It is currently Thu Jun 06, 2024 4:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
FavreFan wrote:
It's probably also worth mentioning, in regards to history and relativism, that we were the last western country to abolish slavery and we did it long after Europe already had. The Somerset Decision came before we even won our independence. Relativism only excuses so much.

Emancipation Proclamation was in 1862. Not a perfect date for the end of slavery, but good enough.

The Dutch abolished slavery in 1863.
Portugal abolished slavery in 1869.
Spain abolished slavery in 1886.
Belgium abolished slavery in 1890.

The British Empire abolished slavery in 1843 and the French Empire abolished slavery in 1848.

Ceremonial laws or partial bans on slavery were passed before these dates but there was legal slavery in these countries or their colonies until at least the years listed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77472
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Nas tears down Lincoln based on his beliefs but loves FDR and LBJ.

FDR spoke at the 1924 Democrat National Convention, also known as the “Klanbake” for the “heavy representation of Ku Klux Klan-friendly delegates,” as reported at the Wall Street Journal. According to Digital History, after the Klanbake, “some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey…”

Roosevelt appointed “confidant” James Byrnes to the Supreme Court, who was so powerful that he was known as the “assistant president on the home front” and who “believed in racial segregation…and worked to defeat anti-lynching bills introduced in Congress.”

Despite the fact that Byrnes was not elected by the people, FDR “assigned Byrnes more powers than ever held by a public official.”

Even worse, FDR appointed prominent Ku Klux Klan member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black’s involvement in the KKK was confirmed by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette journalist Ray Sprigle, a journalist who won a “Pulitzer Prize for Reporting” for his exposé.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt additionally refused to meet with black Olympian Jesse Owens. As reported at the Daily Mail:

President Franklin Roosevelt never congratulated Owens or invited him to the White House. ‘Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me,’ Owens said.

But all of the above offenses pale in comparison to Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which “authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan.” Some Germans and Italians were also interned. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”


According to Caro, Robert Parker, Johnson’s sometime chauffer, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “n****r” or “chief.” When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, n****r, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”

LBJ pushed ahead with his “great society” program “which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs,” declaring that “negroes” are “getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness….” and claimed further that his efforts would secure the vote of the “n****rs” for “200 years.”


I'm not tearing down Lincoln. I'm just pointing out what is true. Lincoln is celebrated as a man of great character that fought a war to end slavery because of his strong conviction. That literally isn't true.

No one has said LBJ or FDR were saints. They aren't celebrated for things they literally didn't do. LBJ did more for the poor and minorities than any president has probably ever done.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Nas tears down Lincoln based on his beliefs but loves FDR and LBJ.

FDR spoke at the 1924 Democrat National Convention, also known as the “Klanbake” for the “heavy representation of Ku Klux Klan-friendly delegates,” as reported at the Wall Street Journal. According to Digital History, after the Klanbake, “some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey…”

Roosevelt appointed “confidant” James Byrnes to the Supreme Court, who was so powerful that he was known as the “assistant president on the home front” and who “believed in racial segregation…and worked to defeat anti-lynching bills introduced in Congress.”

Despite the fact that Byrnes was not elected by the people, FDR “assigned Byrnes more powers than ever held by a public official.”

Even worse, FDR appointed prominent Ku Klux Klan member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black’s involvement in the KKK was confirmed by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette journalist Ray Sprigle, a journalist who won a “Pulitzer Prize for Reporting” for his exposé.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt additionally refused to meet with black Olympian Jesse Owens. As reported at the Daily Mail:

President Franklin Roosevelt never congratulated Owens or invited him to the White House. ‘Hitler didn’t snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me,’ Owens said.

But all of the above offenses pale in comparison to Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which “authorized the internment of tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan.” Some Germans and Italians were also interned. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”


According to Caro, Robert Parker, Johnson’s sometime chauffer, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “n****r” or “chief.” When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, n****r, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”

LBJ pushed ahead with his “great society” program “which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs,” declaring that “negroes” are “getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness….” and claimed further that his efforts would secure the vote of the “n****rs” for “200 years.”


I'm not tearing down Lincoln. I'm just pointing out what is true. Lincoln is celebrated as a man of great character that fought a war to end slavery because of his strong conviction. That literally isn't true.

No one has said LBJ or FDR were saints. They aren't celebrated for things they literally didn't do. LBJ did more for the poor and minorities than any president has probably ever done.


People are complex. LBJ really did seem to care about the poor regardless of race. Probably because he was dirt poor growing up. FDR grew up rich, but went against his on class as president.

I still do not understand the quibble with Lincoln. It took incredible character to lead the country during the Civil War. He did not want to fight it, but he clearly also did not want slavery to continue. It was just such a different time. Jefferson Davis thought slavery was compassionate because black people were too stupid to be anything else. Lincoln had to be a successful politician in a time where this type of thinking was frequent. Ending slavery and keeping the country intact trumps his ignorance in other areas.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
312player wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I agree with Nas about Lincoln. Slavery ended as a result of the Civil War not actions taken by Lincoln. Lincoln even allowed slavery to exist after making the Emancipation Proclamation. His views regarding blacks being part of an inferior race also have to be taken into account. It's not just that he allowed slavery to exist. It is also his beliefs that are oft putting.


Why are you accounting for the lack of late 20th century social mores in someone who lived in the early 19th century?




England abolished slavery 30 years before Lincoln, it wasn't like ending slavery was unheard of.


Lincoln was 25 when Britain abolished slavery (in some places). MANY abolitionists were, by today's standards, still virulent, actual, racists. I'm wondering why people insist on judging them by today's standards, though.


John Brown is one of the few abolitionist that should ever be celebrated. I choose to not celebrate abolitionist for the very same reason cited by you above.


How do you celebrate John Brown?

What is funny is that many of your views right now will likely be seen as backwards and barbaric by the standards of say 2060. If you wanted to free the slaves you were on the right side of history, and without people pushing for that there would not have been anything resembling our modern views on equality.



I celebrate John Brown because his motives were altruistic. He is a true martyr. He actually didn't provide a distinction between being black and white. His theory on races ran counter to the prevailing thought unlike Lincoln.

As far as Lincoln goes he didn't fight a war to end slavery. He fought the war so that there wouldn't be an extension of slavery. He didn't even take the country to war over slavery.

In fact during the first couple of years of the war Lincoln and his generals didn't make slavery an issue because they didn't want the Civil War to be perceived as a war to end slavery.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Seacrest wrote:
Furthermore, the theory that the great Abe's thoughts were hijacked by the time he lived in is absolutely ludicrous.


:lol: I'm guessing you have as much substance for this point as you do for the time you said Obama disrespected Trump's win by turning off the White House lights at 3 am (ie none).

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77472
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?


Slavery would have ended with or without Lincoln and the union may have still been intact. He was an important president though. Would this country and our government exist without George Washington? What he did and how he conducted himself trumps everything any other president accomplished. Why is Kennedy ranked so high?

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:00 pm
Posts: 28789
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?


Slavery would have ended with or without Lincoln and the union may have still been intact. He was an important president though. Would this country and our government exist without George Washington? What he did and how he conducted himself trumps everything any other president accomplished. Why is Kennedy ranked so high?

Because he had a holey head?

_________________
2018
#ExtendLafleur


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
I celebrate John Brown because his motives were altruistic. He is a true martyr. He actually didn't provide a distinction between being black and white. His theory on races ran counter to the prevailing thought unlike Lincoln.

As far as Lincoln goes he didn't fight a war to end slavery. He fought the war so that there wouldn't be an extension of slavery. He didn't even take the country to war over slavery.

In fact during the first couple of years of the war Lincoln and his generals didn't make slavery an issue because they didn't want the Civil War to be perceived as a war to end slavery.


I asked how do you celebrate him because I think the idea of "celebrating" him as odd. John Brown had a terrible plan and got a bunch of people killed. The entire point of our government is to participate and change laws. He may be "pure" in your mind, but he accomplished literally nothing other than getting people killed.

Lincoln won the war and ended slavery. See the difference?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
leashyourkids wrote:
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?


Don't know but I do believe that Blacks would be better off. The reluctance on the part of Lincoln and post Lincoln politicians with regards to tackling discrimination directly led to disastrous Jim Crow policies being enacted.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?


Slavery would have ended with or without Lincoln and the union may have still been intact. He was an important president though. Would this country and our government exist without George Washington? What he did and how he conducted himself trumps everything any other president accomplished. Why is Kennedy ranked so high?



What year would it have ended without him? And my have still been intact is complete speculation. It would have been a total disaster if the south existed as a separate state allied to European powers with two world wars on the horizon.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I celebrate John Brown because his motives were altruistic. He is a true martyr. He actually didn't provide a distinction between being black and white. His theory on races ran counter to the prevailing thought unlike Lincoln.

As far as Lincoln goes he didn't fight a war to end slavery. He fought the war so that there wouldn't be an extension of slavery. He didn't even take the country to war over slavery.

In fact during the first couple of years of the war Lincoln and his generals didn't make slavery an issue because they didn't want the Civil War to be perceived as a war to end slavery.


I asked how do you celebrate him because I think the idea of "celebrating" him as odd. John Brown had a terrible plan and got a bunch of people killed. The entire point of our government is to participate and change laws. He may be "pure" in your mind, but he accomplished literally nothing other than getting people killed.

Lincoln won the war and ended slavery. See the difference?



John Brown took a courageous stand against an issue that guys like Lincoln wouldn't have touched. John Brown didn't have any skin in the game regarding the issue but he took a stand based purely on his belief that slavery was immoral. John Brown made a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. He didn't simply talk the talk.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?


Don't know but I do believe that Blacks would be better off. The reluctance on the part of Lincoln and post Lincoln politicians with regards to tackling discrimination directly led to disastrous Jim Crow policies being enacted.


With a leap like that you could have played Saturday during the dunk contest and done very well for yourself.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Would we be better off as a country if Lincoln hadn't been president?


Don't know but I do believe that Blacks would be better off. The reluctance on the part of Lincoln and post Lincoln politicians with regards to tackling discrimination directly led to disastrous Jim Crow policies being enacted.


With a leap like that you could have played Saturday during the dunk contest and done very well for yourself.


Where is the leap?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32352
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Well, there's a range of outcomes where most would have been worse for Blacks and the country as we know it. Sure, in one scenario, you could have had a President that not only would have held the country together, ended slavery, and then push for a 1960's civil right bill. Pretty doubtful that anyone in the mid-19th Century was going to do that. Then you had all over outcomes, which include a President supporting slavery, allowing the South to secede, fighting the Civil War and losing, fighting the Civil War and winning and allowing a compromise on slavery to continue. Literally, every plausible scenario would have resulted in a worse outcome.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I celebrate John Brown because his motives were altruistic. He is a true martyr. He actually didn't provide a distinction between being black and white. His theory on races ran counter to the prevailing thought unlike Lincoln.

As far as Lincoln goes he didn't fight a war to end slavery. He fought the war so that there wouldn't be an extension of slavery. He didn't even take the country to war over slavery.

In fact during the first couple of years of the war Lincoln and his generals didn't make slavery an issue because they didn't want the Civil War to be perceived as a war to end slavery.


I asked how do you celebrate him because I think the idea of "celebrating" him as odd. John Brown had a terrible plan and got a bunch of people killed. The entire point of our government is to participate and change laws. He may be "pure" in your mind, but he accomplished literally nothing other than getting people killed.

Lincoln won the war and ended slavery. See the difference?



John Brown took a courageous stand against an issue that guys like Lincoln wouldn't have touched. John Brown didn't have any skin in the game regarding the issue but he took a stand based purely on his belief that slavery was immoral. John Brown made a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. He didn't simply talk the talk.


When Lincoln was elected the South rebelled because of his views on slavery. To you it means he "did nothing". Lincoln was in charge of the government that literally ended slavery. John Brown tried to start a revolt and got captured before he could even start.

Your other statement that blacks would have been better off without Lincoln is Milo level trolling. He was dead days after the war ended. He had nothing to do with Jim Crow. The government he left behind voted to grant full rights for former slaves. Who knows when slavery would have ended without Lincoln. Do you think black people would have been granted any rights had the Confederacy won the war?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32352
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
John Brown- Abe Lincoln meets Eddie Munster?

Image

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Last edited by denisdman on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I celebrate John Brown because his motives were altruistic. He is a true martyr. He actually didn't provide a distinction between being black and white. His theory on races ran counter to the prevailing thought unlike Lincoln.

As far as Lincoln goes he didn't fight a war to end slavery. He fought the war so that there wouldn't be an extension of slavery. He didn't even take the country to war over slavery.

In fact during the first couple of years of the war Lincoln and his generals didn't make slavery an issue because they didn't want the Civil War to be perceived as a war to end slavery.


I asked how do you celebrate him because I think the idea of "celebrating" him as odd. John Brown had a terrible plan and got a bunch of people killed. The entire point of our government is to participate and change laws. He may be "pure" in your mind, but he accomplished literally nothing other than getting people killed.

Lincoln won the war and ended slavery. See the difference?



John Brown took a courageous stand against an issue that guys like Lincoln wouldn't have touched. John Brown didn't have any skin in the game regarding the issue but he took a stand based purely on his belief that slavery was immoral. John Brown made a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. He didn't simply talk the talk.


When Lincoln was elected the South rebelled because of his views on slavery. To you it means he "did nothing". Lincoln was in charge of the government that literally ended slavery. John Brown tried to start a revolt and got captured before he could even start.

Your other statement that blacks would have been better off without Lincoln is Milo level trolling. He was dead days after the war ended. He had nothing to do with Jim Crow. The government he left behind voted to grant full rights for former slaves. Who knows when slavery would have ended without Lincoln. Do you think black people would have been granted any rights had the Confederacy won the war?


Obviously not but the Civil War was fought because the South attempted to secede from the Union. Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery i.e Western territories. That is quite different from being against slavery. There is quite a bit of revisionism as to Lincoln's stance against. At best he was simply ambivalent on the issue. He certainly didn't feel strongly enough against it to take the Country to war over.

As I previously stated the Union didn't even want to create the perception that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That being the case how can we now make the statement that it was about ending slavery?

John Brown took a stand against the evils of slavery at a time when most people didn't. That makes him a hero. The outcome of his stance is irrelevant. The mere fact that he risked his life is sufficient enough to make him a hero. He also believed that blacks and whites were equal. Many of the leading abolitionist at the time believed that blacks were inferior to whites. This was also a point of distinction.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77472
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.


That's bullshit. Bernie Sanders is a charlatan. His voting record and the things he's actually tried to accomplish and accomplished proves that. Lincoln was a skilled politician that's celebrated for being something that he wasn't.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.


That's bullshit. Bernie Sanders is a charlatan. His voting record and the things he's actually tried to accomplish and accomplished proves that. Lincoln was a skilled politician that's celebrated for being something that he wasn't.


Image

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20933
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
As I previously stated the Union didn't even want to create the perception that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That being the case how can we now make the statement that it was about ending slavery?


Well then somebody should have told the Confederate States this, because all their declarations of secession deal chiefly with their perceived right to own slaves, and the attacks thereupon by the government.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.



My problem with Sanders is that he promises things that he knows he can't accomplish. I see him as Obama like in that regard. I think that his inability to work with other politicians would have been problematic. I think his overall disdain for the system would have made it difficult to govern.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
As I previously stated the Union didn't even want to create the perception that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That being the case how can we now make the statement that it was about ending slavery?


Well then somebody should have told the Confederate States this, because all their declarations of secession deal chiefly with their perceived right to own slaves, and the attacks thereupon.



Their secession was based upon the expansion of slavery not right to own slaves. Lincoln didn't infringe upon that. He even exempted 4 states whIle issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77472
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.


That's bullshit. Bernie Sanders is a charlatan. His voting record and the things he's actually tried to accomplish and accomplished proves that. Lincoln was a skilled politician that's celebrated for being something that he wasn't.


Image


What is your favorite piece of Bernie Sanders legislation?

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.


That's bullshit. Bernie Sanders is a charlatan. His voting record and the things he's actually tried to accomplish and accomplished proves that. Lincoln was a skilled politician that's celebrated for being something that he wasn't.


What is Sanders trying to hide? What's his end game? He is not rich. He was arrested during the Civil Rights Movement. Hilary literally sold out to Wall Street, yet Sanders is the charlatan? That's the bullshit.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19521
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
As I previously stated the Union didn't even want to create the perception that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That being the case how can we now make the statement that it was about ending slavery?


Well then somebody should have told the Confederate States this, because all their declarations of secession deal chiefly with their perceived right to own slaves, and the attacks thereupon.



Their secession was based upon the expansion of slavery not right to own slaves. Lincoln didn't infringe upon that. He even exempted 4 states whIle issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.


He was also trying to win a war. The Proclamation meant nothing if Robert E. Lee wins in the field. I believe he said: I would prefer to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.

He was not "really trying to free the slaves" despite doing just that. He clearly knew that slavery needed to go, but he wanted to figure out a way to do it without starting a war with the South. He could not avoid that, but he was able to win the war and free the slaves.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Last edited by WaitingforRuffcorn on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20933
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
As I previously stated the Union didn't even want to create the perception that the Civil War was about ending slavery. That being the case how can we now make the statement that it was about ending slavery?


Well then somebody should have told the Confederate States this, because all their declarations of secession deal chiefly with their perceived right to own slaves, and the attacks thereupon.



Their secession was based upon the expansion of slavery not right to own slaves. Lincoln didn't infringe upon that. He even exempted 4 states whIle issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.


No. It had to do with a perceived endgame for slavery in the US exemplified by outlawing slavery in the expanding territories.

"The first act of the black republican party will be to exclude slavery from all the territories, from the District of Columbia, the arsenals and the forts, by the action of the general government. That would be a recognition that slavery is a sin, and confine the institution to its present limits. The moment that slavery is pronounced a moral evil, a sin, by the general government, that moment the safety of the rights of the south will be entirely gone." -Judge Alexander Hamilton Handy

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." -  Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina

"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.It tramples the original equality of the South under foot." -A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

"Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security," -Alabama's Ordinance of Secession


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 20082
pizza_Place: Aurelios
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Nas and LTG,

I just find it to be inconsistent when you guys rip someone like Bernie Sanders as an idealist who can't accomplish anything while praising Hillary as a pragmatist who gets things done... and then you complain that the guy who ended slavery isn't "pure" enough in his ideology.


That's bullshit. Bernie Sanders is a charlatan. His voting record and the things he's actually tried to accomplish and accomplished proves that. Lincoln was a skilled politician that's celebrated for being something that he wasn't.


What is Sanders trying to hide? What's his end game? He is not rich. He was arrested during the Civil Rights Movement. Hilary literally sold out to Wall Street, yet Sanders is the charlatan? That's the bullshit.


It's sort of funny that the DNC and Clinton's treatment of Sanders essentially paved the way for a Trump win. She alienated the very base she needed to beat Trump and now that same base that didn't come out for Hillary is in the street protesting for Trump. They beat their chests and cry into the night but the fault lies with how their own party derailed the Sanders campaign.

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32352
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Image

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 449 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group