Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 10 of 12<<<89101112>
01-08-2019 04:02
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
If I said jay walking was a crisis in America. That it's a CRIME punishable with a citation from the POLICE. What would be the difference with illegal immigration?

Who are the victims actually?


Jaywalking is a crime, it is a crisis, since it causes a great deal of death and destruction. We have people getting hit and kill often, sometimes by even our ObamaTrain. There are a few every month, the jaywalker isn't the only victim, so you can't say it's their choice to take that risk. They do a lot of damage to the front of a car. The driver is detained, while it's investigated, has to live with killing, or serious injuries to another human being. Sometimes there are massive pile ups, when someone swerves or slams on the brakes. Some people have been hit and killed, while in the roadway, attempting to give aid. Those damn cell phones cause a lot of it, tools of the devil. Pedestrians have the right of way, and some people take that a little to literally, believing drivers must stop and wait on them, anytime, any place, they're entitled. A citation is very weak, considering consequences of these peoples willful disregard for the safety of others.
01-08-2019 04:31
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Whether or not you are at fault, fleeing the scene of an accident is a serious crime.

I once rear-ended a guy on a motorcycle on my way to work, messed him up pretty bad too. Took about 4 hours, before I was allowed to leave. Fortunately, I had a dashcam, the video is on YouTube. The motorcyclist did completely stupid, and paid dearly. It cost me quite a bit too. I didn't pursue civil damages for my losses, mostly it would have been more time, and money out my pocket, until a judgement or settlement reach, and no way of knowing how soon I'd get paid, or how much more time and money I'd need to put into it to collect. I lost a day's pay, a $2,000 Grand Prix, which was in very good condition, for the price, nice car too. I was interviewed several times, even had to go to traffic court. It wasn't a fun experience, and had to buy another car. Even if you aren't charged with a crime, it's still costly. It's still better to go through the process, than flee. An accident, can become a homicide, if you could have at least called for help, or offer some assistance.
01-08-2019 04:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I said jay walking was a crisis in America. That it's a CRIME punishable with a citation from the POLICE. What would be the difference with illegal immigration?

Who are the victims actually?


In the US, if you kill someone with your


Oh I was being silly James.

Ok what if illegal U turns on deserted streets was considered a crisis?


Obviously, they aren't.



If you ever want things to change for Native Americans, your attitude isn't helping.

Earth to Alien Colony 4, stop transmitting random messages to James.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2019 04:53
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's also to help protest the women and children as well.


So why not have a legal immigration system to meet demand?
01-08-2019 05:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:So why not have a legal immigration system to meet demand?

We do. It's what is being ignored and violated.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-08-2019 06:10
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So why not have a legal immigration system to meet demand?

We do. It's what is being ignored and violated.


CBS story

8/11.3 million "illegals" have jobs. That's 5% of the US work force.

So 53% work in agriculture.

Do you think there is currently a system to provide 4,250,000 legal agricultural workers?

Aren't they sort of invited by the person giving them the job?

I mean if I had a roommate, woke up and found some homeless guy washing his dishes, and found out my roommate paid him to do it, my "WTF is some homeless guy doing in my house" rage would be directed at my roommate.

poor brown people are just really easy to humiliate and kick around. It's a bigot's paradise. Really Nazi's had a tougher challenge since Jew's were rich, powerful and white.
Edited on 01-08-2019 06:12
01-08-2019 06:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So why not have a legal immigration system to meet demand?

We do. It's what is being ignored and violated.


CBS story

8/11.3 million "illegals" have jobs. That's 5% of the US work force.

So 53% work in agriculture.

Do you think there is currently a system to provide 4,250,000 legal agricultural workers?

Aren't they sort of invited by the person giving them the job?

I mean if I had a roommate, woke up and found some homeless guy washing his dishes, and found out my roommate paid him to do it, my "WTF is some homeless guy doing in my house" rage would be directed at my roommate.

poor brown people are just really easy to humiliate and kick around. It's a bigot's paradise. Really Nazi's had a tougher challenge since Jew's were rich, powerful and white.



Not all Jews are rich. But screwing over illegal immigrants is something many Americans like. Rome of 2,000 years ago was the same way.
01-08-2019 07:50
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
James___ wrote:
Not all Jews are rich. But screwing over illegal immigrants is something many Americans like. Rome of 2,000 years ago was the same way.


Yeah but safe to say the vulnerability of Jews in Europe was not based on their being poor and not looking like a real German. I mean if Jews had been brown and poor it might have undercut the conspiracy theories for Hitler but I'm sure he could have adapted.

I'm sure a lot of bigots in Europe would just love it if they could turn Gypsies a different color.

The moral superiority is just pathetic. I mean most of the country being invaded by mexicans used to be mexico.

Davey Crocket must be spinning in his grave (about the loss of slavery too):


Hey maybe Trump can commission some Davey Crocket statues to replace the heros of slavery that have been coming down.
Edited on 01-08-2019 07:51
01-08-2019 08:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Not all Jews are rich. But screwing over illegal immigrants is something many Americans like. Rome of 2,000 years ago was the same way.


Yeah but safe to say the vulnerability of Jews in Europe was not based on their being poor and not looking like a real German. I mean if Jews had been brown and poor it might have undercut the conspiracy theories for Hitler but I'm sure he could have adapted.

I'm sure a lot of bigots in Europe would just love it if they could turn Gypsies a different color.

The moral superiority is just pathetic. I mean most of the country being invaded by mexicans used to be mexico.

Davey Crocket must be spinning in his grave (about the loss of slavery too):


Hey maybe Trump can commission some Davey Crocket statues to replace the heros of slavery that have been coming down.



Problem is I don't support screwing people over. Then again my hearing loss let me know what it's like.
01-08-2019 08:30
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
James___ wrote:
Problem is I don't support screwing people over. Then again my hearing loss let me know what it's like.


The "Illegals" is just perfect for bigots in america:
They are criminals for stealing jobs
Without the rights that normally come with a job
Plus they are really really shitty jobs and American's despise that in it's own right

They are the untouchables of our society

Such scum
but I'm glad I don't have to clean the toilets

NOTHING prevents us from doing it legally next year. WE are the ones making it illegal.
01-08-2019 09:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Problem is I don't support screwing people over. Then again my hearing loss let me know what it's like.


The "Illegals" is just perfect for bigots in america:

Nope. no bigotry in being a criminal.
tmiddles wrote:
They are criminals for stealing jobs

No, they are criminals for crossing the border illegally.
tmiddles wrote:
Without the rights that normally come with a job

People take advantage if their inability to speak English, the general illiteracy, and their fear of being caught, true.
tmiddles wrote:
Plus they are really really shitty jobs and American's despise that in it's own right

They are Americans too. Mexico is in America. It is one of the nations of North America.
tmiddles wrote:
They are the untouchables of our society

Because they are criminals.
tmiddles wrote:
Such scum
but I'm glad I don't have to clean the toilets

It's not so bad. A little brushing, a little cleaning chemical, and wash your hands afterwards.

A worse job is fixing septic tanks (never saw a Mexican do that one!), cleaning up bird poo in the chicken barn (the farmer does that one), repairing a sewer plant, or cleaning the mold from a flood damaged house. Never saw a Mexican do any of them.

One illegal Mexican I know operates his own towing company. He avoids getting caught because he works for himself. He's illiterate, but he's making good money. Of course, he IS a criminal, and if he gets caught, will lose his towing business and be sent back to Mexico.

Basically, he was just too lazy to come in legally.

He does have a U.S. citizen vouching for him though. He could obtain a Green Card with that and work his way towards citizenship.

tmiddles wrote:
NOTHING prevents us from doing it legally next year. WE are the ones making it illegal.

No, the illegal border crossers are making it illegal. The law is plain. We have a legal immigration system in place. They should use it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-08-2019 09:13
01-08-2019 09:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
Basically, he was just too lazy to come in legally.


Ah! those people walking through the wilderness and paying coyote's are lazy!

That's so silly of them they should just do it the legal way.

The 4,250,000 agricultural workers could be organized, we could get one of those number things from the bakery, take a number, wait your turn, and come back legally next year in time for harvest.

They probably don't want to be legal because it would be a little extra work.

It's like those lazy guys at the home depot. They aren't really waiting to dig a ditch for you. It's just a bunch of lazy dudes making an excuse to kick it with their bros.

But they are criminals. Hey why stop there! How about "Villains!", or "Forces of Darkness" (works with the skin color a bit).

Too bad it's the wrong crime. They could have committed treason for the confederacy and had statues put up in their honor.
Edited on 01-08-2019 09:51
01-08-2019 09:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Basically, he was just too lazy to come in legally.


Ah! those people walking through the wilderness and paying coyote's are lazy!

Not all of them are walking through the wilderness and not all of them are paying coyotes. Many of them are avoiding the law on BOTH sides of the border. They are already criminals in Mexico BEFORE crossing into the U.S.
tmiddles wrote:
That's so silly of them they should just do it the legal way.

It really is easier, if they can qualify. They must be free of diseases, must not be a criminal in their own country, and are allowed to visit for a certain length of time before applying for a Visa or a Green Card.
tmiddles wrote:
The 4,250,000 agricultural workers could be organized, we could get one of those number things from the bakery, take a number, wait your turn, and come back legally next year in time for harvest.

It would be better for the farmer as well as the field workers. Less thieves in their midst.
tmiddles wrote:
They probably don't want to be legal because it would be a little extra work.

They don't want to be legal because they can't qualify crossing legally. I guess you don't mind the thieves, violent criminals, toxic drugs, or anything else to freely enter the country. I really don't understand that attitude.
tmiddles wrote:
It's like those lazy guys at the home depot. They aren't really waiting to dig a ditch for you. It's just a bunch of lazy dudes making an excuse to kick it with their bros.

Careful hiring those! Many are petty thieves.
tmiddles wrote:
But they are criminals.

Yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Hey way stop there! How about "Villains!", or "Forces of Darkness" (works with the skin color a bit).

Racism. Their skin color makes no difference.
tmiddles wrote:
Too bad it's the wrong crime.

Is there a right one?
tmiddles wrote:
They could have committed treason for the confederacy and had statues put up in their honor.

I assume you mean the southern States seceding from the Union during the so-called 'civil war' (really a War of Secession). Those States did not commit treason. They had the perfect right to secede. They still do.

They were not trying to take over the Union, they wanted to simply leave it.

If any single man can be blamed for the war, it was Lincoln, resupplying and occupying a fort that was located in what was then a foreign nation.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2019 10:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
It would be better for the farmer as well as the field workers. Less thieves in their midst.


Yes so why don't we give them the opportunity. How exactly to you suggest we supply 4,250,000 agricultural laborers, currently illegal, with legal replacements? Is Trump working on that?

Into the Night wrote:
If any single man can be blamed for the war, it was Lincoln,


I guess Lincoln would be the one to have that perspective:
"President Lincoln himself in 1863 identified a list of top Confederate generals that included such iconic figures as Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston who deserved to be imprisoned for treason."

And other human beings. The Civil War was to preserve slavery. It was the uprising of the douche bags. Happens a lot in history and it's only "legal" to the band of brigands committing the crime.

Who knows maybe Trump plans to have the Lincoln memorial torn down after he gets all the Robert E Lees back up.

Are you seriously anti-Lincoln? You wish the South had succeeded?
01-08-2019 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It would be better for the farmer as well as the field workers. Less thieves in their midst.


Yes so why don't we give them the opportunity. How exactly to you suggest we supply 4,250,000 agricultural laborers, currently illegal, with legal replacements? Is Trump working on that?

You are condoning bringing slavery back? You hire them.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
If any single man can be blamed for the war, it was Lincoln,


I guess Lincoln would be the one to have that perspective:
"President Lincoln himself in 1863 identified a list of top Confederate generals that included such iconic figures as Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston who deserved to be imprisoned for treason."

Lincoln's view, not mine, and not the truth. These two brilliant commanders fought well for what they believed in. They were not trying to take over the United States. There was no treason by either one.
tmiddles wrote:
And other human beings. The Civil War was to preserve slavery. It was the uprising of the douche bags. Happens a lot in history and it's only "legal" to the band of brigands committing the crime.

No. That's what you were taught in school, but it's wrong.

First, it wasn't a civil war. A civil war is one where two or more factions vie for control of a nation. The United States has never experienced a civil war.

What we call the 'Civil War' was actually a war of secession. The southern States simply wanted to leave the Union and form their own confederacy.

Second, the war was not fought over slavery, but over the 4th amendment and how the federal government was ignoring it by seizing property without compensation (the slaves included).

Third, the slave question was already in the process of being resolved. Slavery was already becoming less and less popular, even in the South. The issue would have most likely resolved itself peacefully given time. Lincoln came in with all horns and forced the issue by seizing property in an unconstitutional manner and invading a foreign country to do it.

tmiddles wrote:
Who knows maybe Trump plans to have the Lincoln memorial torn down after he gets all the Robert E Lees back up.

Not likely. Trump is a Lincoln fan.
tmiddles wrote:
Are you seriously anti-Lincoln? You wish the South had succeeded?

Two questions here, I'll answer them one at a time.

I am not pro nor anti Lincoln. He had the right idea, but went about it the wrong way. Instead of encouraging and allowing the States to resolve this issue on their own, he forced the federal government upon the States unconstitutionally. Like I said, slavery was already becoming less and less popular at the time, and these States would have likely banned the practice on their own as a choice by their own citizens.

The slaves were property. They were bought and paid for. Some were treated quite well, others were very mistreated. If you allow the government to just take your property and not pay you, where is the Constitution? Remember, slavery was an accepted practice at the time. Completely legal. Do not apply today's standards against yesterday's times. That's fallacy called presentism.

Do I wish the South had succeeded? Yes and no. I do not condone the practice of slavery. I do condone the concept of State's rights and their sovereign power to govern themselves. Each State is like a tiny nation, banding together under a common banner (the United States of America).

This banding together carries with it a contract, called the Constitution of the United States of America. The States own this document, not the federal government, which is an agent created by it. Only the States can change it, collectively. Only the States can interpret it, collectively.

When the agent created by that document fails to uphold the rules of that document or becomes rogue and denies the document that created it, it is perfectly legal for any State to leave the Union. When they do so, they leave the contract voluntarily. They no longer have any benefit to it, and no longer have any responsibility to it. They literally become their own independent nation.

They had such sovereignty before the Constitution was formed and ordained into law by the colonies. The do not give that up by forming a Union.

That said, they do give up some power, which is clear specified in the Constitution itself.

They agreed to require that any State of the Union be organized as a republic. That is, to have a constitutional based government.

They agreed to elect officers to the federal government in certain ways.

They agreed to support the inherent right of self defense, both for themselves as States, and for the individual. States defend themselves by forming militias. Very specific rules exist for forming these militias that the States have agreed to. People also have the inherent right to defend themselves to the best of their ability simply as living breathing things. That includes the use of arms (swords, guns, knives, bazookas, etc.).

They agreed that the soldiers cannot just commandeer property.

They agreed that your property is your own. You have a right to own property, to protect it, and to have the right of privacy. Any privacy you voluntarily give up is your business. That is any property, real estate, your horse (or your car), your crops, your animals, your weapons, you slaves, or any other property.

They agreed that the States themselves maintain their own sovereignty. No agent, officer, judge, or anyone else can modify the contract, whether they are a federal or State agent, officer, or judge.

They agreed that the Attempt to Force a Negative Proof fallacy is a fallacy. The presumption of innocence is maintained until proven otherwise in a court. They agreed that the accused has certain rights, including the right to refuse to testify against himself.

They agreed that capitalism is to be protected. That the new government has no power to curtail it. That oligarchies and socialism is not within the federal government's power.

They agreed that the federal government cannot establish or prohibit a religious belief of any kind. The States, however, can.

They agreed that the federal government cannot pass any law concerning speech or free expression. The States, however, can.

These are just a few of the things the States agreed to among themselves to be part of the Union.

They agreed that the federal government has the right to maintain a common defense for the benefit of the States.

They agreed the federal government is directed to support the general welfare of the States. Note that this is not giving it the power to form anything like a welfare system, or to use this directive to usurp the sovereignty of any State in any way, or to use it to ignore the remainder of the Constitution or the concept of limited government.

The States agreed that gold and silver would be the currency, and that the federal government had the right to coin it and set standards of weight for it. That has never been amended. What FDR and Nixon did was theft and unconstitutional. Note also that the federal government was never given the power or authority to establish a national bank or banking system of any kind. Yes, this includes the Fed. Today's problems with the falling dollar and out of control government spending are a direct result of the federal government ignoring this principle.

They agreed that the rights of an individual are not enumerated (limited) by any Constitution. In other words, if a government created by any constitution does not have power specifically granted to it in that constitution, it has NO power. For the federal Constitution, this is part of maintaining State sovereignty, and specifically puts the States themselves under the same concept. All remaining powers and authority belongs to the people themselves.

For example, you have the power and authority to freely travel between States. The federal government cannot limit that, and neither can any State. You have the power and authority to purchase what you wish, from any State in the Union, except that which is specifically barred by the Constitution. The federal government can't stop you from putting horrid purple flamingos in your yard (but the States can!), or to walk in public naked (but the States can!).

Yes, I support the Southern States right to secede and form their own confederation (a constitution). I do not support slavery. I support what Lincoln wanted, I do not support the way he went about it. If Lincoln wanted to point the finger of treason at Robert E. Lee, he should first point the finger of treason at himself.

You can see what the soldiers themselves were fighting for. It was not slavery or abolishing slavery. It is States rights vs the Federal government. Many of these soldiers kept diaries.

Remember, the colonists themselves fought against the own government to leave it and form their own confederacy. That war was called the War of Independence. We won that war! The rest, as they say, is history.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2019 21:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote: 8/11.3 million "illegals" have jobs. That's 5% of the US work force.

By the way, you don't need to put quotes around the word "illegals." It is not a euphamism. It is a correct term. You won't be getting bonus points on this forum for virtue-signaling.

Yes. Your figures are guesstimates with huge margins of error but nonetheless you highlight one of the serious consequences of our immigration crisis, i.e. the displacement of vast numbers of jobs from citizens and legal residents.

tmiddles wrote: So 53% work in agriculture.

Right. For that we have the migrant farm worker program. It works great for our needs except for it being bypassed by the hordes of illegals.

This is another example of a program that welcomes in people from other countries who want to work in the US, and our good intentions are ruined by the illegals that ignore our laws. As an American whose laws are being ignored, I say **** 'em. Deport them. If their families are separated then they brought it upon themselves.

Once again, they brought it upon themselves with no help from anyone else. Idiots who state or imply that Americans are somehow bad just because some illegals worked very hard at being irresponsible and got their families separated ... are shit and they can blow me.

tmiddles wrote: Do you think there is currently a system to provide 4,250,000 legal agricultural workers?

Yes. Legal immigration and the migrant farm worker program. As we bring in the people we need legally, we deport the illegals that are here now.

We'll be left with exactly the number of workers we need, and they'll all be here legally.

tmiddles wrote: Aren't they sort of invited by the person giving them the job?

It matters not if the person doing the inviting does not have the authority to invite. The reason the Federal government performs that function is to control immigration and to avoid a crisis. The Federal government follows immigration law that answers to the American people.

tmiddles wrote: I mean if I had a roommate, woke up and found some homeless guy washing his dishes, and found out my roommate paid him to do it, my "WTF is some homeless guy doing in my house" rage would be directed at my roommate.

Regardless, your roommate did not have the authority to invite the dude in and you would be amply justified in having the homeless guy "deported" from your apartment without being labelled an "evil, racist, jack-booted Nazi who hates humanity".

tmiddles wrote: poor brown people are just really easy to humiliate and kick around.

So you are a racist. At least we are clear on that point.

tmiddles wrote: It's a bigot's paradise. Really Nazi's had a tougher challenge since Jew's were rich, powerful and white.

So here you demonstrate that you are a shit-eating bigot who will blame Americans for trying to control their borders and to control who comes into their country ... and you'll give a complete pass to those breaking my country's laws.

I'm one of those Americans who wants to control our borders and to control who comes into this country. You can blow me. If all you've got is to call me "racist" and "Nazi" then I guess we're done.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-08-2019 23:42
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
Third, the slave question was already in the process of being resolved. Slavery was already becoming less and less popular, even in the South. The issue would have most likely resolved itself peacefully given time.


If you're a revisionist historian that wants to pretend the civil war wasn't for an about slavery file that with Chupacabra and Big Foot. TOTAL FICTION

Do I need to go over that?

Those "Brilliant" warriors for slavery were traitors as they were in the US Military when they joined with an enemy state. Lee was trained at west point.

They are all just terrible people.

To admire them is an insult to all of us living today but especially black people.

It's the core of Trumps basket I know but it's a sad and aweful thing even if you have numbers. You should be ashamed.
02-08-2019 01:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Third, the slave question was already in the process of being resolved. Slavery was already becoming less and less popular, even in the South. The issue would have most likely resolved itself peacefully given time.


If you're a revisionist historian that wants to pretend the civil war wasn't for an about slavery file that with Chupacabra and Big Foot. TOTAL FICTION

* There was no civil war. There was a war of secession.
* The war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over the 4th amendment.
* I don't believe in Chupacabra or Big Foot.
Argument of the stone fallacy. The diaries of the soldiers themselves disagree with you. The opening shots in the war, where and why they occurred there, disagree with you.

You have also labeled yourself as a traitor. You are benefiting from a nation that did exactly the same thing to the British.
tmiddles wrote:
Do I need to go over that?

Sure. Go ahead.
tmiddles wrote:
Those "Brilliant" warriors for slavery were traitors as they were in the US Military when they joined with an enemy state. Lee was trained at west point.

The South was not an enemy nation until the Lincoln invaded it.
tmiddles wrote:
They are all just terrible people.
Bigotry.
tmiddles wrote:
To admire them is an insult to all of us living today but especially black people.
Racism. You are assuming that all black people were slaves, and that to be black was to be a slave. Did you know there were free black men that owned slaves?
tmiddles wrote:
It's the core of Trumps basket I know but it's a sad and aweful thing even if you have numbers. You should be ashamed.

Random statement disregarded.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 05:05
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
* The war was not fought over slavery.


The confederacy was a nation founded for and on the principle of Slavery.

Saying it's the 4th amendment is like saying you weren't arrested for murder but for defying the police and not turning yourself in.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Vice President of the Confederate States

Into the Night wrote:Did you know there were free black men that owned slaves?


I did and that's horrible. Those slave owners were terrible people.

Did you know none of the slaves were white?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They are all just terrible people.
Bigotry


Would I be a bigot to say murderers were terrible people?

By "terrible people" I meant those fighting for, preserving, upholding and supporting human slavery.

There were some very fine good people in the south, living under confederate rule wasn't their fault. Sure most of them were black but there were some good white apples in that barrel of rot.

If that isn't terrible what is?

Were you offended by seeing torch wielding marchers chant "Blood and Soil"?

Were you offended by an American president saying there were some very fine people in that group?

Where do you draw the line?

Oh wait I forgot. At the border! Those unethical villains from Mexico (a country that didn't have slavery btw)

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It's the core of Trumps basket I know but it's a sad and aweful thing even if you have numbers. You should be ashamed.

Random statement disregarded.


So I actually consider this whole thing to be as on topic as can be. If we were discussing any "set the truth aside and live in a fantasy land" issue that the Trump climate denying movement has it would be on topic.

Ignoring the facts. Turning unreasonable doubts into proofs.
Edited on 02-08-2019 05:36
02-08-2019 06:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* The war was not fought over slavery.


The confederacy was a nation founded for and on the principle of Slavery.

No, it wasn't. It was founded on the principle of States rights. A rather important issue again today.
tmiddles wrote:
Saying it's the 4th amendment is like saying you weren't arrested for murder but for defying the police and not turning yourself in.

??? Huh???

No, it was over the 4th amendment and State's rights.
tmiddles wrote:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Vice President of the Confederate States

Quite a few people in the North felt that way too. Not a lot to do with the war or its causes.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Did you know there were free black men that owned slaves?


I did and that's horrible. Those slave owners were terrible people.

Why do you think so? This is bigotry, to assume that all slaves were treated badly.
tmiddles wrote:
Did you know none of the slaves were white?

WRONG. There were white slaves as well. Typically, they were owned by black owners, though there were a few white owners that had them. Most slaves were, however, black.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
They are all just terrible people.
Bigotry


Would I be a bigot to say murderers were terrible people?

No. Murder is a crime. Slavery wasn't at the time.
tmiddles wrote:
By "terrible people" I meant those fighting for, preserving, upholding and supporting human slavery.

I don't think you realize how old the institution of slavery really is. In fact it still exists today in other nations.
tmiddles wrote:
There were some very fine good people in the south, living under confederate rule wasn't their fault. Sure most of them were black but there were some good white apples in that barrel of rot.

They chose to live there and they fought for the Confederacy.
tmiddles wrote:
If that isn't terrible what is?

That they fought for their right to private property and for State's rights?? What's so terrible about that?
tmiddles wrote:
Were you offended by seeing torch wielding marchers chant "Blood and Soil"?

Sure. They're clueless, racists, and violent.
tmiddles wrote:
Were you offended by an American president saying there were some very fine people in that group?

Sure. Patronizing will always get a president in trouble.
tmiddles wrote:
Where do you draw the line?

I already told you. Do I need to tell you again?
tmiddles wrote:
Oh wait I forgot. At the border! Those unethical villains from Mexico (a country that didn't have slavery btw)

Mexico had slaves just like everybody else. It was abolished before our War of Secession, however, except in Texas.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
It's the core of Trumps basket I know but it's a sad and aweful thing even if you have numbers. You should be ashamed.

Random statement disregarded.


So I actually consider this whole thing to be as on topic as can be. If we were discussing any "set the truth aside and live in a fantasy land" issue that the Trump climate denying movement has it would be on topic.

Trump does not deny climate. He understands there are desert climates, tropical climates, marine climates, etc.

Trump denies climate change. I don't blame him. There is no definition for 'climate change' (other than the one IBdaMann came up with). He also understands that Marxism is behind the 'climate change' movement.
tmiddles wrote:
Ignoring the facts.

What facts?
tmiddles wrote:
Turning unreasonable doubts into proofs.

Doubts about what? Proofs about what?


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 06:35
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:

This is bigotry, to assume that all slaves were treated badly.

There were white slaves as well. Typically, they were owned by black owners, though there were a few white owners that had them.


First of all slavery is inherently bad treatment. It IS ALWAYS A CRIME. Just as assault, robbery, rape, murder and fraud are ALWAYS CRIMES. A government may or may not reflect these truths in their statutes but morality is not relative. Wrong is wrong.

The notion that in the U.S. South of the early 1800s there was a black man with a white slave is worthy of a Tarantino history fantasy flick. TOTAL BS

Were there indentured servants? Exploited workers with pale skin? sure. Hey I've seen An American Tail and Gangs of New York.

"What about other crimes" doesn't excuse crime.

Please reread the speech above given by the Vice President of the Confederacy.
02-08-2019 07:11
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles,
You have to think about just how drastically different the entire world was back then. I can't imagine thinking of another human being as property, but it was commonplace around the world and has been since the beginnings of recorded history (Biblical old testament times). Doesn't make it right, it just was.

Public executions, torture, slavery, stoning, mass cleansing....it's brutal and barbaric world out there. Notice how we don't need the wall to keep people in?

After that war in the 1860s, it would be another 55 years before women had the right to vote! Are you bent out of shape about this too? It was pretty rude as well.

Just trying to put things in perspective.
02-08-2019 08:06
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles,
You have to think about just how drastically different the entire world was back then.


Certainly true. The world is an imperfect place. It's a wonderful thing to see humanity make real progress. Of course there are always a few jerks in the way. The abolishion of slavery had arrived world wide. The confederacy was a disgraceful step back that is a skid mark on the history of this country.

1518 - First direct shipment of slaves from Africa to the Americas
1780s - Trans-Atlantic slave trade reaches peak
- United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.
1811 - Spain abolishes slavery
1813 - Sweden bans slave trading
1814 - Netherlands bans slave trading
1833 - Britain passes Abolition of Slavery Act,
1819 - Portugal abolishes slave trade
1846 - Danish governor proclaims emancipation of slaves
1848 - France abolishes slavery
1851 - Brazil abolishes slave trading
1862 - U.S. President Abraham Lincoln proclaims emancipation of slaves

A bit late but we stumbled onward with the world after that embarrassing step back.

The South succeeded because they knew Lincoln personally opposed slavery.

It was the reason for the civil war and the cornerstone of the confederacy (as stated by the confederacy). It was about States rights because of the right to have slaves.

It's just an embarrassment we apparently still have to live down.

Sigh.

We're other areas later? Sure
But the white Europeans of the US south were dead last in the society of the world they were a part of.

Edited on 02-08-2019 08:20
02-08-2019 11:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

This is bigotry, to assume that all slaves were treated badly.

There were white slaves as well. Typically, they were owned by black owners, though there were a few white owners that had them.


First of all slavery is inherently bad treatment. It IS ALWAYS A CRIME. Just as assault, robbery, rape, murder and fraud are ALWAYS CRIMES. A government may or may not reflect these truths in their statutes but morality is not relative. Wrong is wrong.

The notion that in the U.S. South of the early 1800s there was a black man with a white slave is worthy of a Tarantino history fantasy flick. TOTAL BS

Were there indentured servants? Exploited workers with pale skin? sure. Hey I've seen An American Tail and Gangs of New York.

"What about other crimes" doesn't excuse crime.

Please reread the speech above given by the Vice President of the Confederacy.


Presentism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 11:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles,
You have to think about just how drastically different the entire world was back then. I can't imagine thinking of another human being as property, but it was commonplace around the world and has been since the beginnings of recorded history (Biblical old testament times). Doesn't make it right, it just was.

Public executions, torture, slavery, stoning, mass cleansing....it's brutal and barbaric world out there. Notice how we don't need the wall to keep people in?

After that war in the 1860s, it would be another 55 years before women had the right to vote! Are you bent out of shape about this too? It was pretty rude as well.

Just trying to put things in perspective.


At least by today's standards anyway.

You can't apply today's standards to yesterday. This is what tmiddles so far hasn't figured out.

Back then, slavery was normal, legal, and completely accepted. It is still normal, legal, and accepted in some parts of the world today.

Sure, we consider it immoral today, but back then was a completely different set of values.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 11:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles,
You have to think about just how drastically different the entire world was back then.


Certainly true. The world is an imperfect place. It's a wonderful thing to see humanity make real progress.

Progress towards your set of values as opposed to some elses? Careful, dude. You are not the king of the world.
tmiddles wrote:
Of course there are always a few jerks in the way.

YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
The abolishion of slavery had arrived world wide.

WRONG. Slavery still exists today. Isolated cases, but it's still there.
tmiddles wrote:
The confederacy was a disgraceful step back that is a skid mark on the history of this country.

1518 - First direct shipment of slaves from Africa to the Americas
1780s - Trans-Atlantic slave trade reaches peak
- United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.
1811 - Spain abolishes slavery
1813 - Sweden bans slave trading
1814 - Netherlands bans slave trading
1833 - Britain passes Abolition of Slavery Act,
1819 - Portugal abolishes slave trade
1846 - Danish governor proclaims emancipation of slaves
1848 - France abolishes slavery
1851 - Brazil abolishes slave trading
1862 - U.S. President Abraham Lincoln proclaims emancipation of slaves

A bit late but we stumbled onward with the world after that embarrassing step back.

The South succeeded because they knew Lincoln personally opposed slavery.

The South didn't succeed. The seceded because Lincoln was planning on taking away private property without compensation, not only the slaves, but their land as well. Others seceded because the United States failed to remove themselves from the foreign nation and instead supplied an army within the foreign nation.
tmiddles wrote:
It was the reason for the civil war

No. States rights and the 4th amendment was the reason for the war of secession. The United States has never had a civil war.
tmiddles wrote:
and the cornerstone of the confederacy (as stated by the confederacy).

One man's opinion is not the confederacy.
tmiddles wrote:
It was about States rights because of the right to have slaves.

Slaves are property. So is the land the federal government was planning to take.
tmiddles wrote:
It's just an embarrassment we apparently still have to live down.

No, it simply is the way it was.
tmiddles wrote:
Sigh.
We're other areas later? Sure
But the white Europeans of the US south were dead last in the society of the world they were a part of.


WRONG. Slavery still exists today.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 15:55
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Sure, we consider it immoral today, but back then was a completely different set of values.


Yep, that's the only point I was trying to make.

One more point....

It was 150 years ago. Can we move on already?

No, we can't. The liberal leaning party still needs this to keep racism alive, blame conservatives for it, appear to help the "oppressed", and capture the minority vote. Sick.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
02-08-2019 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sure, we consider it immoral today, but back then was a completely different set of values.


Yep, that's the only point I was trying to make.

One more point....

It was 150 years ago. Can we move on already?

No, we can't. The liberal leaning party still needs this to keep racism alive, blame conservatives for it, appear to help the "oppressed", and capture the minority vote. Sick.


Agreed. Indeed, this whole line of conversation came about by accusing Trump of racism.


The Parrot Killer
02-08-2019 19:11
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sure, we consider it immoral today, but back then was a completely different set of values.


Yep, that's the only point I was trying to make.

One more point....

It was 150 years ago. Can we move on already?

No, we can't. The liberal leaning party still needs this to keep racism alive, blame conservatives for it, appear to help the "oppressed", and capture the minority vote. Sick.


One of the democratic candidates is all for 'reparations', though there weren't any details as to what, how much, or who would get it. It's been several generations since slavery in America, and we do have people of African decent from all over the world immigrating here, mostly legally, and by choice. They would know of our past, it doesn't stop them from coming here, so why should anybody else have problem. It's been over, the rest of the world moved on. Same goes for the Holocaust, horrible thing, far in the past for most people, not that many survivors left, and they don't have many years left either. It won't happen again, but keep bring it up, just keep reviving the hate as well. History is full of bad things, we should take note, but not dwell on the details too much.

Slavery wasn't even the main issue, just sort of the last act, that sealed it. The southern states weren't getting equal representation in the capital. Taxes on agriculture products, were higher, than than the industrial products up north. You also got to remember there were no cars or trucks, no tractors or powered farm equipment. Most everything done manually, and by hand. It would be like Washington mandating that all fossil fuel burning vehicles and equipment could no longer be used. It would take a lot of years, for people to get back to the horse and plow, or find an approved alternative. Not everyone lives near mass transit, they would be left walking, or riding bikes. Lincoln didn't give the south much time to figure out an alternative.

The past really doesn't matter that much, we are all people, and have the same potential. You never know your full potential, if you never do the work, to find it. Someone who had to work, to pay their own way through college, usually seems more knowledgeable, well rounded. Those that got a free ride, might be book smart, but lack practical, everyday knowledge, missing a few things.
02-08-2019 22:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:The confederacy was a disgraceful step back that is a skid mark on the history of this country.


tmiddles wrote: A bit late but we stumbled onward with the world after that embarrassing step back.

We have a problem here. Either you are intentionally dishonest or you are operating off an erroneous understanding of history or you have horrendously poor English comprehension. We should find out which one before proceeding forward.

The US never legalized slavery after abolishing slavery. Explain this "step back."

tmiddles wrote:The South succeeded because they knew Lincoln personally opposed slavery.

It was the reason for the civil war and the cornerstone of the confederacy (as stated by the confederacy).

Well, your understanding of history is erroneous. I'll give you a correct rundown. Main point: Slavery was not the issue. State Sovereignty was the issue.

The Union initiated the Civil War, not the Confederacy, ergo, slavery could not be the issue.

The Union initiated the Civil War because the Confederacy had declared secession. Once again, the Civil War was waged to force the Confederacy to remain in the Union. Are you following? I get the impression that I am the first person to tell you this.

The Confederacy declared secession under State Sovereignty. Period. End of story.

tmiddles wrote: But the white Europeans of the US south were dead last in the society of the world they were a part of.

There were no Europeans involved. The people in charge of your education did you a grave disservice ... or you are a majorly dishonest person.

Look, you have a lot of explaining to do for your comments. You come across as a self-righteous virtue-signalling bigot. It doesn't appear that there is anything you write that can be taken at face value.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 00:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sure, we consider it immoral today, but back then was a completely different set of values.


Yep, that's the only point I was trying to make.

One more point....

It was 150 years ago. Can we move on already?

No, we can't. The liberal leaning party still needs this to keep racism alive, blame conservatives for it, appear to help the "oppressed", and capture the minority vote. Sick.


One of the democratic candidates is all for 'reparations', though there weren't any details as to what, how much, or who would get it. It's been several generations since slavery in America, and we do have people of African decent from all over the world immigrating here, mostly legally, and by choice. They would know of our past, it doesn't stop them from coming here, so why should anybody else have problem. It's been over, the rest of the world moved on. Same goes for the Holocaust, horrible thing, far in the past for most people, not that many survivors left, and they don't have many years left either. It won't happen again, but keep bring it up, just keep reviving the hate as well. History is full of bad things, we should take note, but not dwell on the details too much.

Slavery wasn't even the main issue, just sort of the last act, that sealed it. The southern states weren't getting equal representation in the capital. Taxes on agriculture products, were higher, than than the industrial products up north. You also got to remember there were no cars or trucks, no tractors or powered farm equipment. Most everything done manually, and by hand. It would be like Washington mandating that all fossil fuel burning vehicles and equipment could no longer be used. It would take a lot of years, for people to get back to the horse and plow, or find an approved alternative. Not everyone lives near mass transit, they would be left walking, or riding bikes. Lincoln didn't give the south much time to figure out an alternative.

The past really doesn't matter that much, we are all people, and have the same potential. You never know your full potential, if you never do the work, to find it. Someone who had to work, to pay their own way through college, usually seems more knowledgeable, well rounded. Those that got a free ride, might be book smart, but lack practical, everyday knowledge, missing a few things.


'Reparations' was already done. The plantations the slaves worked was given to the former slaves.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 03:04
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
Back then, slavery was normal, legal, and completely accepted.


As I showed it had been outlawed everywhere else in the western world. The US South was the last hold out.

I would agree racism was accepted then and it's not now.

It's not fair to apply the current attitude about racism to 1870. Slavery however was condemned at that point by everyone decent. "It's time had come"

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:It's a wonderful thing to see humanity make real progress.

Progress towards your set of values as opposed to some elses? Careful, dude. You are not the king of the world.


I meant ending human slavery was progress. Went out on a limb to assume we're all on the same page there did I?

GasGuzzler wrote:
It was 150 years ago. Can we move on already?


You mean tear some pro-slavery statues down and make a new world? Working on it.

IBdaMann wrote:Explain this "step back." ...

The Union initiated the Civil War, not the Confederacy, ergo, slavery could not be the issue.


I meant the south's choice to attempt to create a state that could perpetuate human slavery longer.

The argument you're making goes like this:
The south wanted to leave the union
The north attacked the south to prevent it

Therefore it was an issue of states rights / freedom

My argument goes like this:
The south could see slavery would be taken away, as it had been in all the rest of the western world
When Lincoln, who was known to personally oppose slavery was elected it was viewed as an immediate threat to slave holders
The south wanted to leave the union, so they could keep having slaves
The north attacked the south to prevent it

Therefore it was an issue of states rights / freedom to have slaves

Into the Night wrote:
'Reparations' was already done. The plantations the slaves worked was given to the former slaves.


Wow! They must have been some rich black southerners! I missed that movie.

Into the Night wrote:this whole line of conversation came about by accusing Trump of racism.


This is again on topic because it's very "Trump" in it's attempt to "Fake news" it's way out of reality. You are making things up and ignoring facts. He's very good at getting away with that and the same methods of confusion are applied to the issue of pollution and the environment.
Edited on 03-08-2019 03:08
03-08-2019 04:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Back then, slavery was normal, legal, and completely accepted.


As I showed it had been outlawed everywhere else in the western world. The US South was the last hold out.

Nope. Still happens in parts of Africa.
tmiddles wrote:
I would agree racism was accepted then and it's not now.

Racism is never acceptable. It has always been a fallacy. It is a compositional involving people as the class and genetic traits as the property.
tmiddles wrote:
It's not fair to apply the current attitude about racism to 1870.

Yes it is. It is a fallacy now. It was a fallacy then. Logic does not change.
tmiddles wrote:
Slavery however was condemned at that point by everyone decent. "It's time had come"

Bigotry fallacy. Decent people owned slaves. Examples are George Washington (who later freed his slaves), Ben Franklin (who also free his slaves and became quite an anti-slavery activist himself), Thomas Jefferson (who commented that all men are created equal). He never did free his slaves. Apparently he thought that only white men were created equal.
William Clark also had slaves.

Slavery was also legal in Washington DC at the time of Lincoln.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:It's a wonderful thing to see humanity make real progress.

Progress towards your set of values as opposed to some elses? Careful, dude. You are not the king of the world.

I meant ending human slavery was progress. Went out on a limb to assume we're all on the same page there did I?

Yup. Some people do not call that 'progress', even though you and I would.
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
It was 150 years ago. Can we move on already?


You mean tear some pro-slavery statues down and make a new world? Working on it.

What pro-slavery statues?
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Explain this "step back." ...

The Union initiated the Civil War, not the Confederacy, ergo, slavery could not be the issue.


I meant the south's choice to attempt to create a state that could perpetuate human slavery longer.

Not the reason they seceded from the Union. Most of it had to do with unconstitutional acts like the Alien and Sedition Act, the interference of free trade between the States, the violation of Article IV, and of course, the unconstitutional seizing of property without compensation.

Several States had threatened secession including Maine, New England, the Carolinas, Florida, Texas, etc. The first to actually do it was South Carolina, citing that Article IV of the Constitution of the United States was being violated by the federal government as the reason.
tmiddles wrote:
The argument you're making goes like this:
The south wanted to leave the union
The north attacked the south to prevent it
Therefore it was an issue of states rights / freedom

That is the argument I am making because that is what happened.
tmiddles wrote:
My argument goes like this:
The south could see slavery would be taken away, as it had been in all the rest of the western world

WRONG. They seceded because of violations of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States and Amendments 1 and 4 of the Constitution of the United States. More of them seceded because the federal government invaded a foreign nation (the Confederacy).

Talk of secession had been kicking around since just after the war of 1812, particularly with the passing of the Alien and Sedition acts.

tmiddles wrote:
When Lincoln, who was known to personally oppose slavery was elected it was viewed as an immediate threat to slave holders

He was, but that is not the reason for secession.
tmiddles wrote:
The south wanted to leave the union, so they could keep having slaves

WRONG. They left the Union for the reasons I described.
tmiddles wrote:
The north attacked the south to prevent it

True.
tmiddles wrote:
Therefore it was an issue of states rights / freedom to have slaves

Slaves were not the issue. Lincoln saw the Union disintegrating. He wanted to force it back together. When the South lost, he later used the opportunity to outlaw slavery. That amendment (the 13th) was quickly ratified by the remaining States. If a southern State was to rejoin the Union, they would have to accept that. It was now part of the Constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
'Reparations' was already done. The plantations the slaves worked was given to the former slaves.


Wow! They must have been some rich black southerners! I missed that movie.

No, though they were given the plantations, they didn't take care of them nor try to profit from them. The property owned by one rich plantation owner became property owned by hundreds of former slaves. It was divided.
tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:this whole line of conversation came about by accusing Trump of racism.


This is again on topic because it's very "Trump" in it's attempt to "Fake news" it's way out of reality.

Go read the diaries and other information from that era. Pay particular attention to the secession documents themselves, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, and the interference of free trade between the States the federal government was doing.
tmiddles wrote:
You are making things up

No. These things happened.
tmiddles wrote:
and ignoring facts.

No. These things happened.
tmiddles wrote:
He's very good at getting away with that

Getting away with what?
tmiddles wrote:
and the same methods of confusion are applied to the issue of pollution

Define 'pollution'. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
and the environment.

Void argument fallacy. What about the environment?


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2019 04:52
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:Decent people owned slaves. Examples are George Washington ...
What pro-slavery statues?
Slaves were not the issue.


I would agree. I said it was a step forward as humanity who's time had come. Don't count west Africa as part of the "western world". The leadership of the south existed in a community of trade and interaction where they were dead last in finally giving up slavery.]

Pro-slavery statues:
"busts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney and a bust of Maryland's first governor and slave owner Thomas Johnson"

"Slaves were not THE issue" or "Slaves were not AN issue" ???

2nd place to the interference with interstate commerce? Not on the list at all?

Go ahead, go full Trump, claim it was low on the list or not an issue at all.

But be careful! The CONFEDERACY was one of men, and they gave speeches and said things. Their testimony is a matter of public record.
Edited on 03-08-2019 05:12
03-08-2019 05:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:Pro-slavery statues:
"busts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney and a bust of Maryland's first governor and slave owner Thomas Johnson"

Can you possibly provide some images of these statues to show how they promote or otherwise glorify slavery?

If they are simply busts of people then you are full of chit.

tmiddles wrote: Slaves were the not THE issue" or "Slaves were not AN issue" ???

They were not the cause of, or reason for, the the Civil War. Correct.

tmiddles wrote:Go ahead, go full Trump, claim it was low on the list or not an issue at all.

Go ahead, go full AOC. Explain how the Civil War was NOT an issue of State sovereignty, right after you explain the humanitarian crisis of Israel's occupation of Palestine.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 05:37
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you possibly provide some images of these statues to show how they promote or otherwise glorify slavery?
If they are simply busts of people then you are full of chit.


So because it's a statue of a person you don't think it's promoting anything other than what? Fashion? What they are wearing?

So a statue of Hitler wouldn't promote anti-semitism?

Statue of Jeffery Damer? Would that promote glasses in your view as equally as canibalism?

Does it matter WHY the statue was erected?

IBdaMann wrote:
They were not the cause of, or reason for, the the Civil War. Correct....Explain how the Civil War was NOT an issue of State sovereignty


Again this is like someone arrested for a crime saying that they were arrested for running from the police and not for the crime at issue.

But you're cheating again. You didn't answer my question. Are you saying Slavery wasn't an issue at all? That is came in 2nd place to something else? That it didn't make the list?

Uh it was for freedom!

TO DO WHAT?

...

I was just reading South Carolina's secession document. I can feel their pain over states rights. Man when someone interferes with your rights!
"For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery,"
Edited on 03-08-2019 05:57
03-08-2019 07:06
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you possibly provide some images of these statues to show how they promote or otherwise glorify slavery?
If they are simply busts of people then you are full of chit.


So because it's a statue of a person you don't think it's promoting anything other than what? Fashion? What they are wearing?

So a statue of Hitler wouldn't promote anti-semitism?

Statue of Jeffery Damer? Would that promote glasses in your view as equally as canibalism?

Does it matter WHY the statue was erected?

IBdaMann wrote:
They were not the cause of, or reason for, the the Civil War. Correct....Explain how the Civil War was NOT an issue of State sovereignty


Again this is like someone arrested for a crime saying that they were arrested for running from the police and not for the crime at issue.

But you're cheating again. You didn't answer my question. Are you saying Slavery wasn't an issue at all? That is came in 2nd place to something else? That it didn't make the list?

Uh it was for freedom!

TO DO WHAT?

...

I was just reading South Carolina's secession document. I can feel their pain over states rights. Man when someone interferes with your rights!
"For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery,"



tmiddles, he is your beastie. I'm the bad guy in here. Strange.
03-08-2019 07:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:So because it's a statue of a person you don't think it's promoting anything other than what? Fashion? What they are wearing?

Am I really going to be the first person to explain to you that a statue of a person glorifies the person depicted in the statue? Did you never learn this or pick up on this on your own?

tmiddles wrote:So a statue of Hitler wouldn't promote anti-semitism?

Correct. You seriously never learned this?

Watch videos of any of Hitler's speeches. He was praised and adored by the Germans as being an unparalleled leader. Naturally statues were made of Hitler to glorify him as a leader.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between a person's flaws and his positive traits for which monuments are built. You're going to have to work through that.

tmiddles wrote:Does it matter WHY the statue was erected?

Now you're starting to catch on. Don't stop now.

tmiddles wrote:Again this is like someone arrested for a crime saying that they were arrested for running from the police and not for the crime at issue.

It's my favorite scene from Lethal Weapon IV.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyXOPTNDiGc

tmiddles wrote:But you're cheating again.

No, you are weaseling.

Slavery was not the reason for the Civil War, neither was bread pudding, southern hospitality nor anything characteristic of the south. The reason the Union initiated the Civil War was because the Confederate States seceded. The Confederate States seceded because the U.S. Federal government violated their state sovereignty.

So let's discuss exactly what part of history you are trying to rewrite.

By the way, I hope you aren't a Democrat, i.e. the party of slavery. I expect you are a Republican, the party that was created under the mission of ending slavery and that succeeded in doing so. If not, it kind of destroys all your arguments.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-08-2019 08:21
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Personally, I think people should leave the Civil War statues and monuments alone. It's a strong reminder to all, that if the federal government gets too far out of line, there is an option, and a heavy price. This whole country was formed, from another similar fight. We fought the British, for similar reasons, and won our freedom. Those statues and monuments represent people fighting for their rights, that the constitution guaranteed, but weren't being respected for all states. Sort of like the direction the democrats are pushing us into now. The statues are artwork as well, shame to destroy someones work, just because of political reasoning. There was some serious disagreement, turned to war, lot of people died on both sides, but it got resolve, we all came back together, and did much better afterward. It's a mistake to erase something like that, since we could easily head down that road again. Knowing that the price can be high, it's incentive to work things out peacefully, before it gets that far. The monuments are a good reminder to everyone that it's an option best avoided, and some should be careful about how far they push.

At the beginning of African slaves, they were all bought/traded for, and pretty cheap too. Few shiny trinkets, metal knives, tools. White people are naturally greedy though, and cutout the middle-man, and did, what the Africans did for themselves, sort of. The tribes usually had a reason for fighting, the losers, were spoils, not often the strongest, or fit for fighting. Food isn't free, it's a lot of work, when you don't have a lot of tools, or transportation. The people of the losing village were taken as slaves, to do work for the winners, but left to fend for themselves, most would have died. The white people want strong healthier slaves, and in larger quantities, larger profit, for the limited space on their ships. They had better weapons as well. Back in America, or any of the other slave buying countries, most didn't know how the slaves got on the ships. I don't doubt that some slaves put up a fight for their freedom. It's one thing to lose a fight with another tribe, and foreigners snatching you up for no reason. There are also bad men, abusive. But, I don't believe mistreating the slaves was a common practice, and most were use to working hard for food and shelter back in Africa, likely wasn't quite as bad. If you had to depend on a horse for transportation, to plow your fields, would risk injuring that horse, crippling it, or killing it? It's in your best interest to keep that horse healthy, and in good shape, well fed. Paying a vet bill, or having to buy a new horse is costly. Same would have applied to slaves.
Even with slaves, you can check most any news source on the planet, and find stories of people doing abusive things to other people. There is almost always 'A Florida Man...' story. Unfortunately, there will always be abusive people, all races, but they don't represent the majority. I very seriously doubt, that the vast majority of slave owners abused or neglected the slaves, most would have taken good care of them. The abuses were more of an excuse, that really didn't apply to most, sort of insulting. The real issue was it was wrong to own people, buy and sell them, treat them as anything else, but people. Some people figured it out quicker than others, but most would have gotten it eventually.
03-08-2019 13:01
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
So I take it the destruction of Hitler statues in Germany is something you think is a shame?

Yes statues glorify the person for their specific achievements in most cases.

A statue of Einstein won't have a plaque say "World greatest husband".

People who did more harm than good (Hitler) would generally not warrant a statue.

Statues of historical figures aren't there to teach history they are there to say, with the voice of the community, this achievement by this person we celebrate.

So here's a list. Do you believe in the following:
Jim Crow existed
There were Jim Crow laws which deprived blacks of the right to vote
The rights of blacks in southern states were violated
The KKK and other powerful forces in southern society worked hard to keep blacks in the position of being 2nd class citizens.

Do you doubt all of that passion and activity didn't get a few statues built?
Supreme court justice Roger Brooke Taney is known for one thing: The Dred Scott Decision
ruling that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery

A statue of him sends a very clear message as it was meant to.

So again this is being dodged.

The argument is that the South succeeded because of "States Rights" which just means Freedom to do things that the federal government was interfering with.
Let's get a top 3 list of things that were being interfered with that irked the states:
1._____
2._____
3._____

Oh and IBdaMan,
The civil war was actually caused by bullets and cannon balls. Some bayonets here and there. Had nothing to do with any pieces of paper. You can't fight a war with bits of paper.
Page 10 of 12<<<89101112>





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is Venus Relevant to Earth?3723-07-2019 04:32
Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack019-04-2019 16:33
Why Americans Might Never Notice Climate Change's Hotter Weather2212-03-2019 23:21
The hotter the classroom, the lower the test scores, research finds106-03-2019 21:58
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.6703-09-2017 10:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact