Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

  1. #21
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    Why celebrate something you lost?
    Because it pisses the North off. Anything that gets the Yanks fluttered works
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by soccerboy22 View Post
    Part of it is about heritage.
    Living in the south all my life, I have come to understand that heritage, in that context is just another term for racism.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London, England and Dijon, France
    Last Seen
    03-06-11 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    598

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Ah, now that is the Monsieur Marteau I am familiar with. What a relief; I had begun to fear for your health.
    A joke, mon ami.

    In reality, though, I find that many Americans often assume that European liberalism is the same as American liberalism, and they see the "liberal" brand on most European posters, and assume they're like the Democrats in the States -- but that's not the case. European liberalism is progressivist, as opposed to democratic, as it is in the States -- and so you'll find me agreeing with the Republican stances on subjects like foreign policy, economic measures, immigration issues, and most of all, defense topics.

    On the other hand, progressive liberals, as are the European norm, will probably be much more extreme on social policy (healthcare, welfare, education, infrastructure) as well as governmental agencies, political constructs, and international relations (different from foreign policy).

    So, there you have it -- I imagine we probably agree on much more than you think. XD

  4. #24
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Did anyone ever declare that's why we're there? Or even one of the purposes among many?
    Did we fight Desert Storm for much other reason than to prevent Saddam Hussin from possibly getting his hands on half the world's oil reserves?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #25
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Transparent attempt at a derail. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    The south cited slavery repeatedly in their declarations of secession.

    As the saying goes:
    Those who know little about the Civil War know it was about slavery.
    Those who know some about the Civil War know it was about states' rights.
    Those who know a lot about the Civil War know it was about slavery.
    Actually, those who know little about the Civil War, think that the war was all about slavery.

    Care to show us any primary source docs that point to slavery being the reason that southern soldiers fought in the Confederate Army? I'm betting, no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #26
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Actually, those who know little about the Civil War, think that the war was all about slavery.

    Care to show us any primary source docs that point to slavery being the reason that southern soldiers fought in the Confederate Army? I'm betting, no.
    Actually, I already posted a link to the South Carolina Articles of Secession. In another thread, I posted links to the Georga, Mississippi, and Texas Articles of Secession. Yes, slavery was the reason for secession, and Southern soldiers fought for the Confederate States, which strongly supported slavery so much that they gave it as their main reason for seceeding. So yes, if soldiers fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for slavery. That's a no-brainer.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #27
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, I already posted a link to the South Carolina Articles of Secession. In another thread, I posted links to the Georga, Mississippi, and Texas Articles of Secession. Yes, slavery was the reason for secession, and Southern soldiers fought for the Confederate States, which strongly supported slavery so much that they gave it as their main reason for seceeding. So yes, if soldiers fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for slavery. That's a no-brainer.
    In the mind of a narrow-minded person, that's good enough.

    To say that the average Confederate soldier went to war to preserve slavery is as dumbassed-a-logic that American soldiers went to war in the middle east for oil. The folks who think that the Civil War was fought strictly over slavery are in the same group that think that Obama isn't an American citizen and think that Bush was behind 9/11. They're no different than the trufers and the birfers; taking half-assed information and turning it into unquestionable fact.
    Last edited by apdst; 12-21-10 at 12:04 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #28
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    In the mind of a narrow-minded person, that's good enough.

    To say that the average Confederate soldier went to war to preserve slavery is as dumbassed-a-logic that American soldiers went to war in the middle east for oil. The folks who think that the Civil War was fought strictly over slavery are in the same group that think that Obama isn't an American citizen and think that Bush was behind 9/11. They're no different than the trufers and the birfers; taking half-assed information and turning it into unquestionable fact.
    The Articles of Secession are not half-assed information. They were written by the very people who seceded. So, yes, they are unquestionable fact. You can't change history, because the history is already there, in black and white, written in their own hand, for everybody to see. They condemned themselves in the eyes of history by what they themselves wrote.

    Also, this is not at all like the birfers you are talking about. The birfers demand to see a document that has already been produced. On the other hand, what the secessionists wrote is also on public display, so there can be no controversy..... Well, maybe there can be. Are you going to demand that the long form of the Articles of Secession be produced? Orly Taitz might take up your case for you.
    Last edited by danarhea; 12-21-10 at 12:16 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  9. #29
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The Articles of Secession are not half-assed information. They were written by the very people who seceded. So, yes, they are unquestionable fact. You can't change history, because the history is already there, in black and white, written in their own hand, for everybody to see. They condemned themselves in the eyes of history by what they themselves wrote.
    The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

    You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.

    Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.

    BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??
    Last edited by apdst; 12-21-10 at 12:22 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #30
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: 150 years later, S. Carolina celebration sparks new Civil War

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.

    You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.

    Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.

    BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??
    Nope, it was a different topic. And how can I be a truther when the documents are there for all to see, in black and white, written by the very people who seceeded? It was about slavery, no matter what other alternate explantion you want to shovel at the rest of us.
    Last edited by danarhea; 12-21-10 at 12:47 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •