...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum, you are flatly wrong. Think not. Try it in polite or professional society. Try it at work, in your church, where your kids go to school. Do it, then report back to us on what the fall out was.

What exactly am I wrong about? The part about it being hypocrisy? Are you saying it isn't hypocrisy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The North fought to preserve the Union, guys, which we have all said, but you want us to agree that we said it was to end slavery. No one has said that except you nutsos. So . . . let's get you straight.

The cause of the war was slavery, because every other cause of it was subsumed into the problem of race and slavery. When Lincoln realized a limited war was not working to preserve the Union, he co-opted the emancipation issue to kill the South. He succeeded.

Now, when you have dirty racists like JB, or libertarians like KK (forgive me for lumping you with the likes of JB), or whatever, the lines of discussion become skewered with info that does not add much merit to it.

Are you now going to say that no one in this thread has said that the north fought to free the slaves? Or are you just feeling guilty for lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one category?

 

[syrenn]

And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.

If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
The North fought no war over slavery.

I have asked about these points a couple of times, and so far not one person has even tried to answer me. The discussion keeps going to side issues that apparently make me racist, despite the fact that not one person in this thread even knows my race. And they claim I lack critical thinking and debating skills.

If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
The war was fought for economic reasons.

If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
Lincoln was very clear in the beginning, he did not care about the slaves. Slavery was secondary to his issue of preserving the Union of the states.

The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
He did in the end with the emancipation proclamation.

The North fought no war over slavery.
The north fought a war that BECAME about slavery.

Better?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The North fought to preserve the Union, guys, which we have all said, but you want us to agree that we said it was to end slavery. No one has said that except you nutsos. So . . . let's get you straight.

The cause of the war was slavery, because every other cause of it was subsumed into the problem of race and slavery. When Lincoln realized a limited war was not working to preserve the Union, he co-opted the emancipation issue to kill the South. He succeeded.

Now, when you have dirty racists like JB, or libertarians like KK (forgive me for lumping you with the likes of JB), or whatever, the lines of discussion become skewered with info that does not add much merit to it.

Are you now going to say that no one in this thread has said that the north fought to free the slaves? Or are you just feeling guilty for lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one category?

Quantum, will you please post a # where anyone, other than you guys, have posted that the war was fought to free slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
The North fought no war over slavery.

I have asked about these points a couple of times, and so far not one person has even tried to answer me. The discussion keeps going to side issues that apparently make me racist, despite the fact that not one person in this thread even knows my race. And they claim I lack critical thinking and debating skills.

If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
The war was fought for economic reasons.

If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
Lincoln was very clear in the beginning, he did not care about the slaves. Slavery was secondary to his issue of preserving the Union of the states.

The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
He did in the end with the emancipation proclamation.

The North fought no war over slavery.
The north fought a war that BECAME about slavery.

Better?

One change. If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union. Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.

I like this better.

 

[syrenn]

One change. If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union. Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.

I like this better.

Yes that may be better, but it is still not accurate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One change. If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union. Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.

I like this better.

Yes that may be better, but it is still not accurate.

Of course it is. That is the accurate reason the Union was fighting, to preserve itself.

The primary cause, however, was slavery.

 

[Kalam]

You are worse than a non-believer before Allah.

By all means, keep going. Earn yourself a nice place in hell by slandering a believer and attempting to speak for the Beneficent (SWT).

The jihadists are cowards, pure and simple, and terrorist propaganda is just that, jihadist propaganda. Your 'martyrs' are merely dead cowards.

And you are a pitiful troll. Did I make you mad? Did you think you'd get a rise out of me by calling me a "disbeliever"? Your support for and glorification of the slaughter of innocents does you no credit. Don't get mad at me simply for pointing this out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are worse than a non-believer before Allah.

By all means, keep going. Earn yourself a nice place in hell by slandering a believer and attempting to speak for the Beneficent (SWT).

The jihadists are cowards, pure and simple, and terrorist propaganda is just that, jihadist propaganda. Your 'martyrs' are merely dead cowards.

And you are a pitiful troll. Did I make you mad? Did you think you'd get a rise out of me by calling me a "disbeliever"? Your support for and glorification of the slaughter of innocents does you no credit. Don't get mad at me simply for pointing this out.

Not mad at all, Kalam. Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me. Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents. You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.

 

[syrenn]

One change. If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union. Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.

I like this better.

Yes that may be better, but it is still not accurate.

Of course it is. That is the accurate reason the Union was fighting, to preserve itself.
The primary cause, however, was slavery.

Well shit, I though you and I had gone over this already and you agreed with me. shall I go and look?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.

And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.

Are you really serious?

So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?

Wow.

She is entirely correct. Either the language is off limits to everyone, or it is available to everyone. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.

The windbag is right.

Only trouble is, during the time of the blacks "taking" the word ****** back, they used it as a badge for themselves only.

****** didn't become available, it simply just changed hands in a sale.

Personally? I don't like the word. But, it's part of the lexicon.

Too bad people didn't know the origin of the word was "niggardly" which meant black, and was used as a quick reference point, much like black is today.

It's the racial hatred and the hatred of the racial hatred that has turned that word into such a horrific slur.

 

[Kalam]

Not mad at all, Kalam. Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.

Of course not. Enjoy life while it lasts.

The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. - 2:212​

Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents. You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.

Martyrs don't kill innocents; Zionazis do. I'm a believer in Islam. Your salvation, not mine, is threatened by your ignorance of the religion and your trollish attempts to slander its adherents.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

****** didn't become available, it simply just changed hands in a sale..

I like that analogy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not mad at all, Kalam. Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.

Of course not. Enjoy life while it lasts.

The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. - 2:212​

Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents. You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.

Martyrs don't kill innocents; Zionazis do. I'm a believer in Islam. Your salvation, not mine, is threatened by your ignorance of the religion and your trollish attempts to slander its adherents.

To "slander" mass murderers of children and women? I don't really think you understand America or Americans. But if you are stupid enough to go far enough, you will certainly be "schooled" as to who we are and of what we are capable.

One way to bring reactionary members of your faith into modern times is to make the 21st century the century of global liberation of women, particularly in the Islamic nations.

And, by the by, the Muslim woman who won the beauty pageant is truly beautiful. Why you guys are so afraid of women is amazing.

 

[Kalam]

To "slander" mass murderers of children and women?

No, you've been quite supportive of mass murderers. I'm referring to slandering believers, namely myself.

I don't really think you understand America or Americans.

I was born here to parents who were born here to parents who were also born here. Ask me what you'd like about the country's history, government, constitution, or whatever and I doubt you'll find my knowledge to be lacking. I don't really think you understand the fundamentals of debate; if you're going to make a claim with no basis in reality, it's better not to make it at all.

But if you are stupid enough to go far enough, you will certainly be "schooled" as to who we are and of what we are capable.

Great.

One way to bring reactionary members of your faith into modern times is to make the 21st century the century of global liberation of women, particularly in the Islamic nations.

And, by the by, the Muslim woman who won the beauty pageant is truly beautiful. Why you guys are so afraid of women is amazing.

Oh... it's a strawman argument. How quaint.

If you're a supporter of oppression, you should be very afraid of women.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your comments reveal that you do not comprehend Americans, their values, and how they value Israel. You underestimate that, Kalam. So there will be no right of return, no East Jerusalem for Arabs, and no end to the wall. That is simple. The point is this: Israel forever. Kalam, may you and yours be safe.

 

[Kalam]

Your comments reveal that you do not comprehend Americans, their values, and how they value Israel. You underestimate that, Kalam. So there will be no right of return, no East Jerusalem for Arabs, and no end to the wall. That is simple. I had particular duties and talents when I served, and some of that had to do with identifying, acquiring, then eliminating 'martyr murderers'. The moral problem we faced was that, at times, uncommon but not rare, their wives and children were at risk. That was shame. The point is this: Israel forever.

The Hasbara committee is very proud - you have been thoroughly indoctrinated.

Israel's time is ticking away. Revel in their slaughter of innocent Muslims while it still exists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMs6eXY69FY]YouTube - Palestine song - Idrib saroukh al Qassami[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one revels in the slaughter of innocents.

 

[JBeukema]

Jake lost all creditability when he blamed an entire race for the crimes of long dead persons and said people should be ashamed of their skin colour- then called someone else a racist.

 

[JBeukema]

The primary cause, however, was slavery.

Actually, it was abuse of federal power.

The same thing that still makes some among the the Right speak of secession today.