- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 10,101
- Reaction score
- 2,990
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
As a libertarian, I support whatever consensual relationships you care to form!
I like that view ... would you like to join my harem? :mrgreen:
As a libertarian, I support whatever consensual relationships you care to form!
I cannot have a discussion with someone who does not think the bondage and murder of an entire people was second to tariffs and "states rights."
You have made yourself more than clear. You think the Southern States had a right to to enslave people, ie your "States Rights" arguments.
You're right, I don't want to have an in-depth discussion with you.
Because it would be a monumental waste of time
:rofl
How did you guess? I have a few slaves locked up in my shed but then again ... does it count if they are sex slaves? :shock:
I like that view ... would you like to join my harem? :mrgreen:
I think you are wrong in that the last 200 years have shown that when Americans as a majority are made irrelevant by those who govern them, they show their ire at the ballot Box, not by violent overthrow.
I hope you are wrong and I am right. :2wave:
That's all your bull**** way of deflecting from the fact that you found yourself pitted against someone who actually knows his history.
It's ok...you can tuck tail and run. It certainly won't make me laugh at you any harder than I already am. :lol:
Considering the reasoning skills you've displayed here, you might consider asking for a refund. :doh
Keep thinking this is about "winning." In the meantime, I will live in the real world.
Either way, your views are clear.
The proud and noble South a victim of Northern aggression.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so ridiculous.
Keep thinking this is about "winning." In the meantime, I will live in the real world.
In the real world, or more to the point, in this country....slavery is a long settled issue.
Sorry to intrude on your argument...
Ahhh, taking personal shots because you have nothing left in the tank.
:rofl
This would be funny if it weren't so ****ing sad.
Ahhh, taking personal shots because you have nothing left in the tank.
:rofl
I believe my ideas (as to the motives of a majority of the anti-HC movement) are far more measurable & less fanciful than any others I can think of.
Are we supposed to really believe that..after 8 years of paying for all the fiascos & wars of Bush & the GOP...with not a word about how are we gonna pay for them...That SUDDENLY the GOP is fiscally responsible???...& only when a Dem is in the WH???
That this whole dog & pony show isn't just to protect their masters.......Big Insurance?
No...I think my ideas on motive are much more believable than yours, & racism is just an ugly weapon to achieve their goal of keeping the status quo.
Simply observing, considering you never bothered to answer anything I said.
But what you've done here today is actually pretty remarkable -- you've united a number of people who usually disagree with other to the common cause of exposing how weak your debate skills are. That, alone, ought to tell you something, if you choose to learn from it. And wise people choose to learn from every occasion.
Don't worry its not an argument.
It's one poster saying the South was proud and noble. It was fighting for States rights (the right to deny freedom to slaves), and that, in reality, the South was the victim.
The south was a victim,
How would you explain then, the civil war, and the 600,000 that died?
Like I said, I do hope I am wrong, and you are right.:3oops:
Listen, I'm not going to waste my time trading words with someone who believes the South was the victim.
So save yourself with the "not that many people" had slave arguments.
It is weak, it is a red-herring and I will not respond to it, because it is not serious, not relevent and certainly not significant.
Simply observing, considering you never bothered to answer anything I said.
But what you've done here today is actually pretty remarkable -- you've united a number of people who usually disagree with other to the common cause of exposing how weak your debate skills are. That, alone, ought to tell you something, if you choose to learn from it. And wise people choose to learn from every occasion.
I don't see anything remarkable in maintaing the wacky viewpoint that a)The South was a proud and noble, b) the South was really the victim, c) they were justifiably fighting for their right to keep their slave culture.
As I stated, 200 years, well actually about 150 years, allows a nation to mature and refine it's democracy to the point that there is a legitimacy to the process that allows civil debate and civil outcomes.
This was a fairly new nation back in the 1860's and we were still testing the theory of State's Rights. I think that issue was settled once and for all by Lincoln's leadership and the test he faced as President of the time.
This is why we must stand firm in Iraq and Afghanistan; the notion that two nations that have never had Democracy in their long histories can implement it with success in a few short years requires historical ignorance and willful denial.
Sorry friend, and this is probably best in another thread entirely, but Lincoln was not a great leader, not IMHO.
I hate to throw a wet blanket on things... but I'm still waiting for evidence to be presented that Joe Wilson is a racist.
I know... I know... Irrelevant.
Liberals don't need no stinking evidence.
.