitly puts slavery ahead of states' rights by forbidding any state from ever banning slavery. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.

[Tgo01]

Why are you and others so adamant about refusing to acknowledge this? Is it such a horrible thing that people decided slavery was wrong and did something about it?

Because we're not going to rewrite history because of your feelings. The North did not go to war with the south to free the slaves. Period. End of discussion. Just because you so badly want it to be true does not make it true.

[drauz]

Again though, we have a record in this period of free state after free state being admitted to the Union. These are states that have made an explicit and intentional choice against slavery. Slave state doesn't mean that everyone has to own a slave, it just means slavery is allowed. If it were actually the case that Northerners were for the most part indifferent, surely they would have acceded to this option, no? We're not talking about fat cat Senators hundreds of miles away, these were choices made by popular vote.

If by popular vote you mean Congress... North of the Ohio River slavery was prohibited by Federal law for new territories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

[tyrant-201]

If by popular vote you mean Congress... North of the Ohio River slavery was prohibited by Federal law for new territories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

There's also the fact that Lincoln only won 40% of the popular vote, though he was the only 'anti-slavery' person on the ballot. (2 Democrats and a third party ran against the Republican party)

[Back]

Because we're not going to rewrite history because of your feelings. The North did not go to war with the south to free the slaves. Period. End of discussion. Just because you so badly want it to be true does not make it true.

Dude, why do you insist on being the biggest buzzkill of all eternity?

But seriously. Thats some dumb shit you just spewed out. I know you don't like me, I know people in this community don't like me, but to say stupid shit just to contradict me is stupid shit.

[Tgo01]

Dude, why do you insist on being the biggest buzzkill of all eternity?

Again, we're not going to rewrite history because your feelings. If that makes me a "buzzkill" then so be it.


I know you don't like me, I know people in this community don't like me

I don't not like you, I don't think anyone on here really "dislikes" you, we just think you say stupid shit because it's true.


but to say stupid shit just to contradict me is stupid shit.

Please quote for me some historians (actual historians, not SJW wannabe historians) who say the north went to war with the south to free the slaves.

[drauz]

Dude, why do you insist on being the biggest buzzkill of all eternity?

But seriously. Thats some dumb shit you just spewed out. I know you don't like me, I know people in this community don't like me, but to say stupid shit just to contradict me is stupid shit.

The north went to war to preserve the union, the south went to war to preserve slavery. That is what everyone is saying. Do you agree?

[Latrinsorm]

If by popular vote you mean Congress... North of the Ohio River slavery was prohibited by Federal law for new territories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_OrdinanceNorth of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. This law had no bearing whatsoever on California, Oregon, Kansas...
There's also the fact that Lincoln only won 40% of the popular vote, though he was the only 'anti-slavery' person on the ballot. (2 Democrats and a third party ran against the Republican party)Of course he only won 40% of the vote, he wasn't even on the ballot in what would become the Confederacy. Nobody's claiming most of America was anti-slavery, just that most of the North was.

[tyrant-201]

Dude, why do you insist on being the biggest buzzkill of all eternity?

But seriously. Thats some dumb shit you just spewed out. I know you don't like me, I know people in this community don't like me, but to say stupid shit just to contradict me is stupid shit.

Not a historian, but taken from Reddit as a great answer to the question at hand:

"The single most important reason that the North went to war in 1861 is this: the South started it.

On December 31, 1836, South Carolina passed a law that stated, in part:
Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory

Fort Sumter and other fortifications around Charleston Harbor were legally United States territory, regardless of the legality of South Carolina's secession. Anderson and his garrison had an absolute legal right to be there.

At the same time, it was intolerable to the Confederates that the Federal government retain a fort in the middle of one of the South's most important harbors. Confederate agents were sent to Washington to negotiate for the surrender of the fort, but Lincoln refused to meet with them because he did not recognize the Confederacy as a foreign power, and opening negotiations with representatives of the Confederate government would likely be considered a recognition of their legitimacy internationally.

At this point, both sides knew that war was basically inevitable. There was still some hope that there could be a negotiated settlement - Lincoln hoped that the sentiment for secession was not as widespread as it really was, and that some compromise could be reached that would bring the seceded states back into the government, while Davis hoped that Lincoln would back down and consent to the separation. There was essentially zero chance of either of those things happening, so both sides were trying to ensure that when the war started, they wouldn't be the one who started it.

Finally, Lincoln decided to resupply the fort - but only with provisions, not men, arms or ammunition. He notified the governor of South Carolina - his agents making it clear that it was merely a formal notification from the President to the Governor of one of the United States - a courtesy, not a negotiation. This put the ball in the Confederates' court.

They could allow the provisions to arrive, but that would extend the status quo, which was intolerable to the South, indefinitely. Or they could attack the fort, and take the blame for starting the war. They chose the latter. They didn't really have much choice.

For Northerners, this changed the equation. It was no longer a question of whether or not they should go to war to preserve the Union - they were at war now. The question was whether to surrender or accept the war that had already begun. Much like public opinion after Pearl Harbor, there was no longer any question that the country needed to go to war."

[Back]

Again, we're not going to rewrite history because your feelings. If that makes me a "buzzkill" then so be it.



I don't not like you, I don't think anyone on here really "dislikes" you, we just think you say stupid shit because it's true.



Please quote for me some historians (actual historians, not SJW wannabe historians) who say the north went to war with the south to free the slaves.


The north went to war to preserve the union, the south went to war to preserve slavery. That is what everyone is saying. Do you agree?

Then why was the Emancipation Proclamation enforced?

[Tgo01]

Then why was the Emancipation Proclamation enforced?

You mean almost three years into the civil war? But the north went to war to begin with to free the slaves?

You mean the proclamation that only applied to states that had seceded and did not include parts that the Union had already captured?

The proclamation that would only go into effect if the Union won?

The proclamation that ended up freeing no one?

Yeah, sure sounds like it was all about freeing slaves!

[drauz]

North of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. This law had no bearing whatsoever on California, Oregon, Kansas...

Ok?

[Parkbandit]

Then why was the Emancipation Proclamation enforced?

Holy fuck.

Seriously.. it's like you keep feeling the need to prove you are a gigantic retard.

Newsflash: We know.

[drauz]

Then why was the Emancipation Proclamation enforced?

Well...because the north won... That is why it was enforced..

So I take it you don't agree with my statement and think that the North went to war at the beginning to free the slaves?

[tyrant-201]

Holy fuck.

Seriously.. it's like you keep feeling the need to prove you are a gigantic retard.

Newsflash: We know.

Right? But abolition wasn't used as a tool of war.

[tyrant-201]

Then why was the Emancipation Proclamation enforced?

Taken from the Library of Congress' website:

"Issued by Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation declared "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, it did change the basic character of the Civil War. Instead of waging a war to restore the old Union as it was before 1861, the North was now fighting to create a new Union without slavery. The proclamation also authorized the recruitment of African Americans as Union soldiers. By the end of the Civil War, approximately 180,000 African Americans had served in the Union army and 18,000 in the navy"

Feel free to research some more: https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/EmanProc.html

[Latrinsorm]

Ok?Those were the states that joined as free states in this time period.

It's really baffling to me why you guys are choosing this hill to die on. There's example after example of average everyday Northerners speaking with their vote, their press, and even their lives clearly and distinctly against slavery. Your response is a 70 year old law that isn't even the right geography, and someone you've convinced yourself it's the other side ignoring facts. Wow!

[tyrant-201]

Those were the states that joined as free states in this time period.

It's really baffling to me why you guys are choosing this hill to die on. There's example after example of average everyday Northerners speaking with their vote, their press, and even their lives clearly and distinctly against slavery. Your response is a 70 year old law that isn't even the right geography, and someone you've convinced yourself it's the other side ignoring facts. Wow!

Don't you believe pot is more dangerous than alcohol?

[drauz]

Those were the states that joined as free states in this time period.

It's really baffling to me why you guys are choosing this hill to die on. There's example after example of average everyday Northerners speaking with their vote, their press, and even their lives clearly and distinctly against slavery. Your response is a 70 year old law that isn't even the right geography, and someone you've convinced yourself it's the other side ignoring facts. Wow!

Don't play dumb, both sides sent people to those states specifically for the slavery issue. This doesn't mean people who came for other reasons felt strongly one way or another. Many whites in California just didn't want to compete against slave labor in the gold rush, not because they didn't like slavery.

Where am I ignoring facts, you haven't presented any. Are you conflating two separate arguments? You have presented the names of states. I showed you how some of the northern states had no choice in the vote for or against slavery, which you seem to have just dismissed. Wow!

[Back]

I don't see what all the vitriol is about. Seriously. Regardless, this conversation did have me look up a few things I was cloudy about, and I did learn some things. So thanks guys for making me educate myself more. I still contend that the abolition of slavery was the key to the whole thing. And hey, slavery was abolished, so it's all good.

[drauz]

I don't see what all the vitriol is about. Seriously. Regardless, this conversation did have me look up a few things I was cloudy about, and I did learn some things. So thanks guys for making me educate myself more. I still contend that the abolition of slavery was the key to the whole thing. And hey, slavery was abolished, so it's all good.

Fear of slavery becoming illegal is the reason the south seceded. The north wanted to preserve the union, not because of slavery (at the start). Do you agree?

[tyrant-201]

I don't see what all the vitriol is about. Seriously. Regardless, this conversation did have me look up a few things I was cloudy about, and I did learn some things. So thanks guys for making me educate myself more. I still contend that the abolition of slavery was the key to the whole thing. And hey, slavery was abolished, so it's all good.

No vitriol here.

I think the abolition of slavery can respectfully be seen as a motivating factor for the Union later in the war. Definitely wasn't the goal earlier on.

Glad you're doing some research. Silly, but fun argument.

[Latrinsorm]

Don't play dumb, both sides sent people to those states specifically for the slavery issue. This doesn't mean people who came for other reasons felt strongly one way or another. Many whites in California just didn't want to compete against slave labor in the gold rush, not because they didn't like slavery.If you're gonna count people voting against slavery as them NOT being against slavery, I'm not surprised you're convinced the North wasn't against slavery.
Where am I ignoring facts, you haven't presented any. You have presented the names of states. I showed you how some of the northern states had no choice in the vote for or against slavery, which you seem to have just dismissed. Wow!I was talking about the states admitted to the Union in the period leading up to the Civil War, and my point was that that they were all free states, (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951371#post1951371) thus the North was against slavery.
You pointed out that under the Northwest Ordinance (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951377#post1951377) those states didn't have a choice.
I pointed out that the states we were talking about weren't subject (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951385#post1951385) to the Northwest Ordinance.

California came in as a free state because Californians didn't want slavery in California.
Oregon came in as a free state because Oregonians didn't want slavery in Oregon.
Minnesota came in as a free state because Minnesotans didn't want slavery in Minnesota.
Kansas didn't come in at all because Kansasers were busy murdering each other over whether slavery would be in Kansas.

These are facts.

The average Northerner cared about (and opposed) slavery. That doesn't mean every Northerner opposed slavery, or every Northerner was a saint, or no Northerner had slaves, or that it was the only thing they cared about, or the only reason they'd go to war, or any other tangent you want to go on.

[tyrant-201]

If you're gonna count people voting against slavery as them NOT being against slavery, I'm not surprised you're convinced the North wasn't against slavery.I was talking about the states admitted to the Union in the period leading up to the Civil War, and my point was that that they were all free states, (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951371#post1951371) thus the North was against slavery.
You pointed out that under the Northwest Ordinance (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951377#post1951377) those states didn't have a choice.
I pointed out that the states we were talking about weren't subject (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?108102-Things-that-made-you-laugh-today-(Political-Version)&p=1951385#post1951385) to the Northwest Ordinance.

California came in as a free state because Californians didn't want slavery in California.
Oregon came in as a free state because Oregonians didn't want slavery in Oregon.
Minnesota came in as a free state because Minnesotans didn't want slavery in Minnesota.
Kansas didn't come in at all because Kansasers were busy murdering each other over whether slavery would be in Kansas.

These are facts.

The average Northerner cared about (and opposed) slavery. That doesn't mean every Northerner opposed slavery, or every Northerner was a saint, or no Northerner had slaves, or that it was the only thing they cared about, or the only reason they'd go to war, or any other tangent you want to go on.

The average northerner wanted to abolish with slavery, that's why a moderate like Lincoln was elected and not Seward or Chase? I think the average northerner just wanted to get along, didn't necessarily want it in their territory, but didn't want to start a war over it.

[Latrinsorm]

The average northerner wanted to abolish with slavery, that's why a moderate like Lincoln was elected and not Seward or Chase? I think the average northerner just wanted to get along, didn't necessarily want it in their territory, but didn't want to start a war over it.Again, they didn't want to start over a war over it because they didn't need to. Slavery was finished one way or the other. Option A: there would be a war that the North was sure they would win and end slavery. Option B: there wouldn't be a war, and the growing abolitionist majority would end slavery. You'd have to be a psychopath to go with the war option. So the North in the 1860 election gave control of both houses to the anti-slavery party (because they were anti-slavery) but elected a President they hoped wouldn't provoke secession and thus war.

[tyrant-201]

Again, they didn't want to start over a war over it because they didn't need to. Slavery was finished one way or the other. Option A: there would be a war that the North was sure they would win and end slavery. Option B: there wouldn't be a war, and the growing abolitionist majority would end slavery. You'd have to be a psychopath to go with the war option. So the North in the 1860 election gave control of both houses to the anti-slavery party (because they were anti-slavery) but elected a President they hoped wouldn't provoke secession and thus war.

Yes, because like in your estimation, everything works out according to plan. Particularly with large and diverse demographics.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, because like in your estimation, everything works out according to plan. Particularly with large and diverse demographics.It manifestly didn't work out according to plan, because the South seceded even after the compromise candidate was elected.

[drauz]

If you're gonna count people voting against slavery as them NOT being against slavery, I'm not surprised you're convinced the North wasn't against slavery.

I'm just going to stop responding to you, its not worth it to try to untwist what you say with every comment.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm just going to stop responding to you, its not worth it to try to untwist what you say with every comment.

+2 internetz to you

[Neveragain]

Which documented fact are you talking about?



Yes.

Excellent, we both agree that slavery was an evil tool of convenience and abolishing slavery was a good thing.

Now that we have agreed on this I will show you exactly how and why the average person/northerner didn't care.

Obviously knowing that slavery was an evil tool of convenience...how could you possibly not want to abolish abortion or are you still convinced it's not a human being?

[tyrant-201]

Excellent, we both agree that slavery was an evil tool of convenience and abolishing slavery was a good thing.

Now that we have agreed on this I will show you exactly how and why the average person/northerner didn't care.

Obviously knowing that slavery was an evil tool of convenience...how could you possibly not want to abolish abortion or are you still convinced it's not a human being?

It's a parasite until it's born.

[Neveragain]

It's a parasite until it's born.

Sorry, Back already negated that argument when we agreed that a newborn would perish without a "host".

[SHAFT]

Tgo, I'll just leave this here:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336032-trump-officials-pressed-state-dept-staffers-for-plans-to-lift-russia

Between this and the supposed release of the properties obama seized from Russia...

[drauz]

we agreed that a newborn would perish without a "host".

That is exactly what happens to a parasite....

[Tgo01]

Tgo, I'll just leave this here:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336032-trump-officials-pressed-state-dept-staffers-for-plans-to-lift-russia

Between this and the supposed release of the properties obama seized from Russia...

So according to Yahoo news, Trump wanted to lift sanctions, but yet for some reason didn't/couldn't, and Russia might get some property back.

Yeah. Everything really is coming up Russia since Trump's inauguration.

[Neveragain]

That is exactly what happens to a parasite....

"It's a parasite"

"It's not human"

Are we starting to understand how slavery was seen as just a way of life?

P.S. From the biological meaning, a parasite is not the same species as it's host. (Just keeping this in the realm of science)

[drauz]

"It's a parasite"

"It's not human"

Are we starting to understand how slavery was seen as just a way of life?

P.S. From the biological meaning, a parasite is not the same species as it's host. (Just keeping this in the realm of science)

Actually it is just more common to think of a parasite as from another species, but the definition is "an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host".

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/

Slavery isn't the same because they could have gotten their own food and shelter but weren't allowed to. A fetus cannot do either of those. Any other arguments?

[Neveragain]

Actually it is just more common to think of a parasite as from another species, but the definition is "an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host".

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/

Slavery isn't the same because they could have gotten their own food and shelter but weren't allowed to. A fetus cannot do either of those. Any other arguments?

A human fetus that is killed will never be given the chance to obtain their own food and shelter because they weren't allowed to. A murdered human cannot do either of those things. Any other arguments?

P.S. Can you name a parasitic organism that feeds off it's own species?

[drauz]

A human fetus that is killed will never be given the chance to obtain their own food and shelter because they weren't allowed to. A murdered human cannot do either of those things. Any other arguments?

P.S. Can you name a parasitic organism that feeds off it's own species?

So, it is your contention that if they were simply removed they would be able to do both of these? If you remove a slave from slavery they can do both of these. It's not an apt analogy.

An adelpho-parasite (from the Greek αδελφός (adelphos), brother) is a parasite in which the host species is closely related to the parasite, often being a member of the same family or genus. An example of this is the citrus blackfly parasitoid, Encarsia perplexa, unmated females of which may lay haploid eggs in the fully developed larvae of their own species. These result in the production of male offspring.[21] The marine worm Bonellia viridis has a similar reproductive strategy, although the larvae are planktonic.

[Neveragain]

So, it is your contention that if they were simply removed they would be able to do both of these? If you remove a slave from slavery they can do both of these. It's not an apt analogy.

An adelpho-parasite (from the Greek αδελφός (adelphos), brother) is a parasite in which the host species is closely related to the parasite, often being a member of the same family or genus. An example of this is the citrus blackfly parasitoid, Encarsia perplexa, unmated females of which may lay haploid eggs in the fully developed larvae of their own species. These result in the production of male offspring.[21] The marine worm Bonellia viridis has a similar reproductive strategy, although the larvae are planktonic.

No, it's my contention that if the child wasn't murdered it would do both of these things, just like you and I.

That aside this is not the point I'm trying to make. Obviously your belief is that abortion is not the ending of a life and others like myself believe it is the wrongful ending of a life.

I think we can both agree that abortion is a hot topic in politics?

Considering this, if tomorrow the President signed into law the abolishing of Abortion would you suddenly change your belief? If the Federal government threatened states that didn't follow the new law with occupation, would you stand with the Federal government or the states? Would these states be considered "evil" for not following Federal law?

[drauz]

No, it's my contention that if the child wasn't murdered it would do both of these things, just like you and I.

That aside this is not the point I'm trying to make. Obviously your belief is that abortion is not the ending of a life and others like myself believe it is the wrongful ending of a life.

I think we can both agree that abortion is a hot topic in politics?

Considering this, if tomorrow the President signed into law the abolishing of Abortion would you suddenly change your belief? If the Federal government threatened states that didn't follow the new law with occupation, would you stand with the Federal government or the states? Would these states be considered "evil" for not following Federal law?

I wouldn't think they are evil, only wrong. I would follow the law and try to get it changed.

[Neveragain]

I wouldn't think they are evil, only wrong. I would follow the law and try to get it changed.

So in short this would not change your belief because you are convinced that a child in the womb is not a human being. Just as at the time (and long after) it was common belief among many that blacks were not of the human species.

It's not hard to imagine that 150 years from now people will look back and say the exact same things about abortion that we say about slavery today and not be able to understand how we didn't see it as inhumane.

[drauz]

So in short this would not change your belief because you are convinced that a child in the womb is not a human being. Just as at the time (and long after) it was common belief among many that blacks were not of the human species.

It's not hard to imagine that 150 years from now people will look back and say the exact same things about abortion that we say about slavery today and not be able to understand how we didn't see it as inhumane.

They aren't comparable, no matter how much you try. They just aren't.

[Neveragain]

They aren't comparable, no matter how much you try. They just aren't.

That's because you don't believe it's a human being. Just like a slave owner considered it's slaves to be no more than the equivalent of an oxen. To the abolitionist the slave was a human being, as much as you hate it, it's exactly the same thing.

[drauz]

That's because you don't believe it's a human being. Just like a slave owner considered it's slaves to be no more than the equivalent of an oxen. To the abolitionist the slave was a human being, as much as you hate it, it's exactly the same thing.

No its not comparable at all. What labor is the fetus told to do that it isn't getting paid for? Is the fetus being raped? No, its not a comparable analogy.

If you kill a caterpillar are you killing a butterfly? Or are you killing a caterpillar?

[Neveragain]

No its not comparable at all. What labor is the fetus told to do that it isn't getting paid for? Is the fetus being raped? No, its not a comparable analogy.

If you kill a caterpillar are you killing a butterfly? Or are you killing a caterpillar?

Now you are saying the child fresh out of the womb is able to perform labor? At this point you're arguing it's not a human being even after exiting the womb.

If you kill a child as soon as it leaves the womb are you killing a human? Or are you killing something that's not human? Or does some magic event take place the moment the child passes through the fleshy curtains?

[drauz]

Now you are saying the child fresh out of the womb is able to perform labor? At this point you're arguing it's not a human being even after exiting the womb.

If you kill a child as soon as it leaves the womb are you killing a human? Or are you killing something that's not human? Or does some magic event take place the moment the child passes through the fleshy curtains?

At a certain point that fetus becomes viable whether the mother is alive or not. After that point I consider it a human being. You consider it a human when sperm hits egg. We aren't going to agree.

[Tenlaar]

Ebviously knowing that slavery was an evil tool of convenience...how could you possibly not want to abolish abortion or are you still convinced it's not a human being?

Your weird attempts to equate so many things to abortion never work, and it just makes you look...well, like a weird person who keeps bringing abortion up when nobody else was talking about it.

[Neveragain]

At a certain point that fetus becomes viable whether the mother is alive or not. After that point I consider it a human being. You consider it a human when sperm hits egg. We aren't going to agree.

You do understand your "certain point" becomes a smaller window as technology advances, right? This suggests your logic is flawed if we have been able to save the life of younger and younger pre-mature births over time.

We also have to ponder the question in the case of "test tube babies". Is this human alive, then dead when planted in the womb and then comes back to life again?

I did come by a bit of irony tonight as we have hashed this argument out once again, from the Harvard school of law:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/05/30/harvard-law-journal-concludes-unborn-babies-have-constitutional-rights-n2333231

P.S. If you are missing the irony part, they are using the 14th amendment to make the case. It's exactly the same situation we faced with slavery.

[drauz]

You do understand your "certain point" becomes a smaller window as technology advances, right? This suggests your logic is flawed if we have been able to save the life of younger and younger pre-mature births over time.

We also have to ponder the question in the case of "test tube babies". Is this human alive, then dead when planted in the womb and then comes back to life again?

It can't survive outside a human body for extended periods of time, so no.

[Ososis]

How is this a things that made you laugh thread?

Abortion is the same as slavery

Oh, there it is.

[Gelston]

Neveragain just went full retard.

[Parkbandit]

I'm just going to stop responding to you, its not worth it to try to untwist what you say with every comment.

Took you long enough.

He's been effectively trolling you since June 2011.

[Gelston]

Took you long enough.

He's been effectively trolling you since June 2011.

The better educated our people are, the people we do in the world.

[Back]

No vitriol here.

I think the abolition of slavery can respectfully be seen as a motivating factor for the Union later in the war. Definitely wasn't the goal earlier on.

Glad you're doing some research. Silly, but fun argument.

Yeah these PC back and forths are alway silly. Entertaining though I have to admit. And despite myself I realized the other day that even though I engage in the silliness ultimately it forces me to actually research things I have not thought about in years. So there is a positive to it all.

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree about abolition. Unless you would agree that any opinion on abolition and it's role in the Civil War is open to interpretation? I can say that abolition at a certain point could have been used as a tool while still maintaining the integrity of it's intent. But I have to stand by abolition as the primary reason that drove what ultimately became the Civil War.

[Parkbandit]

"Agree to disagree" is seriously the dumbest saying ever.

Well.. maybe that the North fought in the civil war to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation might be just as dumb..

[Neveragain]

Yeah these PC back and forths are alway silly. Entertaining though I have to admit. And despite myself I realized the other day that even though I engage in the silliness ultimately it forces me to actually research things I have not thought about in years. So there is a positive to it all.

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree about abolition. Unless you would agree that any opinion on abolition and it's role in the Civil War is open to interpretation? I can say that abolition at a certain point could have been used as a tool while still maintaining the integrity of it's intent. But I have to stand by abolition as the primary reason that drove what ultimately became the Civil War.

I think I have done an excellent job providing you with the evidence that the average person gave 0 shits about slavery. Every "argument" provided are the same excuses used by those that were pro-slavery.

It's not human, they can't survive on their own, the abolitionists are crazy. I would go as far as comparing the abolitionists of the time to the Jehovah witness that comes knocking at your door.

It's OK though, like the abolitionist, the pro-life movement does not measure a persons humanity by the stage of life it's currently in. We see a nation that has been slaughtering human beings for personal convenience and within a decade it will be abolished.

[Tenlaar]

I think I have done an excellent job

Somehow I am not surprised.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/lucille-portable.gif

[Neveragain]

Your weird attempts to equate so many things to abortion never work, and it just makes you look...well, like a weird person who keeps bringing abortion up when nobody else was talking about it.

I agree, it's weird that we charge an assailant with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman.

Oh dear, an anon person from the PC thinks I'm weird. I better go sit in the corner or I may not get picked. The 3rd grade was awesome good times.

[Tenlaar]

I agree, it's weird that we charge an assailant with double homicide if they murder a pregnant woman.

The concept that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy and not somebody else by violent means, thus there is a criminal charge associated with it, should not be that hard to grasp. Assuming you made it through the third grade that you mentioned.

[Neveragain]

The concept that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy and not somebody else by violent means, thus there is a criminal charge associated with it, should not be that hard to grasp. Assuming you made it through the third grade that you mentioned.

So it is a human life? I mean how do you charge a person for a second murder if there was no 2nd human murdered? How do you terminate something that has not started, that being the start of a human life.

I'm just trying to grasp the logic here to which there is no logic to grasp. There is no logic in the thought that a woman decides when it's a human being, where is the science in this idea?

[Neveragain]

This is fantastic.

Grey rep :lol:
white noise faggot lmao, ignore list needed more idiots :cough: coward :cough:

Yes that ignore list must be yuuuuge with your grey rep and all.

[Tenlaar]

I'm just trying to grasp the logic here to which there is no logic to grasp.

You are starting from a point where it being a human life and a woman having a choice to terminate it are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect. You put your own parameters on any counter-argument before it can even made, which is why you aren't even arguing anything, you're just somebody who likes to bring up abortion when nobody else is talking about it.

[Neveragain]

You are starting from a point where it being a human life and a woman having a choice to terminate it are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect. You put your own parameters on any counter-argument before it can even made, which is why you aren't even arguing anything, you're just somebody who likes to bring up abortion when nobody else is talking about it.

There's only one argument here, is it a human life or not. It's that simple, that's the only argument.

This is your logic:

It's not a human but you killed two humans.

It has it's own heartbeat, but it's not a human heartbeat.

It's not an individual even though it has it's own unique set of DNA.

Not even a retard thinks like this.

Can you please inform me who decides the topic of discussion on the PC forums, I'll be sure to get their ok next time.

[Tenlaar]

There's only one argument here, is it a human life or not.

Again, just because you say this doesn't make it so. You start off by discounting any argument that disagrees with your own. This is reaffirming your own beliefs and nothing more, not engaging in any kind of argument.

[Parkbandit]

So.. is it human life or not?

[Fallen]

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/5/5e/Mouse-early_blastocyst_02.jpg/300px-Mouse-early_blastocyst_02.jpg

Is this a human life?

How about this one? It has a heartbeat.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/reFY7rZVny0/hqdefault.jpg

Weren't some of the people arguing in this thread all aboard indiscriminately dropping nuclear weapons on some Middle Eastern countries?

[Gelston]

Weren't some of the people arguing in this thread all aboard indiscriminately dropping nuclear weapons on some Middle Eastern countries?

No, only one person ever was.

[Eodus]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170602/45b957d5256ec9e22a99f5e1e9c85fd5.jpg

[tyrant-201]

"Abraham Lincoln said if you are a racist I will attack you with the North." - Michael Scott

[SHAFT]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170602/45b957d5256ec9e22a99f5e1e9c85fd5.jpg

#covfefe forever

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/covfefe2.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/covfefe2.jpg.html)

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/covfefe.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/covfefe.jpg.html)

[SHAFT]

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x176/shaft4783/raf750x1000075tfafafa-ca443f4786.u2.jpg (http://s184.photobucket.com/user/shaft4783/media/raf750x1000075tfafafa-ca443f4786.u2.jpg.html)

[Latrinsorm]

Guys, I've done it. As is so often the case, it falls to me to devise a perfect analogy for this discussion.

There is a man who is dead.
How did he die? He hit the street at terminal velocity.
How did that happen? He jumped off a building.
How did that happen? He was being chased by Abraham Lincoln.
We would say Abraham Lincoln killed this man, even though strictly speaking what killed him is hitting the street.

The North invaded the South.
Why did they do that? To preserve the Union.
Why did it need preserving? The South seceded.
Why did they secede? The North wanted to abolish slavery.
Would we not also say that the North went to war because of abolitionism? Even though strictly speaking what caused the war was the North wanting to preserve the Union?

Either you say yes or you let Abraham Lincoln get away with murder. I know which way I'd choose.

[drauz]

What if Lincoln just wanted to give him back his wallet he dropped?!

[Latrinsorm]

Google Wallet presented by Alphabet Co. (a fully owned subsidiary) wasn't invented until thousands of years after Lincoln died, if you would like to be sued into the Internet Explorer Age for copyright infringement BE MY GUEST(tm)

[drauz]

I still use Internet Explorer, its the best browser you can buy. And its cheap at only $49.99. Chrome is like $99!

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wKV-D895t4

How dare a family be upset that I held up a mock severed head of their family member.

[Tgo01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wKV-D895t4

How dare a family be upset that I held up a mock severed head of their family member.

I love the part where she says it's stupid anyone can consider her actions as a real threat because she weighs like 100 pounds or some stupid shit. Aren't liberals always the ones who say we need to ban guns BECAUSE it gives people so much power? You don't need to be a 400 pound NFL linebacker to kill someone.

[SHAFT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wKV-D895t4

How dare a family be upset that I held up a mock severed head of their family member.

She's awful. The Trump-head thing was retarded and she shouldn't be shocked by any of this.

[tyrant-201]

She's awful. The Trump-head thing was retarded and she shouldn't be shocked by any of this.

How she ever thought this was funny or a good idea is beyond me. But she's never been funny, so I guess I can kind of see why she thought it might be funny. Let's hope this retires her from jokes or political commentary.

[Back]

Holding a severed Trump head. Not cool. If it were an Obama head? It would have gotten the same reaction. Still, we're all talking about it.

I don't wish ill-will on her but I've never seen why she was popular. At all.

[drauz]

She's awful. The Trump-head thing was retarded and she shouldn't be shocked by any of this.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


How she ever thought this was funny or a good idea is beyond me. But she's never been funny, so I guess I can kind of see why she thought it might be funny. Let's hope this retires her from jokes or political commentary.

I can't even think of a TV show she has been in. How is she even famous?


Holding a severed Trump head. Not cool. If it were an Obama head? It would have gotten the same reaction. Still, we're all talking about it.

We are still talking about it because she just held a press conference with a celebrity lawyer. This was one days news but she is trying to stay in the limelight as long as she can. It must feel weird for her to be relevant again and she wants to keep that going as long as she can.

[Neveragain]

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/5/5e/Mouse-early_blastocyst_02.jpg/300px-Mouse-early_blastocyst_02.jpg

Is this a human life?

How about this one? It has a heartbeat.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/reFY7rZVny0/hqdefault.jpg

Weren't some of the people arguing in this thread all aboard indiscriminately dropping nuclear weapons on some Middle Eastern countries?

Is this the extent of liberal science?

I can do that too, it was the average temperature today, global warming does not exist.

P.S. I believe that was me. I think I said that the day of or after Pulse night club was indiscriminately shot up by Radical Muslims killing 49 people and wounding 53 other innocent civilians. I was in a bit of a bad mood that day.

PPS. I admit I'm a bit biased after watching 3000 innocent civilians die on 9/11.

[drauz]

Is this the extent of liberal science?

I can do that too, it was the average temperature today, global warming does not exist.

I already provided you with the science last time, I'm not going to bring it out every time you think abortion is like slavery. I think this is the second time you've done this.

[Neveragain]

I already provided you with the science last time, I'm not going to bring it out every time you think abortion is like slavery. I think this is the second time you've done this.

And I have provided you with the science.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovzGmRrtVys

An individual (which is proven by the persons own unique set of DNA) has human rights protecting their LIFE. The proposition that another person, Mother, Father or not, has the right to take an innocent life against that individuals will is no different than a Slave owner abusing, raping or killing their slave.

[Ososis]

And I have provided you with the science
An individual (which is proven by the persons own unique set of DNA) has human rights protecting their LIFE. The proposition that another person, Mother, Father or not, has the right to take an innocent life against that individuals will is no different than a Slave owner abusing, raping or killing their slave.

Next time McGyver rapes and murders someone I hope he uses the "but it's no different from abortion" defense.

[drauz]

And I have provided you with the science.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovzGmRrtVys

An individual (which is proven by the persons own unique set of DNA) has human rights protecting their LIFE. The proposition that another person, Mother, Father or not, has the right to take an innocent life against that individuals will is no different than a Slave owner abusing, raping or killing their slave.

You're right, my life has been a lie. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Ososis]

The actual paper is titled “The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation” (Duncan, F. E. et al. Sci. Rep. 6, 24737), published by Professors Teresa K. Woodruff’s and Thomas V. O’Halloran’s research groups at Northwestern University in Chicago. The “flash of light” only refers to the “inorganic signature” of the “zinc spark” detected with fluorescence microscopy in the laboratory—an analytical technique. Calcium levels rise in the egg when a sperm enters it. These high calcium levels cause zinc to be released outside the egg. Researchers wanted to see the zinc, so they simulated fertilization in the lab and put the eggs in a solution containing a fluorescent tag (FluoZin™-3). When the zinc is released, it is chemically labeled because this tag bonds to it. The tag (also called a fluorophore) can be illuminated with light of one color, and it emits light of a different, specific color. That “fluorescence” can be detected under a suitable microscope, thus revealing the zinc.

[Tenlaar]

Don't ruin it, I kind of like it better knowing that Neveragain believes that there is a flash of magical light inside the uterus of every woman that gets pregnant. It's the soul being put in guys!!!

[Parkbandit]

https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-01-at-1.26.08-PM-1024x576.png

Excuses Tour... that's funny and painfully accurate.

[Gelston]

CNN called it an excuses tour? lololol

[Neveragain]

Don't ruin it, I kind of like it better knowing that Neveragain believes that there is a flash of magical light inside the uterus of every woman that gets pregnant. It's the soul being put in guys!!!

Nowhere did I suggest that, besides I'm not the one arguing that something that is obviously a human life...isn't a human life. :shrug:

[Ososis]

Nowhere did I suggest that, besides I'm not the one arguing that something that is obviously a human life...isn't a human life. :shrug:

Are you arguing that human life is based on zinc movements? You did call that video "proof"


EDIT
No, you called it science. Which I guess it is.

[Wrathbringer]

CNN called it an excuses tour? lololol

I figured it had to be Photoshopped.

[Gelston]

I figured it had to be Photoshopped.

I thought so, but other places are mentioning how CNN is making fun of Hillary.

[Latrinsorm]

http://imgur.com/ayS1IyB.png (https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/870885314721497088)

[Neveragain]

Are you arguing that human life is based on zinc movements? You did call that video "proof"


EDIT
No, you called it science. Which I guess it is.

Looking at it from a mechanical aspect, which I tend to do because of what I do for a living, your basically looking at the moment you first kick start an engine or fire up any electrical device. It's really no surprise that zinc is released because of it's ability to create an electrical charge under acidic conditions.

[Ososis]

Looking at it from a mechanical aspect, which I tend to do because of what I do for a living, your basically looking at the moment you first kick start an engine or fire up any electrical device. It's really no surprise that zinc is released because of it's ability to create an electrical charge under acidic conditions.

So you see the release of zinc as the qualifier for human life?

[Tisket]

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/thumb/5/5e/Mouse-early_blastocyst_02.jpg/300px-Mouse-early_blastocyst_02.jpg

Is this a human life?

Looks like an ouroboros.

[Back]

Read this today and it reminded me of our Civil War discussion.


The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/


The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.


There is little truth in this. Lee was a devout Christian, and historians regard him as an accomplished tactician. But despite his ability to win individual battles, his decision to fight a conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North is considered by many historians to have been a fatal strategic error.

But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black. Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign (https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/why-were-finally-taking-down-confederate-flags?utm_term=.dlbKwkMxE#.ddYo0lMPO) designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as historian David Blight writes (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-battle-for-memorial-day-in-new-orleans/528423/), it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system.”

There are unwitting victims of this campaign—those who lack the knowledge to separate history from sentiment. Then there are those whose reverence for Lee relies on replacing the actual Lee with a mythical figure who never truly existed.

[drauz]

http://i.imgur.com/2On3MwS.jpg

[drauz]

http://i.imgur.com/K1cWbOP.png

[Androidpk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZKrn7Bbl8

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v61Z3ZvDyRo

[Parkbandit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v61Z3ZvDyRo

LOL

[Androidpk]

Is that Back? :lol:

[Parkbandit]

Is that Back? :lol:

That was my first thought too.

[Methais]

Harvard Researchers: Trump Election May Cause Higher Risk Of Disease (http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/harvard-researchers-trump-election-may-cause-higher-risk-of-disease/)

:lol:

If anything it's just triggering pre-existing mental disorders.

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRq5FhWH0R0

[Tgo01]

Can someone help me out here.

The piece of shit Warriorbird was ranting and raving on LNet today that I "rationalized" the south during the civil war. I apparently said slavery had nothing to do with the war and I was defending the Confederacy. Can someone please quote exactly where I said any of this to back up what WB is going on about?

I asked him to do it himself but apparently he's too much of a pussy to do it. Oh and he also said he doesn't post here much anymore because I am annoying, yet he apparently reads everything I post and memorizes it, so go figure.

Oh yeah, and I'm apparently too afraid of him to quote what I said myself. I'm honestly beginning to worry about WB lately. He's always been a bit off his rocker but it seems like he has full blown senility now.

[Fortybox]

Can someone help me out here.

The piece of shit Warriorbird was ranting and raving on LNet today that I "rationalized" the south during the civil war. I apparently said slavery had nothing to do with the war and I was defending the Confederacy. Can someone please quote exactly where I said any of this to back up what WB is going on about?

I asked him to do it himself but apparently he's too much of a pussy to do it. Oh and he also said he doesn't post here much anymore because I am annoying, yet he apparently reads everything I post and memorizes it, so go figure.

Oh yeah, and I'm apparently too afraid of him to quote what I said myself. I'm honestly beginning to worry about WB lately. He's always been a bit off his rocker but it seems like he has full blown senility now.

Sounds like he and Vishra should get together.

[Tgo01]

Sounds like he and Vishra should get together.

He and Vishra were practically cybering on lnet today with all of their stroking of one another's cocks when it came to politics.

It was kind of disgusting to be honest.

[Gelston]

I fapped.

[Tgo01]

I fapped.

See?

[Methais]

He and Vishra were practically cybering on lnet today with all of their stroking of one another's cocks when it came to politics.

It was kind of disgusting to be honest.

Did time4fun put her interesting blunt in his fancyhole?

[Tgo01]

And here Warriorbird is admitting he hangs on my every word on the PC yet claims he doesn't read the politics folder because I'm annoying.

[Private]-GSIV:Gellert: "And you claimed I couldn't let it go. Lulz."
[Private]-GSIV:Gellert: "Enjoy your little playpen."

Also I don't recall telling you that you couldn't let it go, WB. Seriously, you might want to quit teaching and check yourself into a mental hospital. Stop being selfish and think of the kids.

[Parkbandit]

Can someone help me out here.

The piece of shit Warriorbird was ranting and raving on LNet today that I "rationalized" the south during the civil war. I apparently said slavery had nothing to do with the war and I was defending the Confederacy. Can someone please quote exactly where I said any of this to back up what WB is going on about?

I asked him to do it himself but apparently he's too much of a pussy to do it. Oh and he also said he doesn't post here much anymore because I am annoying, yet he apparently reads everything I post and memorizes it, so go figure.

Oh yeah, and I'm apparently too afraid of him to quote what I said myself. I'm honestly beginning to worry about WB lately. He's always been a bit off his rocker but it seems like he has full blown senility now.

To be fair, he was called out for being a gigantic pussy here and hasn't really posted since. Shouldn't we give him kudos for FINALLY figuring out how not to sound like a flaming wuss in every post?

PS - Dear WB: I'm not white knighting for tgo01 here so don't freak out again and have another relapse. You need to stay on the wagon. WE BELIEVE IN YOU!

[Parkbandit]

Did time4fun put her interesting blunt in his fancyhole?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/da/27/81/da278174d6270daf00f88b53040d963b.jpg

It's bumpy for his pleasure.

[Tgo01]

Shouldn't we give him kudos for FINALLY figuring out how not to sound like a flaming wuss in every post?

For sure. It's just funny that he apparently reads everything I say here and just brings it to LNet now. I hardly pay attention to LNet these days so I can only imagine the utter bullshit he spews on a daily basis. He also sends me private messages on LNet sometimes out of the blue in regards to shit I say in the politics folder here.

[Tgo01]

Can someone help me out here.

The piece of shit Warriorbird was ranting and raving on LNet today that I "rationalized" the south during the civil war. I apparently said slavery had nothing to do with the war and I was defending the Confederacy. Can someone please quote exactly where I said any of this to back up what WB is going on about?

I asked him to do it himself but apparently he's too much of a pussy to do it. Oh and he also said he doesn't post here much anymore because I am annoying, yet he apparently reads everything I post and memorizes it, so go figure.

Oh yeah, and I'm apparently too afraid of him to quote what I said myself. I'm honestly beginning to worry about WB lately. He's always been a bit off his rocker but it seems like he has full blown senility now.

So no one sees this but WB huh?

I would ask for an apology from WB, but we all know he's too much of a cowardly piece of shit to admit he's wrong.

[Tisket]

PS - Dear WB: I'm not white knighting for tgo01 here so don't freak out again and have another relapse. You need to stay on the wagon. WE BELIEVE IN YOU!

He accuses me of white knighting sometimes too. I asked him why that was a bad thing but he never did answer me. I mean he never points it out when someone posts in his favor in a debate and I've seen him do the same for others. I guess that's not white knighting though :shrug:

So confusing.

[Fortybox]

So no one sees this but WB huh?

I would ask for an apology from WB, but we all know he's too much of a cowardly piece of shit to admit he's wrong.

Sounds like he pushed your buttons.

[Tgo01]

Sounds like he pushed your buttons.

I just call out pieces of shit when I see them.

[Androidpk]

Even CNN is starting to see the writing on the wall regarding this Trump witch hunt.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/opinions/comey-testimony-shows-anti-trump-witch-hunt-scaramucci/index.html

[Tgo01]

Even CNN is starting to see the writing on the wall regarding this Trump witch hunt.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/opinions/comey-testimony-shows-anti-trump-witch-hunt-scaramucci/index.html

CNN needs to just go away already. And people say Fox News is bad, give me 100 anchors from Fox News over 1 from CNN.

[Gelston]

CNN needs to just go away already. And people say Fox News is bad, give me 100 anchors from Fox News over 1 from CNN.

Most of the Fox News anchors are good looking chicas.

[Parkbandit]

Even the far left is saying "Go the fuck away Hillary"

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/can-hillary-clinton-please-go-quietly-into-the-night

[Donquix]

Even CNN is starting to see the writing on the wall regarding this Trump witch hunt.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/opinions/comey-testimony-shows-anti-trump-witch-hunt-scaramucci/index.html

"Anthony Scaramucci is the founder of SkyBridge Capital and was a member of the Trump transition team. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his."

HAH! GOTCHA MSM!

[Latrinsorm]

Can someone please quote exactly where I said any of thislol

[Gelston]

https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19113910_1311275132320144_3465642110191616890_n.jp g?oh=a5e21f4fc28f2be3eabc1dd0ecaef844&oe=59DAE56C

[Neveragain]

https://scontent-dft4-3.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19113910_1311275132320144_3465642110191616890_n.jp g?oh=a5e21f4fc28f2be3eabc1dd0ecaef844&oe=59DAE56C


Hodgkinson Is a Supporter of Bernie Sanders & Democratic Socialism Who Wrote on Facebook, ‘Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.

heavy.com/news/2017/06/james-hodgkinson-alexandria-gop-baseball-shooter-shooting-gunman-identified-illinois/

[hello]

Again Democrats and Liberals are fucking morons; not only is this savage but this plays into conservative hands, this progressive just did the absolute worst thing to fuck up his cause.

Liberalism, it's a fucking disease.

[Taernath]

heavy.com/news/2017/06/james-hodgkinson-alexandria-gop-baseball-shooter-shooting-gunman-identified-illinois/

A shooting made you laugh? You're pretty fucked up there, Pirate.

[Neveragain]

Obviously a Russian operative.

[Neveragain]

A shooting made you laugh? You're pretty fucked up there, Pirate.

Guess I didn't know I started the subject?

I think you just went full retard.

[Taernath]

Guess I didn't know I started the subject?

I think you just went full retard.

In English, please.

[Neveragain]

In English, please.

You ok? You seem butt hurt.

[Tgo01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czz9WlFGC4I

[Parkbandit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czz9WlFGC4I

God damn, he's fucking retarded.

[Wrathbringer]

God damn, he's fucking retarded.

+1

[Methais]

BLM ACTIVIST BLAMES WHITE PEOPLE AFTER HISPANIC ALIEN ACCUSED OF MURDERING MUSLIM TEEN (https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/06/blm-alien-muslim-teen-whites/)

HUFFPOST: WHITE GAY MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE RACIAL DATING PREFERENCES (https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/06/huffpost-white-gay-men/)

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

http://realtimepolitics.com/2017/06/21/republicans-cheated-georgia/?utm_campaign=PL&utm_source=PL&utm_medium=FB

REPUBLICANS DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS!!!!!

I can't believe time4derp didn't bring this up.. given she said gerrymandering allowed Republicans to hold the Senate.

[Fallen]

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/confederate-group-fights-for-possession-of-time-capsule-1796323505

This thread and its comments reminded me of the whole PC kerfuffle.

[Parkbandit]

Are all stories on that site written by ax grinding 4th graders.. or just that one?

[Fallen]

Are all stories on that site written by ax grinding 4th graders.. or just that one?

I trust you've been to Jezebel at least once. Same people. Add to that The Root, Grapevine, etc to get a complete picture.

I typically stick to Lifehacker and the science section of Gizmodo. Though admittedly, the linked article was from the main branch of that same site.

Kinja Deals rule, though.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmWru6ySf9Q

[drauz]

King Donald the Doll Handed

[Back]

Those crazy kids!

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aZgN43p_700b.jpg

[Methais]

Those crazy kids!

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aZgN43p_700b.jpg

wut

[Gelston]

wut

FTOV

[Methais]

FTOV

T4FIG!!!!1

[subzero]

Those crazy kids!

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aZgN43p_700b.jpg

Someone actually took the time to photoshop that stupid shit?

[cwolff]

This shit is surreal.



The counselor to the president blamed the resistance to Trump’s agenda for the failure of Congress to get things done. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, in his announcement that he would delay the start of the Senate’s upcoming recess by two weeks, also pointed at the Democrats. He said in a statement that the extra time was needed “in order to provide more time to complete action on important legislative items and process nominees that have been stalled by a lack of cooperation from our friends across the aisle.”

[Back]

This shit is surreal.

They hold all three branches, can't get shit done, and blame someone else. Typical.

[cwolff]

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/885332582023516160

This is gonna be a little slice of photoshop heaven.

[drauz]

Got this e-mail today. Rex Tillerson is using a gmail account to conduct official business!!


U.S Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520.
E-mail: departmentofstate202@gmail.com
Your ATM Visa Card Will Be Shipped Through USPS To Your Address I am Mr. Rex W. Tillerson, United States Secretary of State by profession. This is to inform you officially that after our investigations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other Security Agencies in the Country for the year ended 2016 and 2017, we discovered that you have not receive your fund.
I have made it my first point of call since taking office to settle all Outstanding Payments accrued to Individuals or Corporations with respect to local and overseas contract payment, Debt Rescheduling and Outstanding Compensation payment.
This is to make sure all Outstanding payments are settled beginning of this fiscal year 2017. On Behalf of the entire staff of the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations in collaboration with World Bank, we apologize for the delay of your contract payment, Winning or Inheritance funds from most of African Countries and all the inconveniences you encountered while pursuing this payment.
However, from the records of outstanding beneficiaries due for payment with the U.S Secretary of State, your name was discovered as next on the list of the outstanding payment who has not yet received their payments.
Note that from the record in my file, your outstanding contract payment is $1,850,000.00 USD (One Million, Eight Hundred And Fifty Thousand United States Dollars) loaded in an ATM Visa Card that allows you to make a daily maximum withdrawal limit of $5,000 Five Thousand Dollars) YOUR ATM PIN CODE ( 7250 ).
I have your file here in my office and it says that you are yet to receive your fund valued at $1,850,000.00 USD (One Million, Eight Hundred And Fifty Thousand United States Dollars). This Funds will now be delivered to your designated address or your preferred payment option.
We have perfected all modules on how to bring this fund to your house without any problem, but be aware that United Nations and the United States Government has only authorised my office to release the Sum of $1,850,000.00 USD to you as true beneficiary of the Fund.
Note that your loaded ATM Visa Card will be mailed to you through Priority Mail Express (USPS) to your designated address immediately you admit full compliance to this email. You are advised to kindly reply this email with the below details enclosed to help ensure safe mailing of your ATM Visa Card:
Your Full Name:
Your Contact House Address:
Name of City of Residence:
Country of Residence:
Direct Mobile Telephone Number:
ID Card, DL or Passport Copy:
Age and Occupation:
NOTE: Every documentation proof for your fund have been packaged and seal to be mailed together with your Visa Card to your address. Therefore, the only obligation required of you by the laws of the Government of United States and the financial Monetary Policy of the Supreme Court, states that; you as a beneficiary must officially obtain the irrevocable LEGAL STAY OF PROCEED from the Supreme Court of USA, as a means to justify the legitimacy, transparency and clean bill of funds from USA so that by the time your funds gets to you, no authority will question the funds as it has been legally certified free from all financial Malpractices and facets. The LEGAL STAY OF PROCEED is valued at a cost of just ( $320) The fee payment can be made through Western union or Money Gram Money Transfer here in the USA:
As soon as the above mentioned $320 is received, The LEGAL STAY OF PROCEED will be secured on your behalf immediately. I need all the compliance that I can get from you to ensure we get this project accomplished. Personally, I am very sorry for the delay you have gone through in the past years. Thanks for adhering to this instructions which are meant for your sole benefit, once again accept my congratulations in advance.
Thanks for your cooperation as your quick response to this email notice with adherence to the above instructions is highly anticipated.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Rex W. Tillerson.
CALL: +1-4242-508-766
Email ( departmentofstate202@gmail.com )

[cwolff]

That was so good of him to reach out. LMAO. They sure put some work into this scam. The email looks great.

[Methais]

They hold all three branches, can't get shit done, and blame someone else. Typical.

Remember when Obama had a supermajority for 2 years and the left still blamed republicans for obstructing?

[cwolff]

Remember when Obama had a supermajority for 2 years and the left still blamed republicans for obstructing?

LMAO nice try dingbat.

[cwolff]

Trumps attorney threatened a dude who emailed him after seeing a Rachel Maddow show. Issues of alcoholism have come up. Here is his defense:


Since the story was published, his spokesman issued a statement disputing several parts of the story: “Marc Kasowitz has not struggled with alcoholism,” Sitrick wrote. “He has not come into the office intoxicated, attorneys have not had to go across the street to the restaurant during the workday to consult Kasowitz on work matters.”

hahahaha. WTF I love the denial that he fucks off in a restaurant across the street.

https://www.propublica.org/article/marc-kasowitz-trump-lawyer-threat-emails-maddow

[Shaps]

Trumps attorney threatened a dude who emailed him after seeing a Rachel Maddow show. Issues of alcoholism have come up. Here is his defense:



hahahaha. WTF I love the denial that he fucks off in a restaurant across the street.

https://www.propublica.org/article/marc-kasowitz-trump-lawyer-threat-emails-maddow

I didn't watch it because I can't stand Rachel Maddow at all, but are you saying the left is now disparaging a person with a medical problem? Those fucking vicious bastards! Attacking a person who suffers from a deadly addiction. Where is the compassion!

[cwolff]

Yeah obviously you missed it cuz there's no link to a f****** video. And this is not about Rachel Maddow