- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 11,312
- Reaction score
- 4,265
Do those conservatives actually exist? I remember them demanding kneeling football players be fired and later storming the Capitol in a "peaceful" protest to over turn an election they lost.
Do those conservatives actually exist? I remember them demanding kneeling football players be fired and later storming the Capitol in a "peaceful" protest to over turn an election they lost.Who are those "conservatives" you speak of? Those who support the Constitution, human rights and free speech? If so, they'd be the perfect people to ask about what is or isn't racist.
I didn’t ever say that the government would or should have offered compensation to the South, though it’s a matter of record that Lincoln had his financial guys estimate the hypothetical cost— a little fact you not surprisingly omitted.
Who confined the argument to 1860? You and only you. The North tolerated the practice for roughly fifty years following the signing of the Constitution. They began to slowly eliminate the practice not out of morality but in order to block the South’s political power.
Aren’t you one of the guys who said the North didn’t solve the problem because they didn’t kill enough Southerners?
Yes, it's actually the Democrats who have been rioting for the past few years curtailing free speech, and wanting to change the Constitution. You know, like the big stuff?Do those conservatives actually exist? I remember them demanding kneeling football players be fired and later storming the Capitol in a "peaceful" protest to over turn an election they lost.
Is changing the Constitution against the constitution? Where did you learn civics?Yes, it's actually the Democrats who have been rioting for the past few years curtailing free speech, and wanting to change the Constitution. You know, like the big stuff?
I think when dealing with the south the most word-efficient approach is to just say "southern crazy" (or something like that) and move on. They hate people who are not white, they are trying to restore the confederacy, they think a billion animals were put on an ark (no, seriously, they really think this), their education system is as poopy as their economies, and they just won't stop obliviously asserting that they know how to do everything they objectively fail at (nor will they stop eating fried animal parts, but that's not relevant here) -- there's no point to conversing with them. They literally take a spray-painted orange con man and various "christian" evangelicals at face value. They are the suckers of all suckers, rolling in pig fat and believing every lie they have ever been told. So when you start with "A Louisiana state rep said ..." then yeah, I'd rather hear what the floating poop in a toilet pool said, it is better educated and less racist."A Louisiana state rep said earlier this week that schools shouldn’t teach “divisive concepts” but rather give students “the good, the bad, and the ugly” on various topics such as… slavery. Unfortunately, that was the example that immediately sprang to his mind in a recent hearing, and he quickly had to confirm it had no “good” parts.
Rep. Ray Garofolo, the chair of the Louisiana House Education Committee, made the comments during a committee hearing on his own bill that would ban any K-12 school or college that receives public funding from teaching “divisive concepts” such as the United States or Louisiana being “fundamentally, institutionally, or systemically racist or sexist.”
...During the same hearing, Rep. Gary Carter Jr., a Democrat, asked Garofolo point-blank if Louisiana “ever was” systematically racist or sexist. “From my perspective, I’m not a history teacher, so you can’t ask me a history question that I may not have that fact to,” Garofolo said."
Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery
Rep. Ray Garofolo was trying to explain his education bill, which is part of a larger trend against “critical race theory.”www.vice.com
the interesting thing about this is that a state legislator does not know if Louisiana was ever systematically racist. And that he doesn't know, he says, because he isn't a history teacher. Yet, he would pass a bill prohibiting teachers from teaching such a thing.
Any idea why Democrats want to change the Constitution? It's that they are the sore losers you complained about earlier with the "Insurrections". It's all about the electoral college. And of course the First and Second Amendments is a bother for themIs changing the Constitution against the constitution? Where did you learn civics?
I spent some in the south, being encouraged to start a business there, and the people there were wonderful, very helpful, informative, friendly and cooperative. The business didn't come to be but would love to go back there any time. Fine time.I think when dealing with the south the most word-efficient approach is to just say "southern crazy" (or something like that) and move on. They hate people who are not white, they are trying to restore the confederacy, they think a billion animals were put on an ark (no, seriously, they really think this), their education system is as poopy as their economies, and they just won't stop obliviously asserting that they know how to do everything they objectively fail at (nor will they stop eating fried animal parts, but that's not relevant here) -- there's no point to conversing with them. They literally take a spray-painted orange con man and various "christian" evangelicals at face value. They are the suckers of all suckers, rolling in pig fat and believing every lie they have ever been told. So when you start with "A Louisiana state rep said ..." then yeah, I'd rather hear what the floating poop in a toilet pool said, it is better educated and less racist.
Sure. We want to amend the constitution so presidential elections are decided by popular vote like all our other elections rather than maintain an antiquated electoral college system that was originally designed to give slave states weighted political power in relation to their non-voting population. None of that is remotely equivalent to rioting to over turn an election you lost.Any idea why Democrats want to change the Constitution? It's that they are the sore losers you complained about earlier with the "Insurrections". It's all about the electoral college. And of course the First and Second Amendments is a bother for them
The you would have to change it from a Republic and doubt that would happen, and this 'antiquated' system has worked very well for centuries, making the USA one of the longest running continuously free countries in the world.Sure. We want to amend the constitution so presidential elections are decided by popular vote like all our other elections rather than maintain an antiquated electoral college system that was originally designed to give slave states weighted political power in relation to their voting population. None of that is the remotely equivalent to rioting to overturn an election you lost.
Why would we have to change from a Republic? Do you even know what that is?The you would have to change it from a Republic and doubt that would happen, and this 'antiquated' system has worked very well for centuries, making the USA one of the longest running continuously free countries in the world.
Not exactly...The United States has been a Republic for 250 years or so and has completed miracles, bringing people of all beliefs from all over the world to live in peace.
Irony!It's a great experiment but the Marxists are doing a great job of propagandizing
Figure out what a Republic is first and then get back to me.- destroying the country from the inside and turning group against each other, censoring speech, and wanting political change without considering the consequences. Or perhaps their intent is to destroy the country, not improve it. That seems more likely.
Why would we have to change from a Republic? Do you even know what that is?
Not exactly...
Irony!
Figure out what a Republic is first and then get back to me.
Did you bother to read that article? Your author tries to pull a fast one and clarifies with his opening line by saying we aren't a pure democracy. Well no shit. I don't know anyone claiming that we are. We are a representative democracy and a Republic, the two aren't mutually exclusive and for all the flowery rhetoric the author musters where he praises the Federalists for protecting the contributions of non majorities, he never mentions the Africans they subjugated at the same time. Their wisdom, such as it were, is not beyond reproach.America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy
Contrary to popular belief, America is not, nor was it meant to be, a pure democracy. America is a republic. Nevertheless, more and more voices today are calling for America to become a direct democracy.www.heritage.org
So the vast majority of black voters, over 90% of us don't have brains? That's your non racist position?
But it is helpful. Got to move the Overton window somehow and what better way than to use corporations who do it all the time on behalf of their products?
So no objective criticism then... didn't think so.
I didn't misquote you, I asked you follow up questions to sus out what your ideas about race really are because so far they've been incoherent.
How so?
How is it BS?
Lincoln indeed went well out of his way to try and find a peaceful solution, while the South, confident that they could easily crush the North, was itching for war....and got smashed.
Again, the South controlled the federal government almost entirely for most of that time period. The 1820s to 1860s in particular was almost completely dominated by southern interests and southern desire to expand in order to benefit slavery. The North essentially disposed of slavery by 1860, while southerners only grew more fanatical in their admiration of it and desire to protect it.
Given that the ex-Confederates IMMEDIATELY began launching terrorist attacks against former slaves and other “undesirables” and imposed tyranny across the south under the banner of Jim Crow, its an undeniable fact that the North was FAR too lenient on the South.
All of which proves my contention that the North was motivated by the desire for power. I’ve already shown that they showed no abiding concern for ex-slaves, even once they had gained that power.
And that’s more proof that the North didn’t care about the slaves.
And that’s more proof that the North didn’t care about the slaves.
Abolitionists didn't gain any real political power until 1856. Up until then, even though most of the North didn't like slavery per se... it really wasn't in their backyard so it didn't really matter.The question was, why didn’t Northern states all make slavery incontrovertibly illegal on the state level. Dred Scott was irrelevant to that subject.
Because your “hot air” speculation has nothing to back it up, I cited Varon’s text in support of my position. What you got?
Yep.. the South left over the issue of slavery.Doesn't matter. All 14 traitor states listed the preservation of slavery as their reason for seceding in their declarations of secession.
The union wasn't required to care about why they were doing it, just that they were in fact doing it. And even then, the South managed to shoot first.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?