are you surprised how many confederate apologists post on cc

[GabonX]

lol

If you were to read our Constitution or study history with even a modest degree of objectiveness you would see that these rights and powers have been in place for centuries. I didn't "conflate" them and yes, states are supposed to have greater juristiction in their given borders than the Federal Government.

The Constitution goes as far as allowing a state to form a millitia to defend against unauthorized central authority.

[SultanOfSurreal]

lol

If you were to read our Constitution or study history with even a modest degree of objectiveness you would see that these rights and powers have been in place for centuries. I didn't "conflate" them and yes, states are supposed to have greater juristiction in their given borders than the Federal Government.

The Constitution goes as far as allowing a state to form a millitia to defend against unauthorized central authority.

hmm yes

turns out the ninth amendment gives me the power to declare war on quartering of soldiers with due process of the implcit right to privacy under certain dfsfaOdgffdsgdsf

you know nothing about law or the constitution

[PLAYER57832]

You can support states rights without supporting slavery. Many states joined America with the understanding that they could leave any time.

True, initially. And the founding fathers might have even wished that to be the case "forever". However, things change. Had the south split from the north, there is a good chance neither of them would succeed.

As for slavery, tell me who first came up with the idea of importing hundreds of thousands of African laborers into America and I'll gladly denounce him as the worst president in American history.

You'd have to go to Africa to find your culprit.. the trade began there... and then to Europe, they continued it and expanded it.

America was a late comer to the whole slave thing.

[b.k. barunt]

Now you're just arguing semantics

State "powers" are commonly referred to as states "rights."

There is a difference. A "right" implies that it is inherent, that we are entitled to it. A power (which is the wording the Tenth Amendment uses), does not.

Actually you're wrong because the Constitution is supposed to grant certain inalienable rights to both people and states. The Tenth Ammendment is not the only place where such a power is granted.

A state's powers are supposed to be inherent, although they are not always in practice.

will you stop conflating rights and powers you dumb fucking log of a person

Brilliant strategy there sultan - when unable to support your argument with logic or reason (omigod! Did i just "conflate" logic with reason?!), just throw a hissy fit and flail at your opponent with those tiny little faggoty fists. You sound like one of the pogue boys' little fufu dogs who get so excited they dance around in circles and piss on themselves.

Rights = privilege, authority or power granted to someone.
Power = privilege, authority or rights granted to someone.

These two words are what we call "synonyms", which means that they mean virtually the same fooking thing in the same context. To complicated for you? Get yourself an English tutor and spare us the frustrated pusillanimous sputtering and whining. You're coming across as a sassy little faggot and no one wants to hear it. It's quite unattractive, not to mention downright embarassing to watch. Cheers.


Honibaz

[SultanOfSurreal]

Rights = privilege, authority or power granted to someone.
Power = privilege, authority or rights granted to someone.

These two words are what we call "synonyms", which means that they mean virtually the same fooking thing in the same context.

lol, nope

turns out the founding fathers were pretty smart dudes and used certain words for very specific reasons

why don't you read the ninth and tenth amendments, compare and contrast, and ask yourself what the words the framers used actually mean

just throw a hissy fit and flail at your opponent with those tiny little faggoty fists. You sound like one of the pogue boys' little fufu dogs who get so excited they dance around in circles and piss on themselves.

You're coming across as a sassy little faggot and no one wants to hear it.

look out your homophobia is showing

good work on "pusillanimous" though, glad to see you're getting some use out of that word-a-day calendar

[b.k. barunt]

"Homophobia"? I assure you dear boy, there is nothing about you that i find frightening. Heh heh, that even gives me a chuckle.


Honibaz

[SultanOfSurreal]

"Homophobia"? I assure you dear boy, there is nothing about you that i find frightening. Heh heh, that even gives me a chuckle.


Honibaz

so how's that research on one of the most important cornerstones of constitutional thought coming

not so well i take it

[SultanOfSurreal]

so how's that research on one of the most important cornerstones of constitutional thought coming

not so well i take it

[thegreekdog]

First of all, and as Sultan well knows, everyone taking the opposite point of view as Sultan is technically an apologist.

The problem is that Sultan is wrong about the reasons that the Confederates and, more importantly, the Union, went to war. As luns indicated in maybe the third post on this ridiculous thread, the Union had no intention to free the slaves. Erego, that's not what the war was about (at least for the Union).

In any event, once one goes to a US history class in high school and/or a US history class in college, one will understand that slavery was a portion of what the war was about, but not the entire war. I will not apologize for the South because they shouldn't have seceded. However, I will not say that the South seceded because of slavery or that every Southernor was a slave owner or that the Southerners were murderers. To do that, I'd have to be borderline insane and/or uneducated. And yes, Sultan, you are borderline insane and clearly uneducated (at least in US history; your grasp of the English language is wonderful... congrats to your 3rd grade grammar teachers).

[JJM]

I live in Texas. As far as I can tell, Texas is too stupid to figure out that they are not the best in everything. We have some of highest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, low overall education, most capital punishment, the dumbest board of education ever (they just voted down a bill proposing that certain parts of biology education have to be medically accurate)... but the the retards here still think that Texas is best.

sigh...

With that said, take your guess as to if they think it is their fault in the civil war.

Then change your thing that says location. Anyways could someone give e some examples of confederate apologists on this forum.

[neanderpaul14]

I live in Texas. As far as I can tell, Texas is too stupid to figure out that they are not the best in everything. We have some of highest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, low overall education, most capital punishment, the dumbest board of education ever (they just voted down a bill proposing that certain parts of biology education have to be medically accurate)... but the the retards here still think that Texas is best.

sigh...

With that said, take your guess as to if they think it is their fault in the civil war.

Then change your thing that says location. Anyways could someone give e some examples of confederate apologists on this forum.

He lives in Texas but his heart is in North Dakota

[PLAYER57832]

First of all, and as Sultan well knows, everyone taking the opposite point of view as Sultan is technically an apologist.

The problem is that Sultan is wrong about the reasons that the Confederates and, more importantly, the Union, went to war. As luns indicated in maybe the third post on this ridiculous thread, the Union had no intention to free the slaves. Erego, that's not what the war was about (at least for the Union).

In any event, once one goes to a US history class in high school and/or a US history class in college, one will understand that slavery was a portion of what the war was about, but not the entire war. I will not apologize for the South because they shouldn't have seceded. However, I will not say that the South seceded because of slavery or that every Southernor was a slave owner or that the Southerners were murderers.

Agree again (at least to that point).

[AgentSmith88]

The South's income depended on cotton. Cotton was picked by slaves. Without slave labor, the South's economy was in trouble (as witnessed by the reconstruction period). The South wanted to secede in order to keep slavery and keep their way of life alive. I agree the North didn't fight to free the slaves, they fought to keep the South from seceding. There were other factors that led to the war, but at its heart was the South wanting to keep slaves and they didn't think they could do that for much longer as part of the USA.

[SultanOfSurreal]

i would like to know where you people are getting the idea that i said the north's intention in the war was to end slavery. the north's intention was, as the dude above me said, to keep the south from leaving the union. a sovereign south would make DC a border city and after witnessing the south's animosity in the attack on ft. sumter, allowing them to be an independent nation meant an inevitable series of wars that would have ripped america even further apart. not to mention the precedent that allowing a secession would create.

what i did say was that the south seceded and fought to defend slavery. which is true. and leaping to their defense, when they illegally seceded and fought to uphold such a vile system as slavery, is absolutely stupefying

this all being said, lincoln himself was personally opposed to slavery and while he was no malcolm x, his opinions for the era were quite radical.

[thegreekdog]

i would like to know where you people are getting the idea that i said the north's intention in the war was to end slavery. the north's intention was, as the dude above me said, to keep the south from leaving the union. a sovereign south would make DC a border city and after witnessing the south's animosity in the attack on ft. sumter, allowing them to be an independent nation meant an inevitable series of wars that would have ripped america even further apart. not to mention the precedent that allowing a secession would create.

what i did say was that the south seceded and fought to defend slavery. which is true. and leaping to their defense, when they illegally seceded and fought to uphold such a vile system as slavery, is absolutely stupefying

this all being said, lincoln himself was personally opposed to slavery and while he was no malcolm x, his opinions for the era were quite radical.

See? Now, THAT I agree with. It's un-American to defend the south.

Also, keep in mind that when Lincoln was campaigning he was pro-slavery in the south and anti-slavery in the north. He was quite an adept liar... er, politician.

[PLAYER57832]

i would like to know where you people are getting the idea that i said the north's intention in the war was to end slavery. the north's intention was, as the dude above me said, to keep the south from leaving the union. a sovereign south would make DC a border city and after witnessing the south's animosity in the attack on ft. sumter, allowing them to be an independent nation meant an inevitable series of wars that would have ripped america even further apart. not to mention the precedent that allowing a secession would create.

what i did say was that the south seceded and fought to defend slavery. which is true. and leaping to their defense, when they illegally seceded and fought to uphold such a vile system as slavery, is absolutely stupefying

this all being said, lincoln himself was personally opposed to slavery and while he was no malcolm x, his opinions for the era were quite radical.

Everyone needs to be judged by their times. It is when we demand perfection, not when we acknowledge imperfections, that we cease to really learn from history.

See? Now, THAT I agree with. It's un-American to defend the south.

Also, keep in mind that when Lincoln was campaigning he was pro-slavery in the south and anti-slavery in the north. He was quite an adept liar... er, politician.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Everyone needs to be judged by their times. It is when we demand perfection, not when we acknowledge imperfections, that we cease to really learn from history.

it is good to acknowledge that people are a product of their cultures but no, empathizing with the backwards cultural mores and socially-accepted atrocities of yesterday is neither required nor conducive to understanding the past

[b.k. barunt]

i would like to know where you people are getting the idea that i said the north's intention in the war was to end slavery.

Umm, maybe from your opening post?

what i did say was that the south seceded and fought to defend slavery. which is true. and leaping to their defense, when they illegally seceded . . .

"Illegally seceded" - your insistent ignorance on this would be amazing if it were from another individual. The Constitution of the United States clearly stated that if any of the orignal 13 colonies wished to secede from the Union - they had the right. Where in the fooking hell do you get "illegal"? Must be nice to be able to so blithely rewrite history.

this all being said, lincoln himself was personally opposed to slavery and while he was no malcolm x, his opinions for the era were quite radical.

Greekdog already addressed this fallacy, but i'll just add one thing - "Fugitive Slave Act" anyone? Guess who signed it? I know i know, don't confuse you with the facts.


Honibaz

[pimpdave]

Also, keep in mind that when Lincoln was campaigning he was pro-slavery in the south and anti-slavery in the north. He was quite an adept liar... er, politician.

see also, debates with Douglas in '58.

[Almo]

i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.

holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant

discuss

as a black man, i fully support what the confederacy attempted to pull off. slave culture was the pinnacle of achievement for my people. ever since lincoln set us "free", it's been downhill ever since. white man was just keeping us in check.

this, this is what represents my people now.

[Snorri1234]

i would like to know where you people are getting the idea that i said the north's intention in the war was to end slavery.

Umm, maybe from your opening post?

Doesn't seem to be there though...

[xelabale]

Sorry about the confederates.

[demonfork]

Sorry about the confederates.