Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


the racist, slave owning camel.
That doesn't sound that different from the Northern camel.  They just were racist against immigrants of every stripe in addition to blacks.  They didn't have slavery, but they were pretty close to it.
my eyes are bleeding again.
It's true though, isn't it?  I prefer to look at the truth in the darkest ways possible because it feels the most real.  Can't we agree that, if you break it down far enough, you realize that class divides us more than race?

Racism is everywhere, and I don't see much of a difference between the racism of the North and the South when you look at how immigrants were treated back then.


The game is the same today.  For all practical purposes, race is just a distraction for people to fight each other over so that the powers that be can continue fucking us over.  As long as we're divided by race, the working class will continue to be controlled by the rich elite.   MLK figured that out shortly before he was killed....   Coincidence.... I think not....
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

The question is difficult. That decision would affect everyone in the union, not just the states that wanted to leave. If you have three men carrying a couch up a flight of stairs and one decides midway through that they don't want to be there anymore ...than the other two guys are screwed. It would also effect many generations to follow. I bet the majority of Americans (south included) today are glad the United States held together.
Well, of course, but then again, you could say that the Revolution looked pretty sketchy in the beginning, right?   Things turned out pretty well after we kicked the asses of the British....    until we started exploiting each other....

By the days of the Civil War, it seemed like there was a necessity for a split.  Things weren't working, so secession seemed pretty sensible, at least from what I've read.

Hell, I'd support a split today with the way things are going.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7073

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The question is difficult. That decision would affect everyone in the union, not just the states that wanted to leave. If you have three men carrying a couch up a flight of stairs and one decides midway through that they don't want to be there anymore ...than the other two guys are screwed. It would also effect many generations to follow. I bet the majority of Americans (south included) today are glad the United States held together.
Well, of course, but then again, you could say that the Revolution looked pretty sketchy in the beginning, right?   Things turned out pretty well after we kicked the asses of the British....    until we started exploiting each other....

By the days of the Civil War, it seemed like there was a necessity for a split.  Things weren't working, so secession seemed pretty sensible, at least from what I've read.

Hell, I'd support a split today with the way things are going.
Im sure your ancestors were canadian.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-12 22:24:33)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The question is difficult. That decision would affect everyone in the union, not just the states that wanted to leave. If you have three men carrying a couch up a flight of stairs and one decides midway through that they don't want to be there anymore ...than the other two guys are screwed. It would also effect many generations to follow. I bet the majority of Americans (south included) today are glad the United States held together.
Well, of course, but then again, you could say that the Revolution looked pretty sketchy in the beginning, right?   Things turned out pretty well after we kicked the asses of the British....    until we started exploiting each other....

By the days of the Civil War, it seemed like there was a necessity for a split.  Things weren't working, so secession seemed pretty sensible, at least from what I've read.

Hell, I'd support a split today with the way things are going.
Im sure your ancestors were canadian.
Maybe...  I have no idea what half of my heritage actually is, because my mother was adopted before they kept records.   My other half is Scotch-Irish  (and apparently, I'm descended from both George Mason and Alexander Hamilton).
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7030|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The question is difficult. That decision would affect everyone in the union, not just the states that wanted to leave. If you have three men carrying a couch up a flight of stairs and one decides midway through that they don't want to be there anymore ...than the other two guys are screwed. It would also effect many generations to follow. I bet the majority of Americans (south included) today are glad the United States held together.
Well, of course, but then again, you could say that the Revolution looked pretty sketchy in the beginning, right?   Things turned out pretty well after we kicked the asses of the British....    until we started exploiting each other....

By the days of the Civil War, it seemed like there was a necessity for a split.  Things weren't working, so secession seemed pretty sensible, at least from what I've read.

Hell, I'd support a split today with the way things are going.
You could also say the end justified the means. Things are tough, but civil wars, especially in modern times, are horrific. Fortunately most Americans don't share your idea of splitting up The United States.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7030|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Maybe...  I have no idea what half of my heritage actually is, because my mother was adopted before they kept records.   My other half is Scotch-Irish  (and apparently, I'm descended from both George Mason and Alexander Hamilton).
So yea, someone in my ancestry supported rebellion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

The question is difficult. That decision would affect everyone in the union, not just the states that wanted to leave. If you have three men carrying a couch up a flight of stairs and one decides midway through that they don't want to be there anymore ...than the other two guys are screwed. It would also effect many generations to follow. I bet the majority of Americans (south included) today are glad the United States held together.
Well, of course, but then again, you could say that the Revolution looked pretty sketchy in the beginning, right?   Things turned out pretty well after we kicked the asses of the British....    until we started exploiting each other....

By the days of the Civil War, it seemed like there was a necessity for a split.  Things weren't working, so secession seemed pretty sensible, at least from what I've read.

Hell, I'd support a split today with the way things are going.
You could also say the end justified the means. Things are tough, but civil wars, especially in modern times, are horrific. Fortunately most Americans don't share your idea of splitting up The United States.
Fortunately or unfortunately...  depending on how you look at it.

I just have never felt loyalty to a government.  Nationalism is silly to me, because principles and culture are what define us as people, not nationalities.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Maybe...  I have no idea what half of my heritage actually is, because my mother was adopted before they kept records.   My other half is Scotch-Irish  (and apparently, I'm descended from both George Mason and Alexander Hamilton).
So yea, someone in my ancestry supported rebellion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion
Nice... 
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7073
The book of Ruth lists Perez as being part of the ancestral genealogy of King David[5], and the Book of Matthew consequently mentions him when specifying the genealogy of Jesus[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharez

Im related to Jesus.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7030|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, of course, but then again, you could say that the Revolution looked pretty sketchy in the beginning, right?   Things turned out pretty well after we kicked the asses of the British....    until we started exploiting each other....

By the days of the Civil War, it seemed like there was a necessity for a split.  Things weren't working, so secession seemed pretty sensible, at least from what I've read.

Hell, I'd support a split today with the way things are going.
You could also say the end justified the means. Things are tough, but civil wars, especially in modern times, are horrific. Fortunately most Americans don't share your idea of splitting up The United States.
Fortunately or unfortunately...  depending on how you look at it.

I just have never felt loyalty to a government.  Nationalism is silly to me, because principles and culture are what define us as people, not nationalities.
Worked out great for Russia didn't it? I am not a fan overt patriotism neither. I do however believe there is strength in unity. This only works when the role of the federal government is small (I know we agree here). People are of course more important than places.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

The book of Ruth lists Perez as being part of the ancestral genealogy of King David[5], and the Book of Matthew consequently mentions him when specifying the genealogy of Jesus[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharez

Im related to Jesus.
lol...  I probably am too...  by like several hundred generations... 
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7190

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Im related to Jesus.
"are you saying jesus christ can't hit a curve ball?"
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


You could also say the end justified the means. Things are tough, but civil wars, especially in modern times, are horrific. Fortunately most Americans don't share your idea of splitting up The United States.
Fortunately or unfortunately...  depending on how you look at it.

I just have never felt loyalty to a government.  Nationalism is silly to me, because principles and culture are what define us as people, not nationalities.
Worked out great for Russia didn't it? I am not a fan overt patriotism neither. I do however believe there is strength in unity. This only works when the role of the federal government is small (I know we agree here). People are of course more important than places.
*nods*  My argument is that the federal government is too big to properly represent us as 1 nation anymore.  Nowadays, it feels like each administration is just aligned to the interests of a small section of the country.  Dubya was focused on Texan ideas and values.   Obama is better than most about diversifying his agenda, but one could argue he's primarily Chicagoan in what he represents.   McCain represents Arizonian interests, etc.

I just find it hard to see our government lasting much longer in its current form due to the conflicts of sectionalism.
David.P
Banned
+649|6703

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Im related to Jesus.
Is it pronounced Hei Zus?
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7073

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Fortunately or unfortunately...  depending on how you look at it.

I just have never felt loyalty to a government.  Nationalism is silly to me, because principles and culture are what define us as people, not nationalities.
Worked out great for Russia didn't it? I am not a fan overt patriotism neither. I do however believe there is strength in unity. This only works when the role of the federal government is small (I know we agree here). People are of course more important than places.
*nods*  My argument is that the federal government is too big to properly represent us as 1 nation anymore.  Nowadays, it feels like each administration is just aligned to the interests of a small section of the country.  Dubya was focused on Texan ideas and values.   Obama is better than most about diversifying his agenda, but one could argue he's primarily Chicagoan in what he represents.   McCain represents Arizonian interests, etc.

I just find it hard to see our government lasting much longer in its current form due to the conflicts of sectionalism.
I think youd find yourself in a very small portion of the American population that actually sees our society the way you do.  Conflicts in sectionalism are news to me.   Perhaps your personal views cloud any objective position you have on our society.
Moo? Si!
Tall, Dark, Antlered
+39|6557|817---->907

usmarine wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Im related to Jesus.
"are you saying jesus christ can't hit a curve ball?"
The pope may be french, but Jesus is english
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|7044|do not disturb

Kmarion wrote:

No the majority of people in the south did not own slaves. But they supported it. Like most wars that are fought, they are fought for a cause.


Lincoln-Douglas debate:
October 15, 1858

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio

September 17, 1859

I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.


October 15, 1858

And when this new principle [that African Americans were not covered by the phrase "all men are created equal"] -- this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago, -- is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design; I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro -- to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property of the negro in all the States of the Union.

Lincoln To Henry L. Pierce
April 6, 1859

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

August 1, 1858

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

He opened the eyes of a great many people... whether you are prepared to admit it or not.
Firstly the war was about preserving the union at the start of the war, and later slavery became an issue. Secondly Lincoln was a racist warmonger in my opinion, and did everything he could to further his historical legacy.

Thomas DiLorenzo wrote:

Slave owners in the border states occupied by the U.S. Army were allowed to keep their slaves. Whenever any of Lincoln's generals, such as Gen. Fremont, took it upon themselves to emancipate some slaves early in the war he rebuffed them, reversed their decisions, and demoted them. The Emancipation Proclamation itself very specifically exempted all areas of the country that were controlled by the U.S. Army, guaranteeing that no slaves would be emancipated by the Proclamation.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln referred to the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. He said that he already held the legality of slavery to be "implied constitutinal law," and "I have no objection to its being made express and irrovocable" by enshrining slavery explicitly in the Constitution.
"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." -Lincoln

Lincoln was ambitious and took advantage of the abolitionist platform, especially in 1864. A lot of politicians do this. Just look at Hilary on the war or Mitt Romney on abortion. A good book to read would be The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo as I quoted earlier. I mean you can still debate a lot of things, but a lot of how we view him is based largely on myth than fact. He got his nickname Honest Abe not for being honest, but sarcastically as you might call a tall person shorty.

He did destroy the voluntary union of the states though.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7030|132 and Bush

Much of what you posted in commonly known. What I posted, some of which he said in private and on his death bed, is not. Of course it's not just his words, a racist person would never sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Seven states had already left the Union before Lincoln got into office. Apparently someone was warmonger before he was elected.

This is all so very repetitive.. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Kmar never forgets a topic

I respect you opinion, I just disagree. Character is a difficult thing to debate. Especially when comparing values over many decades. Drawing moral equivalence between 2007-->1800's is not comparing apples to apples. When you judge a person you must consider historical context.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6390|Washington DC

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ANd I hate the fact that the majority of military bases that I have been stationed or worked closely at have been named after traitors to our union.  Bragg, Benning, Hood, Jackson.  Sorry Turq,  Im set in stone on this issue.  This is a country I have and will most likely again risk my life for, I hate hearing about how people dont want to be a part of this idea of the United States
There's a memorial in the South commemorating this Southern soldier who was the head of a prison camp where many Northern soldiers died of starvation and abuse... they call him a martyr for being executed... pretty twisted. Can't remember the name off my head.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7050|London, England
Speaking of race etc.. you guys gotta remember that Jesus wasnt a European. He was born in Bethlehem (no, no that's not a place in Northern Europe with Evergreen trees and Snow). Also remember that back then Jews weren't Eastern European with names like Weinburg and shit. They were the 'real' Jews that were the native people in/around Israel. Nowadays the closest relatives are probably the Arabs.

Basically...

Jesus probably looked like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/RFJesus.jpg

Also, Jesus would've voted Democrats.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-02-13 15:00:42)

Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6897

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

and I hate that.  We are 1 nation, not 50.
We are 1 nation, but we are 50 different personalities.  This is why social policy should be strictly determined on a state level.
O'RLY?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6840|'Murka

usmarine wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Im related to Jesus.
"are you saying jesus christ can't hit a curve ball?"
Jobu needs a refill.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7073

HurricaИe wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

ANd I hate the fact that the majority of military bases that I have been stationed or worked closely at have been named after traitors to our union.  Bragg, Benning, Hood, Jackson.  Sorry Turq,  Im set in stone on this issue.  This is a country I have and will most likely again risk my life for, I hate hearing about how people dont want to be a part of this idea of the United States
There's a memorial in the South commemorating this Southern soldier who was the head of a prison camp where many Northern soldiers died of starvation and abuse... they call him a martyr for being executed... pretty twisted. Can't remember the name off my head.
the only person to have been convicted and executed for treason from the south after the war.


the place was called andersonville and the officer was a major werze or something like that.  some foreigner.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-02-13 16:30:48)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

and I hate that.  We are 1 nation, not 50.
We are 1 nation, but we are 50 different personalities.  This is why social policy should be strictly determined on a state level.
O'RLY?
The Articles of Confederation quite clearly limited the role of a central government.  At the time, it didn't work so well.   I think we've gone way too far in the opposite direction today.

The federal government is too large and too powerful.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7143|US

GS wrote:

I think youd find yourself in a very small portion of the American population that actually sees our society the way you do.  Conflicts in sectionalism are news to me.   Perhaps your personal views cloud any objective position you have on our society.
It is a minority view.  Then agian, does the majority of the population give a damn about our country?  I am beginning to wonder.  We get so caught up in partisan politics...yet half the country doesn't even vote!





Mek-Izzle wrote:

Jesus probably looked like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … FJesus.jpg

Also, Jesus would've voted Democrats.
Jesus did not involve himself in local politics...and he wasn't going to become a US citizen either.  Your comment is just demeaning the work he did in order to promote your own partisan political beliefs...that's just wrong.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-02-14 07:28:59)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard