About That Alleged Racial Incident at the BYU-Duke Match

23,318 Views | 446 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Jack Bauer
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alot of drugs in Oregon. I think they've legalized almost anything there.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

At the same time, the south was not trying to leave the union because it valued self determination or freedom or any other noble cause.
Sure they were. That and they wanted to own people.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
ShooterTX
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

The secession of the southern states was both unlawful and foolish.

At the same time, the south was not trying to leave the union because it valued self determination or freedom or any other noble cause. They sought to leave the union because they wanted to own people. Hundreds of thousands of American lives and immense treasure was lost because they wanted to own people.


The voluntary democratic secession of the Southern States from the Union was lawful. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it.

"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
-Gen. Patrick Cleburne

The attempted secession of the southern states was not lawful and not even democratic. There is no lawful mechanism to leave the union, only a mechanism to join it. It is a matter of settled law that there is no constitutional right to leave the union. One could argue that someone might be justified in going to war to force that issue if the federal government was tyrannical, but the southern states were trying to leave because the federal government would not guarantee the long term survival of their right to own people. As for "democratic," the nearly 40 percent of the population in the southern states at the time that was enslaved had no vote.

Quotes can tell us the arguments being made at the time, but they do no speak to the validity of those arguments.

"The toughest part of the rebuilding process is behind us"
-Baylor Head Coach Kevin Steele, April 2, 2001.

D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
The "etc." on here includes history, but reading it is not a membership requirement.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
The "etc." on here includes history, but reading it is not a membership requirement.
Let me get this straight... you actually think that people in this country want to start a shooting war over the idea of owning slaves?

If not, then it's a stupid debate.
ShooterTX
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
The "etc." on here includes history, but reading it is not a membership requirement.
Let me get this straight... you actually think that people in this country want to start a shooting war over the idea of owning slaves?

If not, then it's a stupid debate.
Who said anything about people in this country wanting to start a shooting war over owning slaves?
Again, it is not a membership requirement for you to participate in discussions you aren't interested in.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Hey, actual evidence of religious bigotry ...is Dawn Staley going to cancel all games with Oregon?



This will of course get basically zero attention in the MSM, and nobody will be canceling any games over it even though unlike the obviously fraudulent allegation leveled at BYU fans by a female Jussie Smollett in a volleyball uniform, there is obviously demonstrable direct video evidence.
ShooterTX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
The "etc." on here includes history, but reading it is not a membership requirement.
Let me get this straight... you actually think that people in this country want to start a shooting war over the idea of owning slaves?

If not, then it's a stupid debate.
Who said anything about people in this country wanting to start a shooting war over owning slaves?
Again, it is not a membership requirement for you to participate in discussions you aren't interested in.
This is a thread about a real incident which occured just a few days ago, yet you guys are trying to turn it into a debate about something that happened well over 100 years ago.

I would like to return to the modern times, rather than have you guys highjack a thread with a stupid debate about something irrelevant.

Go start a Civil War thread, and let us return to talking about the latest fake racist incident. One is about current events, and it actually applies to our lives... the other is not.
ShooterTX
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
The "etc." on here includes history, but reading it is not a membership requirement.
Let me get this straight... you actually think that people in this country want to start a shooting war over the idea of owning slaves?

If not, then it's a stupid debate.
Who said anything about people in this country wanting to start a shooting war over owning slaves?
Again, it is not a membership requirement for you to participate in discussions you aren't interested in.
This is a thread about a real incident which occured just a few days ago, yet you guys are trying to turn it into a debate about something that happened well over 100 years ago.

I would like to return to the modern times, rather than have you guys highjack a thread with a stupid debate about something irrelevant.

Go start a Civil War thread, and let us return to talking about the latest fake racist incident. One is about current events, and it actually applies to our lives... the other is not.
If you have something to contribute to the incident that didn't happen, by all means do so. The discussion of the Civil War on this thread started because one poster connected that time period to the incident that didn't happen (and other incidents that didn't happen) saying that a bunch of union soldiers died to free the slaves and another poster protested that this was not so because a large majority of the US soldiers were not abolitionists etc. There are plenty of modern discussions on race in America that are relevant today where those discussing the issues go back to the Civil War and well before that to make their points.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluesBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let's see how many of those Oregon fans are chanting a year from now when the Spike Proteins have really kicked in.... Cheering for Oregon on Saturday won't be on your priority list...
perrynative
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staley sticking by her actions. Did her own "research". Lib way facts don't matter.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
perrynative said:

Staley sticking by her actions. Did her own "research". Lib way facts don't matter.

Just like the unwavering purveyors of the totally debunked "Russia, Russia, Russia" fraud, she's never going to admit she was wrong especially since that would violate the race hustler/ victimhood false narrative.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

perrynative said:

Staley sticking by her actions. Did her own "research". Lib way facts don't matter.

Just like the unwavering purveyors of the totally debunked "Russia, Russia, Russia" fraud, she's never going to admit she was wrong especially since that would violate the race hustler/ victimhood false narrative.
Yep,

And why would she?

She got positive media coverage for several days. The President of BYU personally apologized to her. Even the Governor of Utah sent his regards and came out on her side.

And even when the fraud unraveled Duke administration and her team mates & coaches continue to this day to stand by her.

Literally no down sides to doing what she did.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facts no longer matter in the world of "my truth."
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.




If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.

We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
Outskirts of Chilton you could pull it off.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.




If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.

We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
Outskirts of Chilton you could pull it off.
Even more appropriate would be if we met under the pavilion and sign that says "Old Settlers Welcome." Let's do it, Forest.

Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.




If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.

We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
Outskirts of Chilton you could pull it off.
Even more appropriate would be if we met under the pavilion and sign that says "Old Settlers Welcome."
Hahaha.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This incident seems to have validity, sounds like monkey noises made and no coincidence

This happened in Marble Falls vs. East Central.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

This incident seems to have validity, sounds like monkey noises made and no coincidence

This happened in Marble Falls vs. East Central.


Or it could be kids screaming during a free throw. Given the demand for t'racism so greatly outstrips supply, I am dubious of these claims. This could be legitimate, or it could be another "noose" incident. That's the fundamental problem with so many fake hate crimes ... kind makes every thinking person question those that might be legitimate. Not sure when making crazy noises became t'racism.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FYI, the person that had tweeted out the fake BYU is racist story, lost her election to the Republican
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

This incident seems to have validity, sounds like monkey noises made and no coincidence

This happened in Marble Falls vs. East Central.




What animal noises meant to disrupt a free throw would not be racist? Dog? Pig? Cat? Horse? Mule? Pretty sure everyone of those would be called racist by someone
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting that Duke was a nationally ranked team in August but finished 7-11 in the ACC and didn't even make the NCAA tourney.

BYU is in the 2nd round as a 7 seed.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

Interesting that Duke was a nationally ranked team in August but finished 7-11 in the ACC and didn't even make the NCAA tourney.

BYU is in the 2nd round as a 7 seed.


Wokeness strikes again. Like socialist democrats, kills off everything it touches.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

Please knock it off with the stupid Civil War debates.

It was over 100 years ago.
It has nothing to do with current events.

There is NO ONE of any importance calling for a Civil War over racism/slavery or for any other reasons.

If you want to debate something that is a current event, the best you can probably do is debate the topic of a "national divorce". No one with a brain cell is advocating for a shooting war, but plenty of people are in favor of a negotiated separation. People on both sides have called for this... but slavery has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything anymore. Our current divides are based upon policies, religion, ethics & values, centralized authority vs representative governance, etc,... racism is NOT an issue in our nation. Only a fool believes that it is an actual problem.

The only place where slavery is still an issue is in the Muslim world.

Stop debating the Civil War as if it has ANY relevance to modern times.... it doesn't.
The "etc." on here includes history, but reading it is not a membership requirement.
Let me get this straight... you actually think that people in this country want to start a shooting war over the idea of owning slaves?

If not, then it's a stupid debate.


18 year old whites in the north didn't even want to do this in 1861
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like we have another hoax...



 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.