who makes the Marines look bad -- this guy -think the military protects constitution?

[wimwag]

Furthermore, southern Democrat politicians were terrified at the thought of black men owning guns, living next to their former captors and created the gun control lobby.

Southern "pride" advocate=gun control advocate

Books are good for more than just sleeping under.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Wrong. The South threw a temper tantrum and seceded when President Lincoln outlawed slavery. When told to back it up, the south attacked a northern fort, thus sealing its fate.

Slavery is bad. Confederacy is dead. Get over it.

You need a history book.....

The north had slaves too....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It was never about slavery. Slavery was still legal in the North until sometime after the end of the war of Northern Aggression.

+1 New Jersey didn't outlaw slavery until 1965, when congress did it.

Wrong. The South threw a temper tantrum and seceded when President Lincoln outlawed slavery. When told to back it up, the south attacked a northern fort, thus sealing its fate.

Slavery is bad. Confederacy is dead. Get over it.

Cite.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"I much prefer the view of Marine Major Brian Cillissen, as quoted by KRQE:

There are a lot of folks that have a lot of passion about that flag and want to protect it at all costs, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we’re in the service to support and defend the Constitution. If somebody is disrespecting that flag, legitimately it’s not any one person’s place to use intimidation or coercion to try and stop that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...american-flag-from-protesters-dishonoring-it/

+1

 

[Freedom1Man]

Wrong. The South threw a temper tantrum and seceded when President Lincoln outlawed slavery. When told to back it up, the south attacked a northern fort, thus sealing its fate.

Slavery is bad. Confederacy is dead. Get over it.

IF slavery is so bad, then pull up my tax thread and comment on it.

If you believe that slavery is bad, can you at least explain to us what it is? Start a new thread titled "Slavery is bad" and we can continue this conversation.

EDIT....

SLAVERY

I created a thread to help prevent my assisting in the further derailing of this thread. Let's pick up any further slavery discussion there.

 

[marshaul]

The South... seceded when President Lincoln outlawed slavery.

I missed this gem because the user is on my ignore list. I suppose it goes without saying that no serious historian – even the most ardent supporter of Lincoln or the Union cause – would support this sequence of events.

There's no way this guy isn't intentionally trolling us.

 

[wimwag]

IF slavery is so bad, then pull up my tax thread and comment on it.

If you believe that slavery is bad, can you at least explain to us what it is? Start a new thread titled "Slavery is bad" and we can continue this conversation.

EDIT....

SLAVERY

I created a thread to help prevent my assisting in the further derailing of this thread. Let's pick up any further slavery discussion there.

The title of that thread is EPIC trolling.

This is why all the libs think we are racist.

 

[georg jetson]

The title of that thread is EPIC trolling.

This is why all the libs think we are racist.

No. There is no logical thought behind any of the liberal mindsets.

 

[wimwag]

Here is a famous painting of Gen. Lee surrendering the Army of Virginia at Appatamox, confirming that the attempt to secede over the issue of slavery (or as some claim, a "way of life" which nonetheless relied on forced labor of individuals kidnapped from another country) was crushed and that the war against slavery is indeed over. Your fantasy that it was about anything else is absurd. The end of slavery triggered the rise of gun control, which was another attempt to deprive the black community of its civil rights.

 

[georg jetson]

Well, if that painting had a conversation bubble, then perhaps it might be used to make your point.

 

[marshaul]

I personally do not dispute that the issue of slavery was central to the civil war.

It is a truth, however, that Lincoln carefully avoided the issue of slavery as conflict began to brew. His explicit, stated justification for the war was to preserve the union.

I would find little to criticize had Lincoln/the Union said something along the lines of the following: "You may secede, but we aren't comfortable with being neighbors with a slave state. To this end, we will use military force to free existing slaves and to prevent new ones from being held. Now the onus is on you: what do you really want? Is it secession, or are you going to fight us because it's really slavery?"

But that isn't what happened. Instead, it was asserted that states lose, into perpetuity, all right to dissolve affiliation with the Federal government.

I, personally, oppose this result not because I sympathize with slavery or the racism endemic in the Old South, but because I believe communities must maintain the right to self-govern, including to abandon any coercive "governance" at all. Lincoln's precedent precludes this; the Federal government will use military force before it will let a community self-govern on its own terms.

To the forum: Note I make this post to y'all, not in direct response to the troll. I've provided a very reasonable rebuttal to his claims, and my post history (and personal behavior, to those who know me) demonstrate that I do not hold a racist thought. In fact, I'm something of a "genetic egalitarian", to the point of begin at odds with mainstream sociology. My prediction is that the poster in question will ignore anything I've said of substance, and continue to make empty accusations of crypto-racism. Because he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

To the forum: Note I make this post to y'all, not in direct response to the troll. I've provided a very reasonable rebuttal to his claims, and my post history (and personal behavior, to those who know me) demonstrate that I do not hold a racist thought. In fact, I'm something of a "genetic egalitarian", to the point of begin at odds with mainstream sociology. My prediction is that the poster in question will ignore anything I've said of substance, and continue to make empty accusations of crypto-racism. Because he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.

Well, you are partial to 1911s, suspicious if you ask me.....and no, you didn't, ask me, that is.

Oh, everybody is a crypto-racist.

http://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/crypto-racism-on-the-rise/

 

[wimwag]

I personally do not dispute that the issue of slavery was central to the civil war.

It is a truth, however, that Lincoln carefully avoided the issue of slavery as conflict began to brew. His explicit, stated justification for the war was to preserve the union.

I would find little to criticize had Lincoln/the Union said something along the lines of the following: "You may secede, but we aren't comfortable with being neighbors with a slave state. To this end, we will use military force to free existing slaves and to prevent new ones from being held. Now the onus is on you: what do you really want? Is it secession, or are you going to fight us because it's really slavery?"

But that isn't what happened. Instead, it was asserted that states lose, into perpetuity, all right to dissolve affiliation with the Federal government.

I, personally, oppose this result not because I sympathize with slavery or the racism endemic in the Old South, but because I believe communities must maintain the right to self-govern, including to abandon any coercive "governance" at all. Lincoln's precedent precludes this; the Federal government will use military force before it will let a community self-govern on its own terms.

To the forum: Note I make this post to y'all, not in direct response to the troll. I've provided a very reasonable rebuttal to his claims, and my post history (and personal behavior, to those who know me) demonstrate that I do not hold a racist thought. In fact, I'm something of a "genetic egalitarian", to the point of begin at odds with mainstream sociology. My prediction is that the poster in question will ignore anything I've said of substance, and continue to make empty accusations of crypto-racism. Because he's a troll, and that's what trolls do.

Explain to me why the hell Lincoln would let the south secede? Would you willingly allow your son to declare the lower floors of your house his knowing your enemies were courting him and planning to use him as a platform to attack you?

Your assertion that slavery was central to the issue is a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from the issue. Slavery WAS the issue and rather than work the lands themselves and earn their wages honestly, the lazy plantation owners threw money at politicians until they seceded and ATTACKED the north.

 

[wimwag]

Live in denial if you wish. Your claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery is very similar to the garbage being taught in the common core infected school system, run by the very same political party that seceded, created gun control and the KKK.
That same party now has convinced the minority community that any party but theirs is racist while actively promoting racism in Sanford Florida and encouraging members of those communities to subsist on government handouts, sponsored almost solely by that party, thus widening the gap between the income classes while actively moving to disarm the whole country in order to accomplish the enslavement of an entire nation.

 

[Primus]

The civil war was clearly about potatoes.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[wimwag]

The civil war was clearly about potatoes.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

indeed. The south seceded to protect their potato crop, afraid that the Irish immigrants settling in Boston would decimate it since they hadn't had any potatoes in 16 years.

The civil war was caused by the Great Tato Famine of 1845

 

[marshaul]

Explain to me why the hell Lincoln would let the south secede?

No. You explain to me how it is the right of the Federal government to prevent states from seceding from a government which, according to its own founding document, exists pursuant to their "consent".

The ends do not justify the means. Or, the only appropriate ends are determined by what lies within appropriate means. So, I don't give a damn what Lincoln's motivations were, and nor should you. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How you treat people is all that matters. And, if forcing people to work without their consent is wrong, then forcing people to obey a distant government without their consent is also wrong, albeit possibly to a lesser degree.

Those who are interested might read Lysander Spooner's No Treason. Spooner was a prominent abolitionist (his Unconstitutionality of Slavery was a great influence on Frederick Douglass's subsequent work) who, upon Southern secession, began making arguments very much like the one I've made here.

And he was a damn sight more persuasive than either of us.

 

[Primus]

No. You explain to me how it is the right of the Federal government to prevent states from seceding from a government which, according to its own founding document, exists pursuant to their "consent".

The ends do not justify the means. Or, the only appropriate ends are determined by what lies within appropriate means. So, I don't give a damn what Lincoln's motivations were, and nor should you. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How you treat people is all that matters. And, if forcing people to work without their consent is wrong, then forcing people to obey a distant government without their consent is also wrong, albeit possibly to a lesser degree.

Those who are interested might read Lysdaner Spooner's No Treason. Spooner was a prominent abolitionist (his Unconstitutionality of Slavery was a great influence on Frederick Douglass's subsequent work) who, upon Southern secession, began making arguments very much like the one I've made here.

And he was a damn sight more persuasive than either of us.

No. You explain to me why he has to explain to you why I have to explain to everyone here why I have to explain to my wife why I spend so much damn money on ammo at the range every week.

Persuade that my friend.

Sorry it was getting heavy in here.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

No. You explain to me how it is the right of the Federal government to prevent states from seceding from a government which, according to its own founding document, exists pursuant to their "consent".

The ends do not justify the means. Or, the only appropriate ends are determined by what lies within appropriate means. So, I don't give a damn what Lincoln's motivations were, and nor should you. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How you treat people is all that matters. And, if forcing people to work without their consent is wrong, then forcing people to obey a distant government without their consent is also wrong, albeit possibly to a lesser degree.

Those who are interested might read Lysdaner Spooner's No Treason. Spooner was a prominent abolitionist (his Unconstitutionality of Slavery was a great influence on Frederick Douglass's subsequent work) who, upon Southern secession, began making arguments very much like the one I've made here.

And he was a damn sight more persuasive than either of us.

No. You explain to me why he has to explain to you why I have to explain to everyone here why I have to explain to my wife why I spend so much damn money on ammo at the range every week.

Persuade that my friend.

Sorry it was getting heavy in here.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

And when your done explaining that....

Explain why my damn tub drain won't work. Got a new face plate and it plunger won't stop water from draining now.

You explain that and I'll be sincerely impressed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[wimwag]

No. You explain to me how it is the right of the Federal government to prevent states from seceding from a government which, according to its own founding document, exists pursuant to their "consent".

The ends do not justify the means. Or, the only appropriate ends are determined by what lies within appropriate means. So, I don't give a damn what Lincoln's motivations were, and nor should you. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How you treat people is all that matters. And, if forcing people to work without their consent is wrong, then forcing people to obey a distant government without their consent is also wrong, albeit possibly to a lesser degree.

Those who are interested might read Lysdaner Spooner's No Treason. Spooner was a prominent abolitionist (his Unconstitutionality of Slavery was a great influence on Frederick Douglass's subsequent work) who, upon Southern secession, began making arguments very much like the one I've made here.

And he was a damn sight more persuasive than either of us.

its a contest of brute force. The union existed before the desire of the south to secede over the issue of slavery. Therefore, the union included the south. The south said "no" to laws enacted and rebelled, attacking the north. Then the south was crushed. The south surrendered, war ended and 170 years later you pretend it was under different circumstances.