Fido
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 11:10 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido, there has yet to be civil war in these united states.

We did have a war between the states, but no civil war.
The war between the states is not even properly called that; but it was very much a civil war since it was not fought between separate nations... Are you mostly water and little man??? You are not much given to trust, but I have read on the subject by the foot, and on Lincoln, by the yard almost... If I may offer an opinion, it is because the South won the civil war that we must suffer the indignity of these ignorant yahoos plotting terror and war against this nation once more... The South was oppressed by slavery... Then as now, they have been oppressed by the financial powers, primarily of new york which has had them coming and going, as it has us all coming and going... Lincoln, though he accepted the wrong of slavery thought himself powerless as president to legally end it...

The South went off half caocked against him and his election when they had themselves made it possible... But we in turn left them as states, as the same states that had made war on this nation, and now the old South has reconstituted itself... They went republican in the last presidential election... They have no interest in going along to get along... Just as before, the South owns the military, and they have God on their side; and they can nuke us before we can even think about nuking them... Stone Wall, T J Jackson was a religious zealot, not too bright, but an angel of death... He was as nothing compared to the cold blooded, kill you as soon as look at you heirs of the old South...
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 11:17 am
@Fido,
What happened in this country back then is correctly called the war between the states.
The Northern states invested in mechanized factories, the Southern states stuck with physical labor and had few factories.
The Northern states stopped using slave labor, the Southern states did not.
The Northern states instructed the Southern states to follow their lead, they refused... the war between the states was on.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:00 pm
You have a warped view of that period of history, which doesn't surprise me. Slavery was not employed in the states of the North, and it was only tolerated by them in the interest of ratifying the constitution and forming the union. The North did not "instruct" the South in anything. The states of the South started that war. The war began when state troops in Florida fired on Federal troops at Forts McRae and Barrancas outside Pensacola in January, 1861. It was continued and escalated when state forces in South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. You just make **** up as you go along.
mags314772
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:05 pm
@H2O MAN,
I don't propose limits on free speech; I do propose legislation to more adequately address the problem of the mentally ill who receive inadequate attention and treatment, and who, somehow, are able to buy a gun and ammunition
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:23 pm
@mags314772,
The system and all of the gun laws in place was sabotaged by humans.
Somebody, everybody failed to recognize, document and follow this guy.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:24 pm
@Setanta,
Not at all, it is you that doesn't get it.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:27 pm
@H2O MAN,
The South started that war. You can piss and moan all you want, the historical record is clear. Either you are a liar, or you are completely ignorant of the subject--in which case you should STFU.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:28 pm
@Setanta,
or both...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:30 pm
That's as close as i come to being charitable . . .
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:31 pm
@Setanta,
Set, don't be such a dumb ass.
Why are you talking about who started the war between the states?

Please pay attention you dolt, the discussion you have jumped into
is about how these United States have never experienced a civil war.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:34 pm
@H2O MAN,
Listen **** for brains, you listed a load of bullshit to try to claim that it was a "war between the states," and not a civil war. Leaving aside the incredible stupidity of such a claim as that, the things you listed were pure fantasy--they were bullshit. Pointing that out beggars your agrument. You have never been any good at debate, so it is unsurprising that you need to have that pointed out to you. It was a civil war, whether or not you're bright enough to know it.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:35 pm
@Setanta,
yeah Set.

why are you talking about facts.

there is no use for facts in this discussion.

sheesh...
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:35 pm
@Setanta,
You should have just STFU when you were ahead.

It's obvious that you a violent and angry liberal progressive democrat... you have just raised your own red flag.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:36 pm
@Rockhead,
Now foolish of me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:36 pm
@H2O MAN,
You're so backward, everyone is ahead of you.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:37 pm
@Setanta,
Laughing Turn around, you're going the wrong way.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:43 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ill bite. Why do you not consider the war between the states a civil war??.Is it because the states of the CSA seceeded FIRST before they started hostilities ? If so,You seem to be alone among history authorities on this point .
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:43 pm
What is "Blood Libel"

Quote:
Carrie Dann writes:Within minutes of the release of Sarah Palin’s video response to the Tucson shootings, the Web ignited with furious debate about the former Alaska governor’s use of the phrase “blood libel” to describe connections drawn between Arizona shooter Jared Loughner and conservatives who have used guns and violence as metaphors for political activism.

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

The intensely controversial nature of the term stems from its origins in hundreds of years of anti-Semitic rhetoric – a detail made no less striking by the fact that Loughner’s target, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is her state’s first Jewish congresswoman.

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, the term refers to:

The accusation that Jews murder non-Jews to obtain blood for Passover rituals. This accusation was repeated in many places in the Middle Ages and was the cause of anti-Jewish riots and massacres. It was a regular motif in anti-Semitic propaganda until the Second World War.

The first recorded accusation of Jews murdering Christian children appears to have been in 1144 A.D., when -- according to Thomas of Monmouth, a monk – a English boy’s murder by crucifixion was blamed on Jews in Norwich.

The myth – which became pervasive in medieval times and beyond – evolved into a popular superstition that Jews harvest the blood of Christian children to make Passover matzoh or to use for other ceremonies.

Less than 4 hours after the release of the video, Wikipedia.org's entry on “blood libel” had been updated to note Palin's application of the phrase to the aftermath of the Tucson shootings.

Despite the bright spotlight pointed at Palin’s uttering of the flashpoint expression, hers was not the first usage of the phrase by a conservative in the wake of the Arizona shootings. Several other commentators -- all political conservatives -- invoked “blood libel” in print yesterday.

In an op-ed about the shootings in the Wall Street Journal on January 11, University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds asked “Where is the decency in blood libel?” Human Events staff writer John Hayward urged the “Right to fight back” against blame for the attacks in a piece titled “The Giffords Blood Libel Will Fail; The Left rides a horse that is dying beneath them.”

And, on the same day, the editorial page of the Washington Examiner slammed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for placing “the blood libel of blame for the Tucson murders squarely on the shoulders of the crowds at the McCain-Palin rallies and right-wing extremism."
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:46 pm
@farmerman,
Because it does not meet the criteria to be labeled a civil war.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 12:46 pm
@farmerman,
Troops from Florida and Alabama fired on Forts McRae and Barrancas before the Confederate States were organized. Not that mere facts have any bearing on what the waterboy pukes up here.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 07:09:50