Looks Like It Is Time To Re-Write Baylor's History & Apologize

13,513 Views | 210 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Redbrickbear
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Redbrickbear said:

quash said:

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union."
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"I agree... he [african americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, not in moral or intellectual endowment." - Abraham Lincoln

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization [outside the country]." --Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

[In his personal memoirs (1891), Gen. Sherman wrote that he met with Lincoln after the March to the Sea. The president was eager to hear stories about how thousands of Southern civilians mostly women, children, the elderly and the infirm had been plundered, (sometimes raped or murdered), and rendered homeless. Crimes committed by troops against the ex-slave population were also numerous. According to Sherman, Lincoln laughed uproariously at the stories. One of Sherman's biographers (Lee Kennett, Sherman: A Soldier's Life, Harper, 2002), who otherwise writes very favorably about the general, concludes that if the Confederates had won the war then they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against non-combatants."]










Shows that Lincoln was human. You're making my point. Honor him for the great he did despite his faults...


What did he do that was great? Kill 600,000 people?


You live in the most prosperous, powerful and free country that has ever existed. But for Lincoln that would not be true.
The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.

You don't think that country would have been successful? Of course it would have.

The idea that you must crush any independence movement and kill hundreds of thousands of people so that "we can be prosperous" would be the same reasons Britain would have used to prevent American independence.
Always cracks me up to see the Old South defenders resort to the "independence" as the purpose of their cause. Tell it to the slaves.

Nebraska has little in common with New York; eventually their interests separate. If you let the country balkanize in the way the South suggested, you end up wit the European Union. Not that bad, but also not the greatest country that ever existed. E Pluribus Unum distinguishes our republic from the other great republics; the South wanted to throw that away.
You still have no basic argument against the independence of states except "muh slavery".



"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off their existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." - Abraham Lincoln




Lincoln's quote is precise: secession was not a right in the sense that it was free for the taking; it was something that would have to be either agreed to or fought for. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right of secession.

You may think of slavery as a "meh, no big deal." Most civilized humans view it differently

And my primary argument against Texas secession is that it would be a colossal cluster, doing unimaginable harm to both parties. It is just a stupid day dream.

Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[The fear of a threatened annihilation of the Northern economy and the rise of the South are what drove all actions in that fateful spring of 1861. Certainly not any mythical desire on the part of the North to end slavery.
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.
If they fought, with their overwhelming military advantages at that point in history (4 to 1 in native manpower plus unlimited immigration - 25% of the Union army ended up being poor immigrants while close to 100% of the Confederate army were native-born Southerners - perhaps 200 to 1 in weapons manufacturing, an already existing army, navy, etc.), they knew they had an excellent chance of winning everything and gaining total control of the country.
If they didn't fight, the South would surely ascend as an independent nation and grow economically to great predominance.
Of course they were going to fight and use their advantages before they lost them. President Lincoln believed the North would win easily with a quick campaign, but First Manassas proved him wrong, thus we had the bloodiest war in American history with 600,000 to 800,000 deaths and over a million wounded. The South was invaded and destroyed but fought until it was utterly exhausted before it was all over. It had nothing left to give or the war would certainly have continued on.
It was World War II, seventy-five years later, before the South began to recover from the destruction, but it is a certainty that if 1861 rolled around again and Southerners had the opportunity to fight for independence, they would. To the people of the South, 1861 was 1776 all over. They believed the Founding Fathers had bequeathed to them by the Declaration of Independence, the right of self-government, and they would pay any price to achieve it.
Basil Gildersleeve, still known today as the greatest American classical scholar of all time, was a Confederate soldier from Charleston, South Carolina. He sums it up nicely in The Creed of the Old South, published twenty seven years after the war: "All that I vouch for is the feeling; . . . there was no lurking suspicion of any moral weakness in our cause. No feeling that slavery was of much importance to it. Nothing could be holier than this cause, nothing more imperative than the duty of upholding it. There were those in the South who, when they saw the issue of the war, gave up their faith in God, but not their faith in the cause."]
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?

Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.

And the fact that Confederates later rationalized that slavery had little to do with their cause is just that: a stupid rationalization. At the time of secession, they said otherwise, making the issue the central one for their secession.

Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?


No, you and people like you vote to fundamentally transform America. You are the ones who have problem with America. Obama did more than pass a health care insurance reform law. Obama's children are racial and social unrest. He and the Democrat party own their militant wing, Antifa and BLM. Obama and now Biden are destabilizing figures and apparently there are 81 million people who vote for destabilization. Why should people be expected to share national aspirations with those who vote to transform and destabilize the Greatest Republic the world has ever seen and the lives of its citizens.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?


No, you and people like you vote to fundamentally transform America. You are the ones who have problem with America. Obama did more than pass a health care insurance reform law. Obama's children are racial and social unrest. He and the Democrat party own their militant wing, Antifa and BLM. Obama and now Biden are destabilizing figures and apparently there are 81 million people who vote for destabilization. Why should people be expected to share national aspirations with those who vote to transform and destabilize the Greatest Republic the world has ever seen and the lives of its citizens.
How has your life been impacted by all of this tremendous social upheaval?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?


No, you and people like you vote to fundamentally transform America. You are the ones who have problem with America. Obama did more than pass a health care insurance reform law. Obama's children are racial and social unrest. He and the Democrat party own their militant wing, Antifa and BLM. Obama and now Biden are destabilizing figures and apparently there are 81 million people who vote for destabilization. Why should people be expected to share national aspirations with those who vote to transform and destabilize the Greatest Republic the world has ever seen and the lives of its citizens.
How has your life been impacted by all of this tremendous social upheaval?
It is really irrelevant how I am personally impacted. This is an issue of nationhood, values, and national aspirations. One relevant question is whether there are a significant number of people who no longer want to continue to share a system of governance with others who vote for transformation and destabilization. Another is do those people share important values and goals with people who agree with transformation and destabilization.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the second question no, then the discussion about a Texodous can continue and probably has merit. Nobody thinks that the wealthy Founding Fathers' efforts were less noble or less legitimate simply because they prospered under a King and Parliament with whom they had fundamental disagreements.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?


No, you and people like you vote to fundamentally transform America. You are the ones who have problem with America. Obama did more than pass a health care insurance reform law. Obama's children are racial and social unrest. He and the Democrat party own their militant wing, Antifa and BLM. Obama and now Biden are destabilizing figures and apparently there are 81 million people who vote for destabilization. Why should people be expected to share national aspirations with those who vote to transform and destabilize the Greatest Republic the world has ever seen and the lives of its citizens.
How has your life been impacted by all of this tremendous social upheaval?
It is really irrelevant how I am personally impacted. This is an issue of nationhood, values, and national aspirations. One relevant question is whether there are a significant number of people who no longer want to continue to share a system of governance with others who vote for transformation and destabilization. Another is do those people share important values and goals with people who agree with transformation and destabilization.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the second question no, then the discussion about a Texodous can continue and probably has merit. Nobody thinks that the wealthy Founding Fathers' efforts were less noble or less legitimate simply because they prospered under a King and Parliament with whom they had fundamental disagreements.
I'll just call bulls--- on your idea that America has undergone a fundamental transformation if you can't say how your life has been impacted in the slightest.


Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.

Fear drove the South also...fear of losing their slaves.

Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?


No, you and people like you vote to fundamentally transform America. You are the ones who have problem with America. Obama did more than pass a health care insurance reform law. Obama's children are racial and social unrest. He and the Democrat party own their militant wing, Antifa and BLM. Obama and now Biden are destabilizing figures and apparently there are 81 million people who vote for destabilization. Why should people be expected to share national aspirations with those who vote to transform and destabilize the Greatest Republic the world has ever seen and the lives of its citizens.
How has your life been impacted by all of this tremendous social upheaval?
It is really irrelevant how I am personally impacted. This is an issue of nationhood, values, and national aspirations. One relevant question is whether there are a significant number of people who no longer want to continue to share a system of governance with others who vote for transformation and destabilization. Another is do those people share important values and goals with people who agree with transformation and destabilization.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the second question no, then the discussion about a Texodous can continue and probably has merit. Nobody thinks that the wealthy Founding Fathers' efforts were less noble or less legitimate simply because they prospered under a King and Parliament with whom they had fundamental disagreements.
I'll just call bulls--- on your idea that America has undergone a fundamental transformation if you can't say how your life has been impacted in the slightest.



Nobody cares what you call it. People know they are no longer represented by the 545 people they send to Washington. This is not a personal issue. It is a political issue. There are a significant number of people who want to severe political ties with Washington.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Booray said:

Carlos Cruz said:

The_barBEARian said:

Booray said:

The_barBEARian said:

Nebraskans get treated like trash by New Yorkers and have zero power in this country. Many "fly over" Americans would be better off if this country balkanized.
I wondered what it is like to live in a world where everything and everyone is a caricature?


You are a democrat so you should already be very familiar with it.
Right. I assume he voted for the person whose agenda was summed up as The Fundamental Transformation of America. Now that has been accomplished, in part because of his vote or both of his votes, he cannot understand why some people no longer want to remain connected to something that we do not agree with or do not recognize or be governed by people who no longer represent us but long to rule over us.
Your life must awful, living under the foot of totalitarians intent on deprogramming you of every independent thought.

The lack of perspective some of you have is utterly amazing.
Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are attempting to caricature those with whom you disagree or their positions. It is possible that we have fundamental disagreements after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible. It does not require that our current government be totalitarian for people to no longer have shared values.
"after your preferred candidate's fundamental transformation of America that render shared national aspirations impossible" is complete and utter BS. That is what I mean.

Barack Obama passed a health insurance reform bill. Other than that, not much else changed. I was repeatedly told that Trump had made America great again in three short years. I guess that was wrong. America is ruined for all time?


No, you and people like you vote to fundamentally transform America. You are the ones who have problem with America. Obama did more than pass a health care insurance reform law. Obama's children are racial and social unrest. He and the Democrat party own their militant wing, Antifa and BLM. Obama and now Biden are destabilizing figures and apparently there are 81 million people who vote for destabilization. Why should people be expected to share national aspirations with those who vote to transform and destabilize the Greatest Republic the world has ever seen and the lives of its citizens.
How has your life been impacted by all of this tremendous social upheaval?
It is really irrelevant how I am personally impacted. This is an issue of nationhood, values, and national aspirations. One relevant question is whether there are a significant number of people who no longer want to continue to share a system of governance with others who vote for transformation and destabilization. Another is do those people share important values and goals with people who agree with transformation and destabilization.

If the answer to the first question is yes and the second question no, then the discussion about a Texodous can continue and probably has merit. Nobody thinks that the wealthy Founding Fathers' efforts were less noble or less legitimate simply because they prospered under a King and Parliament with whom they had fundamental disagreements.
I'll just call bulls--- on your idea that America has undergone a fundamental transformation if you can't say how your life has been impacted in the slightest.



Nobody cares what you call it. People know they are no longer represented by the 545 people they send to Washington. This is not a personal issue. It is a political issue.
You make zero sense. In my district, as in most districts in Texas, conservatives elect the representatives and Senators who represent us. I didn't vote for any of them. Silly me, I though that was okay, because we live in a democracy. But today you taught me that we all get to have our views perfectly represented by our elected officials.

Exactly what form of government are you suggesting for the new Republic of Texas that will assure me that my legislators and president "represent me"? And you, since we disagree on basically everything.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.




"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all those that preceded it." -Robert E. Lee

Lee was right.

Without the Federalist victory in the war of 1861 the current United States (and its corrupt ruling class) would be far less powerful a military force on the global stage...a good thing.

We would not have legions stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would not be saber rattling for war in Syria or the Ukraine. We would not be as "aggressive aboard and despotic at home" without that horrid war.

The modern USA is an empire. It has killed the real American nation state.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

quash said:


Lincoln changed his mind. Before he did he left a bunch of horrendous quotes behind. Good job finding them.
Good story!

Old Abe was a politician who held up his finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

He left a lot more behind than horrendous quotes. How about 600,000 Americans sacrificed for Abe?

How about not stopping there. Let Sherman and his terrorists rape, pillage and generally burn down the South but call it "reconstruction".


False story: the march to the sea was during the war, not reconstruction.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.




"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all those that preceded it." -Robert E. Lee

Lee was right.

Without the Federalist victory in the war of 1861 the current United States (and its corrupt ruling class) would be far less powerful a military force on the global stage...a good thing.

We would not have legions stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would not be saber rattling for war in Syria or the Ukraine. We would not be as "aggressive aboard and despotic at home" without that horrid war.

The modern USA is an empire. It has killed the real American nation state.
You have a strange definition for "legions." Nobody is going to war in Syria or the Ukraine.

The world over the last century has become more democratic and prosperous with less military conflict. One of the primary reason that is so is that American influence from our economy, power projection and use of military power, and our example has paved the way for market based democracies.

And if Lee was so worried about despotic treatment of human beings, he should have freed his slaves and forced his countrymen to do the same.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.




"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all those that preceded it." -Robert E. Lee

Lee was right.

Without the Federalist victory in the war of 1861 the current United States (and its corrupt ruling class) would be far less powerful a military force on the global stage...a good thing.

We would not have legions stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would not be saber rattling for war in Syria or the Ukraine. We would not be as "aggressive aboard and despotic at home" without that horrid war.

The modern USA is an empire. It has killed the real American nation state.
You have a strange definition for "legions." Nobody is going to war in Syria or the Ukraine.

The world over the last century has become more democratic and prosperous with less military conflict. One of the primary reason that is so is that American influence from our economy, power projection and use of military power, and our example has paved the way for market based democracies.


You have to read more closely.

I said saber rattling about Syria and the Ukraine. If you read the mass media for 5 minutes you will see plenty of examples of war mongering about getting the USA into wars with Russia, Syria, Iran, China or a host of other nation state actors.

The rise of globalism under a USA military hegemonic power structure has certainly helped our financial elites....there is no doubt about that....but driving through our depleted and dying rust belt tells a very different story.

The modern USA empire might be something you like. But with its troops aboard, massive bloated federal government, mass surveillance of private citizens, and increasingly post-Christian moral ideology....its is nothing like the kind of nation state the Founding Fathers desired to create.

Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.




"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all those that preceded it." -Robert E. Lee

Lee was right.

Without the Federalist victory in the war of 1861 the current United States (and its corrupt ruling class) would be far less powerful a military force on the global stage...a good thing.

We would not have legions stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would not be saber rattling for war in Syria or the Ukraine. We would not be as "aggressive aboard and despotic at home" without that horrid war.

The modern USA is an empire. It has killed the real American nation state.
You have a strange definition for "legions." Nobody is going to war in Syria or the Ukraine.

The world over the last century has become more democratic and prosperous with less military conflict. One of the primary reason that is so is that American influence from our economy, power projection and use of military power, and our example has paved the way for market based democracies.


You have to read more closely.

I said saber rattling about Syria and the Ukraine. If you read the mass media for 5 minutes you will see plenty of examples of war mongering about getting the USA into wars with Russia, Syria, Iran, China or a host of other nation state actors.

The rise of globalism under a USA military hegemonic power structure has certainly helped our financial elites....there is no doubt about that....but driving through out depleted and dying rust belt tells a very different story.

The modern USA empire might be good for you. But with its troops aboard, massive bloated federal government, mass surveillance of private citizens, and increasingly post-Christian moral ideology....its is nothing like the kind of nation state the Founding Fathers desired to create.


You have to read more closely. The point of the post was that the "American empire" has been good for billions of people across the world, who are freer and more prosperous because of our power, influence and example.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.




"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all those that preceded it." -Robert E. Lee

Lee was right.

Without the Federalist victory in the war of 1861 the current United States (and its corrupt ruling class) would be far less powerful a military force on the global stage...a good thing.

We would not have legions stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would not be saber rattling for war in Syria or the Ukraine. We would not be as "aggressive aboard and despotic at home" without that horrid war.

The modern USA is an empire. It has killed the real American nation state.
You have a strange definition for "legions." Nobody is going to war in Syria or the Ukraine.

The world over the last century has become more democratic and prosperous with less military conflict. One of the primary reason that is so is that American influence from our economy, power projection and use of military power, and our example has paved the way for market based democracies.


You have to read more closely.

I said saber rattling about Syria and the Ukraine. If you read the mass media for 5 minutes you will see plenty of examples of war mongering about getting the USA into wars with Russia, Syria, Iran, China or a host of other nation state actors.

The rise of globalism under a USA military hegemonic power structure has certainly helped our financial elites....there is no doubt about that....but driving through out depleted and dying rust belt tells a very different story.

The modern USA empire might be good for you. But with its troops aboard, massive bloated federal government, mass surveillance of private citizens, and increasingly post-Christian moral ideology....its is nothing like the kind of nation state the Founding Fathers desired to create.


You have to read more closely. The point of the post was that the "American empire" has been good for billions of people across the world, who are freer and more prosperous because of our power, influence and example.
Billions of other people disagree with the idea that the military and economic imperialism of the modern USA is "good for them".

If globalism under the military might of the USA is to mean the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small financial elite. The bullying re-education of the whole planet on gay rights, abortion, trans-sexualism, euthanasia, and soulless materialism for all peoples and nations. If the new definition of "Western Values" as being sexual degeneracy plus savage vulture capitalism...no wonder the rest of the World increasingly sees the West as a threat and downright evil.
saykay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Redbrickbear said:

quash said:

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union."
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"I agree... he [african americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, not in moral or intellectual endowment." - Abraham Lincoln

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization [outside the country]." --Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

[In his personal memoirs (1891), Gen. Sherman wrote that he met with Lincoln after the March to the Sea. The president was eager to hear stories about how thousands of Southern civilians mostly women, children, the elderly and the infirm had been plundered, (sometimes raped or murdered), and rendered homeless. Crimes committed by troops against the ex-slave population were also numerous. According to Sherman, Lincoln laughed uproariously at the stories. One of Sherman's biographers (Lee Kennett, Sherman: A Soldier's Life, Harper, 2002), who otherwise writes very favorably about the general, concludes that if the Confederates had won the war then they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against non-combatants."]










Shows that Lincoln was human. You're making my point. Honor him for the great he did despite his faults...


What did he do that was great? Kill 600,000 people?


You live in the most prosperous, powerful and free country that has ever existed. But for Lincoln that would not be true.
The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.

You don't think that country would have been successful? Of course it would have.

The idea that you must crush any independence movement and kill hundreds of thousands of people so that "we can be prosperous" would be the same reasons Britain would have used to prevent American independence.
Always cracks me up to see the Old South defenders resort to the "independence" as the purpose of their cause. Tell it to the slaves.

Nebraska has little in common with New York; eventually their interests separate. If you let the country balkanize in the way the South suggested, you end up wit the European Union. Not that bad, but also not the greatest country that ever existed. E Pluribus Unum distinguishes our republic from the other great republics; the South wanted to throw that away.
It scares me to read how people like you justify mass murderer Lincoln's actions, words and outcome.

The South did not want to throw anything good away. We got tired of being screwed by the Yankees.

I hope I live long enough to see Texas successfully secede from the increasingly wicked and misled USA.
That's a great idea... Texas seceding... but... don't you need a functioning power grid first to do that?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait, so Booray "the liberal", is defending the benefit of the American empire that has opened countless markets around the world, and helped free people from oppression, while the "right winger" Redbrickbear is bemoaning the negative virtues of capitalism and Western ideology with verbiage that would have been seen in a USSR pamphlet 40 years ago? Up is down, left is right, strange times indeed.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
saykay said:

Thee University said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

fadskier said:

Redbrickbear said:

quash said:

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union."
"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"I agree... he [african americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, not in moral or intellectual endowment." - Abraham Lincoln

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization [outside the country]." --Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

[In his personal memoirs (1891), Gen. Sherman wrote that he met with Lincoln after the March to the Sea. The president was eager to hear stories about how thousands of Southern civilians mostly women, children, the elderly and the infirm had been plundered, (sometimes raped or murdered), and rendered homeless. Crimes committed by troops against the ex-slave population were also numerous. According to Sherman, Lincoln laughed uproariously at the stories. One of Sherman's biographers (Lee Kennett, Sherman: A Soldier's Life, Harper, 2002), who otherwise writes very favorably about the general, concludes that if the Confederates had won the war then they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against non-combatants."]










Shows that Lincoln was human. You're making my point. Honor him for the great he did despite his faults...


What did he do that was great? Kill 600,000 people?


You live in the most prosperous, powerful and free country that has ever existed. But for Lincoln that would not be true.
The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.

You don't think that country would have been successful? Of course it would have.

The idea that you must crush any independence movement and kill hundreds of thousands of people so that "we can be prosperous" would be the same reasons Britain would have used to prevent American independence.
Always cracks me up to see the Old South defenders resort to the "independence" as the purpose of their cause. Tell it to the slaves.

Nebraska has little in common with New York; eventually their interests separate. If you let the country balkanize in the way the South suggested, you end up wit the European Union. Not that bad, but also not the greatest country that ever existed. E Pluribus Unum distinguishes our republic from the other great republics; the South wanted to throw that away.
It scares me to read how people like you justify mass murderer Lincoln's actions, words and outcome.

The South did not want to throw anything good away. We got tired of being screwed by the Yankees.

I hope I live long enough to see Texas successfully secede from the increasingly wicked and misled USA.
That's a great idea... Texas seceding... but... don't you need a functioning power grid first to do that?
The grid functions fine except during once-in-lifetime winter events.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
saykay said:


That's a great idea... Texas seceding... but... don't you need a functioning power grid first to do that?
That's the beauty of timing. This storm came at just the right time.

I can guarantee you that over the next several months the Texas grid will be made bullet proof.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Wait, so Booray "the liberal", is defending the benefit of the American empire that has opened countless markets around the world, and helped free people from oppression, while the "right winger" Redbrickbear is bemoaning the negative virtues of capitalism and Western ideology with verbiage that would have been seen in a USSR pamphlet 40 years ago? Up is down, left is right, strange times indeed.
Well the American empire is a tool of liberalism. It really should not be surprising that Leftists now support it and right wingers criticize it.

Political ideology is a compass that moves as the ship of state (or civilization) moves.

What you are for is the eternal fixed point that does not move....your tactics and policies must.

Lefties know this....it's why they have full on embraced globohomo and the American empire. The USSR failed them...they hope to use the USA to fulfill their utopian schemes.




Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Wait, so Booray "the liberal", is defending the benefit of the American empire that has opened countless markets around the world, and helped free people from oppression, while the "right winger" Redbrickbear is bemoaning the negative virtues of capitalism and Western ideology with verbiage that would have been seen in a USSR pamphlet 40 years ago? Up is down, left is right, strange times indeed.
Well the American empire is a tool of liberalism. It really should not be surprising that Leftists now support it and right wingers criticize it.

Political ideology is a compass that moves as the ship of state (or civilization) moves.

What you are for is the eternal fixed point that does not move....your tactics and policies must.

Lefties know this....it's why they have full on embraced globohomo and the American empire. The USSR failed them...they hope to use the USA to fulfill their utopian schemes.







It is possible to be a liberal and believe in the free market and meritocracy.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

[
The North's choices had been clear: descend into economic problems and allow secession to take place, or fight.

as compared to:

The United States would have continued on and been fine. From New York to Nebraska and with its capital still at D.C.


Get your story straight.




I didn't make that quote or hold to necessary to that idea. It seems that the leadership of the Union did think that in 1861 they would descend into economic problems if the South was allowed to leave in peace.

I personally doubt the Union would have seen any real major economic issues over the long term.

The point was that they were afraid...afraid of losing the Southern states as tax base and afraid of losing access to the Mississippi river.

Fear drove the Federalists and their war policy.
Fear of losing the Union, correct. And they were right. They kept the Union together and it became the most prosperous country ever.




"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all those that preceded it." -Robert E. Lee

Lee was right.

Without the Federalist victory in the war of 1861 the current United States (and its corrupt ruling class) would be far less powerful a military force on the global stage...a good thing.

We would not have legions stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We would not be saber rattling for war in Syria or the Ukraine. We would not be as "aggressive aboard and despotic at home" without that horrid war.

The modern USA is an empire. It has killed the real American nation state.
You have a strange definition for "legions." Nobody is going to war in Syria or the Ukraine.

The world over the last century has become more democratic and prosperous with less military conflict. One of the primary reason that is so is that American influence from our economy, power projection and use of military power, and our example has paved the way for market based democracies.


You have to read more closely.

I said saber rattling about Syria and the Ukraine. If you read the mass media for 5 minutes you will see plenty of examples of war mongering about getting the USA into wars with Russia, Syria, Iran, China or a host of other nation state actors.

The rise of globalism under a USA military hegemonic power structure has certainly helped our financial elites....there is no doubt about that....but driving through out depleted and dying rust belt tells a very different story.

The modern USA empire might be good for you. But with its troops aboard, massive bloated federal government, mass surveillance of private citizens, and increasingly post-Christian moral ideology....its is nothing like the kind of nation state the Founding Fathers desired to create.


You have to read more closely. The point of the post was that the "American empire" has been good for billions of people across the world, who are freer and more prosperous because of our power, influence and example.
Billions of other people disagree with the idea that the military and economic imperialism of the modern USA is "good for them".

If globalism under the military might of the USA is to mean the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small financial elite. The bullying re-education of the whole planet on gay rights, abortion, trans-sexualism, euthanasia, and soulless materialism for all peoples and nations. If the new definition of "Western Values" as being sexual degeneracy plus savage vulture capitalism...no wonder the rest of the World increasingly sees the West as a threat and downright evil.


Savage vulture capitalism raised billions out of poverty. The fact that billions supposedly disagree. with the value of such gains lies at the feet of folks who, like you, decry capitalism.

You won't like the alternative.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABC BEAR said:

Full Disclosure: My great-great grandparents owned 13 slaves and were Baptist preachers, (grandma too). Am I still allowed to walk across campus?


Yes, snowflake, nobody's after you.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

ABC BEAR said:

Full Disclosure: My great-great grandparents owned 13 slaves and were Baptist preachers, (grandma too). Am I still allowed to walk across campus?


Yes, snowflake, nobody's after you.

Not yet...but just look at the cancel culture...if he's prominent, they will come after him...

The fact that we are discussing a man that died in 1874 shows that everyone has a reason to worry...
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just looking for attention...

https://baylorlariat.com/2021/02/01/students-call-for-judge-baylor-statue-to-be-removed/

Transfer....don't apply....but to say he doesn't feel welcome is ridiculous.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Knowing you're homophobic helps me understand lots of your posting.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Knowing you're homophobic helps me understand lots of your posting.
The only good thing about the modern Left is that by building their metaphysical value system around homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexual license they have doomed themselves.

Heck the USSR was build on a system more compatible with human nature than that....and we see how long they lasted.


fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Knowing you're homophobic helps me understand lots of your posting.
How am I homophobic? What did I say or do to give you that impression?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

Just looking for attention...

https://baylorlariat.com/2021/02/01/students-call-for-judge-baylor-statue-to-be-removed/

Transfer....don't apply....but to say he doesn't feel welcome is ridiculous.


Amusing that students demand to feel 'welcomed ' .

The new mantra for a hopelessly enabled group.

Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Redbrickbear said:

ATL Bear said:

Wait, so Booray "the liberal", is defending the benefit of the American empire that has opened countless markets around the world, and helped free people from oppression, while the "right winger" Redbrickbear is bemoaning the negative virtues of capitalism and Western ideology with verbiage that would have been seen in a USSR pamphlet 40 years ago? Up is down, left is right, strange times indeed.
Well the American empire is a tool of liberalism. It really should not be surprising that Leftists now support it and right wingers criticize it.

Political ideology is a compass that moves as the ship of state (or civilization) moves.

What you are for is the eternal fixed point that does not move....your tactics and policies must.

Lefties know this....it's why they have full on embraced globohomo and the American empire. The USSR failed them...they hope to use the USA to fulfill their utopian schemes.





It is possible to be a liberal and believe in the free market and meritocracy.
Quickly becoming impossible.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.