If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Abraham Lincoln's actual feelings about freed slaves: Stop being selfish and respect white people by moving to Central America   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 516
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

22638 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2011 at 2:23 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



516 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-05 06:29:09 PM

FirstNationalBastard: He just wanted the black people to leave and go to central America because as we all know, Lincoln was secretly gay, and he knew that he could not help himself, and her would eventually go black and would never come back.


Ha! You win.
 
2011-03-05 06:30:27 PM

DavidVincent: Did you Eric Foner's new book was cited 50 posts or so ago?



Looks like an interesting read.

Sadly, 'history' is thinly veiled propaganda, often as not.
 
2011-03-05 06:34:12 PM

DavidVincent: Indubitably: Are you human female?

Human? Man, you are picky.


Perhaps.

I like my kind.

Humankind, that is. Preferably female with some kind of tits. I am low/high on the genetical preference scale: like all kinds of tits for sex, but subliminally like big tits for procreation purposes. If I have to tell you why, you are dumber than my post.

Not picky, just smart.

I need to procreate soon, or I won't be able to keep up with my kidlets...

And I intend to keep up, yo.

Let's go, childrens!

;)
 
2011-03-05 06:34:28 PM

TheDumbBlonde: real shaman: Lincoln on Racial Equality:

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

It's not nice to blaspheme The Great and Powerful Lincoln.


It's only ignorant rightists who regard understanding Lincoln's personality as "blasphemy." Rightists view the whole world in black and white. Because Lincoln wasn't perfect, they believe, he must have been utterly worthless. Adults, by contrast, can cope with human complexity. Lincoln wasn't perfect. But he was still the Great Liberator, a great man, and our best president.
 
2011-03-05 06:38:07 PM
Sweaty Dynamite

Of course he had sloughed off the idea of colonizing Central America, he was going to let them have what was left of the South with Reconstruction.


My impression was he was going to use the new railworks to get them to the mid-West that was largely unpopulated (what is now New Mexico, Colorado,Wyoming and Montana, and territories to the West), and let them settle there (also, Special Field Order 15) , rather than have them face certain retribution from their former owners. Central America was one of his more extreme options.

In short, he recognized the probability that their lives wouldn't amount to much living in the region where they were still widely viewed as "sub-human subordinates." Had he lived, some large scale exodus or transferral would have occurred. African Americans would have enjoyed their liberty and proper role in a country they'd helped flourish much sooner.

If only more politicians today entertained such foresight....
 
2011-03-05 06:39:26 PM

DavidVincent: The Soviet Union broke up peacefully. That a precedent too.


Not all of it broke up peacefully. I could cite Chechnya, Daghestan, and Nagorno-Karabakh among other examples.

DavidVincent: I know NPR, the NYT and big media would do a nice job on the war propaganda.


Speculative.

Just so you know, I would fight to keep your California in the Union, too, if Hispanic separatists there tried to carve out a separate country from its territory; see also my post at 14:22. Someone I know once horrified me be confiding in me that he hoped one day to see a separate country in the Hispanic-majority areas of California. I haven't talked to him since.
 
2011-03-05 06:40:30 PM
So im a white male in my 40s, somewhere down the line my kinfolk and white "brothas", ancestors were slaves, damn, I guess I need to start squeeling like a piggy now and try to get me some reparations off the government. Maybe get me some free cheese and a check every month.
 
2011-03-05 06:41:14 PM

El_Maestro: Sadly, he wasn't that far from the truth. Some of us still have a problem with this.


He could have substituted Irish, or Mexican, or Asian or Buddhist or Muslim or...

Some people fear ANYTHING that is "different" (see Huckabee saying Obama "isn't like us").

Check this thread and the fearful people stand out immediately.
 
2011-03-05 06:46:49 PM

tirob: I know once horrified me be confiding in me that he hoped one day to see a separate country in the Hispanic-majority areas of California.


Ok. Yes. Hispanic separatists is another story. Unfortunately, you get to the point of facts on the ground. When the population shift is complete, I really don't think I would have the stomach for trying to get it back.

I was speculating on Arizona and Texas seceding because the federal govt won't stop of the flow of hispanics and they may want to take matters into their own hands.
 
2011-03-05 06:50:04 PM

tirob: see also my post at 14.22 06:14:22.


My bad.
 
2011-03-05 06:52:15 PM

DavidVincent: tirob: Farker T: tirob: DavidVincent: I wonder how many Americans we would sacrifice in combat to hold the union together today.

How many Lincoln lovers would don a uniform to keep hold of Texas and Arizona?

Since you asked, if Texas ever attempted to secede from the Union (Governor Perry has threatened to try this more than once), I for one would put that uniform on and pick up a gun. I would also support putting Governor Perry on trial for treason if he were captured alive, and subjecting him to the death penalty if he were convicted.


Why?

Because it's what Lincoln himself would have done, and what Jackson would have done before him.

Seriously, because we have a precedent here that you don't go creating independent countries out of United States territory. Period.

/actually, Lincoln probably just would have thrown Jefferson Davis out of the US if he had lived.


The Soviet Union broke up peacefully. That a precedent too.

You've already said you would risk your life to keep Texas in the union. It is interesting to me to see your thoughts on that. I live in California but don't care one way or another about what Texas does. I don't think it is worth one drop of anyone's blood, actually. I would wish them luck and say bye.

Americans were griping about 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq.
If the death toll got up to the ten thousands (let alone 600,000 of the original civil war) in a war to prevent Texas from seceding, I wonder what Americans would think. I know NPR, the NYT and big media would do a nice job on the war propaganda but after while I am sure those images of dead Texans and Americans on TV would cause some to double think the accepted wisdom.


1) The technology and tactics of the day were primarily responsible for the death-tolls of the Civil War. Both have changed.

2) People "gripe" about the relatively low number of dead in Iraq & Afghanistan because, even though those deaths are fewer, they are relatively more costly. The dead of the Civil War bought us the Union's continued survival, our eternal freedom from European meddling, and at least the legal end of slavery, if not the end of all its conditions. Those thousand in Iraq bought us nothing. Well, nothing worth buying; it DID buy us debt, more conflicts, fewer friends, and potentially a few decades of blood-stained chaos in Iraq and Pakistan.

3) It's hard to care about wars far from home, involving people you don't know that have no impact on your life. Not caring, really, about US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is only marginally more difficult than not caring about dead Iraqis, and the fact that our government and media have gone out of their way to hide those deaths from us, not even televising the return of their bodies, makes not caring only simpler. When you don't care about a war, it's naturally easier to ask "why the hell are we fighting it?" and to think negatively of it when you think of the cost involved.

A new Civil War would be different. It would mean blood in the streets, it would mean brother against brother, it would mean families divided in violence by political loyalty. Seeing smoke rising over Baghdad and the dead clogging its streets may invoke little feeling in most folks' breasts, but seeing St. Louis burning? Angry mobs or rebel soldiers murdering people in the streets of Houston or Austin or Atlanta? Pro-Union newspaper editors lynched in Mississippi? Hearing on the news how the university your daughter was attending just got sacked as a stronghold of "liberal anti-Christian unionism" or some other conservative nonsense? Yeah, people are going to be a hell of a lot angrier about that. And they're going to be willing to fight a helluva lot harder, and pay a helluva higher price for that war than they were willing to pay for the pleasure of seeing half-starved, terrorized Iraqis get hundred-million dollar cluster bombs dropped on their heads of a night.
 
2011-03-05 06:54:14 PM
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
~Abraham Lincoln
 
2011-03-05 06:55:41 PM
Infernalist: Yes, because Liberia worked out so well...

A lot of people believe Liberia was founded by freed slaves, but the truth is those slaves did not go of their own volition. They were sent by whites who didn't want free blacks around (if I remember right most were from the Carolinas). The whites at the time decided if they weren't going to be slaves, the blacks should be sent back to Africa, and they basically kidnapped them and took them back.

Of course, it didn't matter to the whites that many of those blacks had been in the States for generations and had no "active" cultural connection to Africa, and of course it didn't matter where the blacks had originally been from in Africa either.

I used to work for a textbook publisher that perpetuated the myth to boost their "multicultural" content, and when I pointed out the truth they basically told me not to make waves and knowingly published the false "feel good" version of the story, in which industrious former slaves decided to improve their lot by becoming pilgrims/settlers. But that ain't what really happened.
 
2011-03-05 06:56:46 PM
There won't be much of a civil war or uprising against the gov. Thats why they have the FEMA camps everywhere and the REX 84 program. REX 84 look it up.
 
2011-03-05 06:58:44 PM

DavidVincent:

Ok. Yes. Hispanic separatists is another story.

I was speculating on Arizona and Texas seceding because the federal govt won't stop of the flow of hispanics and they may want to take matters into their own hands.


Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that the distinction between the Texas secessionists and the "Aztlanistas" of the US Southwest is one without a difference.
 
2011-03-05 06:59:34 PM
t2.gstatic.com

F*cking northern monkeys!



www.wearysloth.com


I hate these f*cking southern fairies.
 
2011-03-05 07:00:31 PM

I agree with you: REX 84 look it up.


Just did, scary stuff.
 
2011-03-05 07:01:24 PM

Dipping Sop for Filthy Lucre: Anybody else notice the concentrated effort to paint our nation's "heroes" in the worst light possible?

Newsflash, tardmitter, all of our nation's founding fathers and subsequent leaders were flawed human beings with weaknesses as well as strengths. Like you, none of them were perfect. That this nation not only survived those flaws and weaknesses but has thrived for the past 230 years is a testament of humanity's collective strengths.

There are plenty contemporary pariahs to find in our culture without the recent historical hatchet jobs.


Yes,that "concerted effort" is called "fark is the new 4chan."

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

/trolleoleoleol...
 
2011-03-05 07:02:55 PM
Farker T
Funny that these same people will quickly tell you that there IS such a thing as 'Black Culture' in the US, despite the fact that Blacks in the US also stem from many different and varied national, cultural and tribal backgrounds.


Unlike the Europeans, they cannot trace their ancestry past a certain point, due to slavery, and the fact that even post Emancipation, many weren't born in hospitals, and had no birth certificates.

"How old would YOU be if you didn't know how old you are?" -- Satchel Paige.
 
2011-03-05 07:12:26 PM

Heron: DavidVincent: tirob: Farker T: tirob: A new Civil War would be different. It would mean blood in the streets, it would mean brother against brother, it would mean families divided in violence by political loyalty. Seeing smoke rising over Baghdad and the dead clogging its streets may invoke little feeling in most folks' breasts, but seeing St. Louis burning? Angry mobs or rebel soldiers murdering people in the streets of Houston or Austin or Atlanta? Pro-Union newspaper editors lynched in Mississippi? Hearing on the news how the university your daughter was attending just got sacked as a stronghold of "liberal anti-Christian unionism" or some other conservative nonsense? Yeah, people are going to be a hell of a lot angrier about that. And they're going to be willing to fight a helluva lot harder, and pay a helluva higher price for that war than they were willing to pay for the pleasure of seeing half-starved, terrorized Iraqis get hundred-million dollar cluster bombs dropped on their heads of a night.



I wonder if the president in power would launch the invasion without the consent of Congress, suspend the writ of habeas corpus and arrest tens of thousands of political opponents. - Like Lincoln did.
 
2011-03-05 07:14:08 PM
DavidVincent
I live in California but don't care one way or another about what Texas does. I don't think it is worth one drop of anyone's blood, actually. I would wish them luck and say bye.

What does living in California have to do with anything?

Americans were griping about 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq.

4,404 dead, approx 32k wounded by May 2010. +150,000 Iraqi civillian and combatant deaths by 2010.

If the death toll got up to the ten thousands (let alone 600,000 of the original civil war) in a war to prevent Texas from seceding, I wonder what Americans would think.

25,145,561, total pop according to 2010 census. I doubt more than a third would support secession, even if the representatives did in spirit. The war would end before the numbers reached that level. Also, considering the US military presence IN Texas, their bid wouldn't get very far, militarily anyway.

I know NPR, the NYT and big media would do a nice job on the war propaganda but after while I am sure those images of dead Texans and Americans on TV would cause some to double think the accepted wisdom.
Um....that the Texan stand is ill founded and stupid? I don't really see them looking very smart if they followed through to the point of military conflict. You seem to think the US Armed Forces would not do their job, and somehow, Texas loyalists would just give up their lives for absolutely nothing.
More thinking with reality as a context might suit you.

As for living in California (as I do), I presume you're not much of a multicultural "people" person...whereas I pretty much assume everyone is multicultural by default of being raised here. It takes a great effort to maintain such a narrow perspective....Congratulations?
 
2011-03-05 07:15:51 PM

I agree with you: So im a white male in my 40s, somewhere down the line my kinfolk and white "brothas", ancestors were slaves, damn, I guess I need to start squeeling like a piggy now and try to get me some reparations off the government. Maybe get me some free cheese and a check every month.


Hi, you are being racist.

But you already knew that, right?

;)

p.s. yer smoothness is as smooth as oily cheese...
 
2011-03-05 07:19:31 PM
Frederick Douglass was one of Lincoln's great critics, a contemporary of Lincoln, and an escaped slave. This is what he said about Lincoln in 1876, in his "Oration Delivered Upon the Occasion of the Unveiling of the Freedman's Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln":

"I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
 
2011-03-05 07:20:06 PM

Heron: DavidVincent: tirob: Farker T: tirob: DavidVincent: I wonder how many Americans we would sacrifice in combat to hold the union together today.

How many Lincoln lovers would don a uniform to keep hold of Texas and Arizona?

Since you asked, if Texas ever attempted to secede from the Union (Governor Perry has threatened to try this more than once), I for one would put that uniform on and pick up a gun. I would also support putting Governor Perry on trial for treason if he were captured alive, and subjecting him to the death penalty if he were convicted.


Why?

Because it's what Lincoln himself would have done, and what Jackson would have done before him.

Seriously, because we have a precedent here that you don't go creating independent countries out of United States territory. Period.

/actually, Lincoln probably just would have thrown Jefferson Davis out of the US if he had lived.


The Soviet Union broke up peacefully. That a precedent too.

You've already said you would risk your life to keep Texas in the union. It is interesting to me to see your thoughts on that. I live in California but don't care one way or another about what Texas does. I don't think it is worth one drop of anyone's blood, actually. I would wish them luck and say bye.

Americans were griping about 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq.
If the death toll got up to the ten thousands (let alone 600,000 of the original civil war) in a war to prevent Texas from seceding, I wonder what Americans would think. I know NPR, the NYT and big media would do a nice job on the war propaganda but after while I am sure those images of dead Texans and Americans on TV would cause some to double think the accepted wisdom.

1) The technology and tactics of the day were primarily responsible for the death-tolls of the Civil War. Both have changed.

2) People "gripe" about the relatively low number of dead in Iraq & Afghanistan because, even though those deaths are fewer, they are relatively more costly. The dead of the Civil War bought us the Union's continued survival, our eternal freedom from European meddling, and at least the legal end of slavery, if not the end of all its conditions. Those thousand in Iraq bought us nothing. Well, nothing worth buying; it DID buy us debt, more conflicts, fewer friends, and potentially a few decades of blood-stained chaos in Iraq and Pakistan.

3) It's hard to care about wars far from home, involving people you don't know that have no impact on your life. Not caring, really, about US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is only marginally more difficult than not caring about dead Iraqis, and the fact that our government and media have gone out of their way to hide those deaths from us, not even televising the return of their bodies, makes not caring only simpler. When you don't care about a war, it's naturally easier to ask "why the hell are we fighting it?" and to think negatively of it when you think of the cost involved.

A new Civil War would be different. It would mean blood in the streets, it would mean brother against brother, it would mean families divided in violence by political loyalty. Seeing smoke rising over Baghdad and the dead clogging its streets may invoke little feeling in most folks' breasts, but seeing St. Louis burning? Angry mobs or rebel soldiers murdering people in the streets of Houston or Austin or Atlanta? Pro-Union newspaper editors lynched in Mississippi? Hearing on the news how the university your daughter was attending just got sacked as a stronghold of "liberal anti-Christian unionism" or some other conservative nonsense? Yeah, people are going to be a hell of a lot angrier about that. And they're going to be willing to fight a helluva lot harder, and pay a helluva higher price for that war than they were willing to pay for the pleasure of seeing half-starved, terrorized Iraqis get hundred-million dollar cluster bombs dropped on their heads of a night.


Bam.
 
2011-03-05 07:21:41 PM

soseussme: Infernalist: Yes, because Liberia worked out so well...

A lot of people believe Liberia was founded by freed slaves, but the truth is those slaves did not go of their own volition. They were sent by whites who didn't want free blacks around (if I remember right most were from the Carolinas). The whites at the time decided if they weren't going to be slaves, the blacks should be sent back to Africa, and they basically kidnapped them and took them back.

Of course, it didn't matter to the whites that many of those blacks had been in the States for generations and had no "active" cultural connection to Africa, and of course it didn't matter where the blacks had originally been from in Africa either.

I used to work for a textbook publisher that perpetuated the myth to boost their "multicultural" content, and when I pointed out the truth they basically told me not to make waves and knowingly published the false "feel good" version of the story, in which industrious former slaves decided to improve their lot by becoming pilgrims/settlers. But that ain't what really happened.


Your post should have also said, when the freemen arrived in Liberia, they wasted no time in erecting a version of the old plantation system with themselves in the role of "massas," and then proceeded to enslave the local natives.

The unrest in Liberia to this very day is an offshoot of that repression.
 
2011-03-05 07:22:06 PM

maxximillian: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
~Abraham Lincoln


Bam squared.

I love this dysfunctional man; I can relate. We are human together. I am.
 
2011-03-05 07:22:45 PM

DavidVincent: Heron: DavidVincent: tirob: Farker T: tirob: A new Civil War would be different. It would mean blood in the streets, it would mean brother against brother, it would mean families divided in violence by political loyalty. Seeing smoke rising over Baghdad and the dead clogging its streets may invoke little feeling in most folks' breasts, but seeing St. Louis burning? Angry mobs or rebel soldiers murdering people in the streets of Houston or Austin or Atlanta? Pro-Union newspaper editors lynched in Mississippi? Hearing on the news how the university your daughter was attending just got sacked as a stronghold of "liberal anti-Christian unionism" or some other conservative nonsense? Yeah, people are going to be a hell of a lot angrier about that. And they're going to be willing to fight a helluva lot harder, and pay a helluva higher price for that war than they were willing to pay for the pleasure of seeing half-starved, terrorized Iraqis get hundred-million dollar cluster bombs dropped on their heads of a night.


I wonder if the president in power would launch the invasion without the consent of Congress, suspend the writ of habeas corpus and arrest tens of thousands of political opponents. - Like Lincoln did.



Are you aware that there was a section of the US prior to the Civil War that practiced censorship in newspapers, the mail and even when people were talking to each other? This some section of the country actually forced Congress to censor itself and banned certain petitions from being presented to Congress. This section of the country also lynched hundreds of white men who were BELIEVED to disagree with the prevalent opinion.


That is a lot worse that anything Lincoln did after that section of the country rebelled against the legally elected government simply because they did not win. Everything Lincoln did was a reaction to what the south did. And he did these things AFTER the south turned traitor.
 
2011-03-05 07:25:40 PM

Indubitably: maxximillian: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
~Abraham Lincoln

Bam squared.

I love this dysfunctional man; I can relate. We are human together. I am.


P.S. For you religionists: "I am" transcends, yo. Word.

;)
 
2011-03-05 07:27:24 PM
Man you guys really know how to beat a dead....er

www.realhistories.org.uk
 
2011-03-05 07:31:32 PM

DavidVincent: Man you guys really know how to beat a dead....er


Picture caption?

You do me undeserved...

;)
 
2011-03-05 07:34:49 PM

Unhip1: I doubt more than a third would support secession, even if the representatives did in spirit.


I doubt that the Texas secessionists would have the support of even one percent of the local black and Hispanic populations. That's more than a third of the state's population written off for the cause right there.
 
2011-03-05 07:39:13 PM

shawn82: Worst.Fark handle. ever.: I used to think that Lincoln was the last decent Republican, and that the GOP had seriously turned dark & ugly since his time.

Now I stand corrected. The Republican party has ALWAYS been dark & ugly since it's unholy creation.

Do some research on the Democratic Party some time.


You're interfering with his support of his team.

Frankly both party's supporters should just go ahead and get jerseys and do away with the pretense they are doing anything more than supporting their chosen team.
 
2011-03-05 07:47:05 PM

Unhip1: Farker T
Funny that these same people will quickly tell you that there IS such a thing as 'Black Culture' in the US, despite the fact that Blacks in the US also stem from many different and varied national, cultural and tribal backgrounds.

Unlike the Europeans, they cannot trace their ancestry past a certain point, due to slavery, and the fact that even post Emancipation, many weren't born in hospitals, and had no birth certificates.

"How old would YOU be if you didn't know how old you are?" -- Satchel Paige.



Gee, most Whites in the US either can't or haven't bothered to trace their ancestry at any great length.

The first US president to be born in a hospital was JFK, and he was born in 1917 - some eleven years AFTER your Satchel Paige, so put your race card back up your sleeve.

And how does your statement prove that there is a 'Black culture' in the US, but there is no 'White culture'?
 
2011-03-05 07:48:12 PM

Gridlock:

Hey, buddy, you have your own opinions, or do you just copy other people's?

 
2011-03-05 07:49:48 PM

Farker T: Gee, most Whites in the US either can't or haven't bothered to trace their ancestry at any great length.


Yeah, but it wasn't because of slavery dipshiat. Big God damn difference, but then again I always see you post racist garbage.
 
2011-03-05 07:51:48 PM

chuckufarlie: DavidVincent: Heron: DavidVincent: tirob: Farker T: tirob: A new Civil War would be different. It would mean blood in the streets, it would mean brother against brother, it would mean families divided in violence by political loyalty. Seeing smoke rising over Baghdad and the dead clogging its streets may invoke little feeling in most folks' breasts, but seeing St. Louis burning? Angry mobs or rebel soldiers murdering people in the streets of Houston or Austin or Atlanta? Pro-Union newspaper editors lynched in Mississippi? Hearing on the news how the university your daughter was attending just got sacked as a stronghold of "liberal anti-Christian unionism" or some other conservative nonsense? Yeah, people are going to be a hell of a lot angrier about that. And they're going to be willing to fight a helluva lot harder, and pay a helluva higher price for that war than they were willing to pay for the pleasure of seeing half-starved, terrorized Iraqis get hundred-million dollar cluster bombs dropped on their heads of a night.


I wonder if the president in power would launch the invasion without the consent of Congress, suspend the writ of habeas corpus and arrest tens of thousands of political opponents. - Like Lincoln did.


Are you aware that there was a section of the US prior to the Civil War that practiced censorship in newspapers, the mail and even when people were talking to each other? This some section of the country actually forced Congress to censor itself and banned certain petitions from being presented to Congress. This section of the country also lynched hundreds of white men who were BELIEVED to disagree with the prevalent opinion.


That is a lot worse that anything Lincoln did after that section of the country rebelled against the legally elected government simply because they did not win. Everything Lincoln did was a reaction to what the south did. And he did these things AFTER the south turned traitor.



I was wondering if a current president would do those things.
Probably "crickets" from the MSM.
 
2011-03-05 07:55:59 PM
▶ Farker T
The first US president to be born in a hospital was JFK, and he was born in 1917 - some eleven years AFTER your Satchel Paige, so put your race card back up your sleeve.

Satchel Paige's age was uncertain. Very few African Americans pre-1880 birth could be certain of their age or date of birth by other than word of mouth.
Race card? No. It's called being accurate. If you're telling me that JFK was the first white man born with a birth certificate, you truly are an ignorant person.


And how does your statement prove that there is a 'Black culture' in the US, but there is no 'White culture'?
I meant to prove nothing but that your argument is fallacious. Generalizations make you an idiot prima facie...your counters just confirm that.

/only a racist believes in a "race card."
 
2011-03-05 08:04:12 PM

tirob: Unhip1: I doubt more than a third would support secession, even if the representatives did in spirit.

I doubt that the Texas secessionists would have the support of even one percent of the local black and Hispanic populations. That's more than a third of the state's population written off for the cause right there.


So you believe that the vast majority of Hispanics living in Texas (or elsewhere) support illegal immigration simply because most illegal immigrants are Hispanic?

I seriously doubt that, and if they did, they'd be every bit as racist as you are.

As for Blacks, they have arguably suffered from illegal immigration as much or more than any other group, as illegals have taken jobs traditionally held by Blacks.

But in your mind, Whitey is the enemy, and you expect all others to rally in support of one another in an 'enemy of my enemy' solidarity, right?
 
2011-03-05 08:06:16 PM

Farker T:
If I understand you correctly, you would be opposed to a people (or a portion thereof) differentiating/separating themselves from an established government and determining their own destinies via a separate democratic process.

No?

If your turn the clock back a bit further, would you have opposed the American Revolution citing similar principles?

In the present, do you oppose the popular uprisings intended to overturn the regimes in Egypt and Libya?


Don't know enough about Egypt and Libya to say. Or to say in general when it comes to countries other than the US.

I like to think I would have fought against the Crown in the American Revolution. In the Declaration, Jefferson wrote that the King had abdicated government in what would become the United States by waging war against the colonists. I hope I wouldn't have taken that lying down.

The adoption of the Constitution changes everything, in my opinion. I find no right in that document for a state to secede even if it is done by democratic process. But going back to the Civil War for a second, I can only think of one example where a state seceded by democratic process; that would be Tennessee, where voters (black Tennesseans were not allowed to vote, of course) approved secession in a referendum by a margin of roughly 2 to 1. Secession didn't work out too well for Tennessee, of course; most of it was under the control of the Union by late 1863, thanks in no small part to local people, both white and black, who remained loyal to the Union.
 
2011-03-05 08:06:35 PM

Farker T:
But in your mind, Whitey is the enemy, and you expect all others to rally in support of one another in an 'enemy of my enemy' solidarity, right?


Whitey isn't the enemy... Lumpy and Larry Mondello are.
 
2011-03-05 08:06:47 PM

lohphat: 300 years ago England sent its Puritans to America.

150 years ago England send its felons and debtors to Australia.

Australia got the much better deal.


Umm...a little known fact is that England sent felons and debtors to America first, from as early as 1610 and on through the 1770's. It was only when fighting got cranked up during the American Revolution that England switched to sending them to Australia.
 
2011-03-05 08:12:31 PM

TheJoe03: Farker T: Gee, most Whites in the US either can't or haven't bothered to trace their ancestry at any great length.

Yeah, but it wasn't because of slavery dipshiat. Big God damn difference,



Really? Why don't you elaborate on that a bit. And while you're at it, why not fill us in on why there is such a high percentage of absentee fathers in the Black community even today?

Quote: "...we also have to recognize there's a particular problem when more than half of African American children are growing up without a father in the house, and oftentimes not even knowing their father."

Care to guess who said the above, TheJoe03?

But I'm sure you can find some rationalization that will blame Whites, right?


but then again I always see you post racist garbage.


It's only racist when Whites post it. Right TheJoe03?
 
2011-03-05 08:12:34 PM

Farker T: Gee, most Whites in the US either can't or haven't bothered to trace their ancestry at any great length.


I don't think whites really need to trace our ancestry to find our culture. Its all there. It just is (was). Pick up an old Life magazine or look through a family scrapbook.

2.bp.blogspot.com

www.beatlemania.ca

2.bp.blogspot.com

www.textually.org
 
2011-03-05 08:14:10 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Farker T:
But in your mind, Whitey is the enemy, and you expect all others to rally in support of one another in an 'enemy of my enemy' solidarity, right?

Whitey isn't the enemy... Lumpy and Larry Mondello are.



I see how you got your fark handle. ;-)
 
2011-03-05 08:17:20 PM

Farker T: Really? Why don't you elaborate on that a bit. And while you're at it, why not fill us in on why there is such a high percentage of absentee fathers in the Black community even today?


What the hell is wrong with you?
 
2011-03-05 08:17:41 PM

StoneColdAtheist: lohphat: 300 years ago England sent its Puritans to America.

150 years ago England send its felons and debtors to Australia.

Australia got the much better deal.

Umm...a little known fact is that England sent felons and debtors to America first, from as early as 1610 and on through the 1770's. It was only when fighting got cranked up during the American Revolution that England switched to sending them to Australia.


Not forgotten.

Their descendants run our fiscal system...

Heh.

;)
 
2011-03-05 08:20:07 PM
ALERT ALERT ALERT

FARKER T IS A RACIST TROLL

STOP RESPONDING

/this ends your community service bulletin
 
2011-03-05 08:20:32 PM
Farker T

So you believe that the vast majority of Hispanics living in Texas (or elsewhere) support illegal immigration simply because most illegal immigrants are Hispanic?


See what you did? You narrowed in the broader argument to one of your choosing, illegal immigration. Neither of us took on anything but the secession movement. You tried to reframe the subject since your input to the original argument was thoroughly invalidated.

I seriously doubt that, and if they did, they'd be every bit as racist as you are.
Tu quoque? Really? You're lamer by the minute....

As for Blacks, they have arguably suffered from illegal immigration as much or more than any other group, as illegals have taken jobs traditionally held by Blacks.
And the racism continues!...."jobs traditionally held by Blacks?" Anyone else wouldn't even approach this line of argument unless they were going to say "working class jobs."

But in your mind, Whitey is the enemy, and you expect all others to rally in support of one another in an 'enemy of my enemy' solidarity, right?
Paranoia...it's in yer blood!

You again haven't helped yourself. Sometimes saying nothing is best.
 
2011-03-05 08:20:49 PM

Farker T: tirob: Unhip1: I doubt more than a third would support secession, even if the representatives did in spirit.

I doubt that the Texas secessionists would have the support of even one percent of the local black and Hispanic populations. That's more than a third of the state's population written off for the cause right there.

So you believe that the vast majority of Hispanics living in Texas (or elsewhere) support illegal immigration simply because most illegal immigrants are Hispanic?

I seriously doubt that, and if they did, they'd be every bit as racist as you are.

As for Blacks, they have arguably suffered from illegal immigration as much or more than any other group, as illegals have taken jobs traditionally held by Blacks.

But in your mind, Whitey is the enemy, and you expect all others to rally in support of one another in an 'enemy of my enemy' solidarity, right?


I don't know where you're inferring all of this. What I wrote was that the *Texas secession movement* probably would not enjoy the support of more than one percent of the local blacks and Hispanics. I do not know how Hispanic Texans--or for that matter black Texans--feel about illegal immigration from Mexico. And as for whites being the enemy, have you ever taken the trouble actually to read my posts here? I have no use at all for neo-Confederates and the like, it is true, but I have never written anything anti-white. I have a lot of respect, for example, for the white southern Unionist Tennesseeans whom I referred to in my post before this one, at 08:06:16.
 
2011-03-05 08:21:44 PM

Farker T: The first US president to be born in a hospital was JFK, and he was born in 1917 - some eleven years AFTER your Satchel Paige, so put your race card back up your sleeve.


I'm not sure if that was meant to be a joke, but JFK was born in a house-- 83 Beals St, Brookline, MA, to be exact-- which is now known, through some unbef*ckinglievable coincidence, as the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Historic Site. Carter was the first president born in a hospital (Wise Clinic, Plains, GA, 1924). Besides that, what point are you trying to make with your completely inaccurate history?
 
Displayed 50 of 516 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report