|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 11, 2023 14:53:30 GMT
Your integrated schools have nothing to do with what you were taught and believe. Do you believe that the south treated slaves humanely? Do you believe that the south wanted to expand slavery to the newly formed western states? Do you believe that the south was afraid of losing their state right to continue slavery? Yes, it was about state rights. The right to keep their slaves Don't be an idiot. I just told you that I was indoctrinated with the same Northern lies that you have embraced now, but I grew out that brainwashing because I've actually studied history and found it to be far less black and white than has been portrayed.
Yes, history tells us that many slaves were treated humanely and that in no way takes away from the fact that their bondage was evil and needed to end. Wealthy elitists who owned slaves did want to bring slaves into new territories. But, if the expansion of slavery to those places was a Southern cause, secession ended any chance to ever move slaves into the territories.
No, I do not believe that the South was afraid of "losing their state right to continue slavery". There was no threat to slavery during that time, as you can see by the tremendous offers and gestures made by the NORTH to protect and preserve slavery permanently. Slavery was the tipping point, the last straw, the spark, the point of no return and a symptom of the national disease, but it was NOT the South's cause.
It's not a surprise that a simplistic answer would appeal to your small, weak mind, but the reality is that slavery was never the South's cause, but the larger issue of the increasing centralization of power to the federal government and the organized imbalance of government largess to the Northern states through tariff revenues. Do you didn’t read my post or ignored the facts in my post. You are a stubborn, stupid, racist that won’t let the past go. Yes the south lost its slaves The south seceded because of slavery, that is the bottom line. Slavery was a billion dollar industry. The south made their money based on slavery
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 11, 2023 15:11:45 GMT
Don't be an idiot. I just told you that I was indoctrinated with the same Northern lies that you have embraced now, but I grew out that brainwashing because I've actually studied history and found it to be far less black and white than has been portrayed.
Yes, history tells us that many slaves were treated humanely and that in no way takes away from the fact that their bondage was evil and needed to end. Wealthy elitists who owned slaves did want to bring slaves into new territories. But, if the expansion of slavery to those places was a Southern cause, secession ended any chance to ever move slaves into the territories.
No, I do not believe that the South was afraid of "losing their state right to continue slavery". There was no threat to slavery during that time, as you can see by the tremendous offers and gestures made by the NORTH to protect and preserve slavery permanently. Slavery was the tipping point, the last straw, the spark, the point of no return and a symptom of the national disease, but it was NOT the South's cause.
It's not a surprise that a simplistic answer would appeal to your small, weak mind, but the reality is that slavery was never the South's cause, but the larger issue of the increasing centralization of power to the federal government and the organized imbalance of government largess to the Northern states through tariff revenues. Do you didn’t read my post or ignored the facts in my post. You are a stubborn, stupid, racist that won’t let the past go. Yes the south lost its slaves The south seceded because of slavery, that is the bottom line. Slavery was a billion dollar industry. The south made their money based on slavery And you're lying when you call me a racist, but hey, that's what most liberals do. No, the South did not secede because of slavery, and the bottom line is that you are too stupid to care about the actual history that proves that fact. We make our money today because of Silicon Valley and similar elitists, but only a retarded fool would believe that our motivation for war and international intervention is to protect and preserve the riches of those elitists.
But your perverted narrative demands that you and your ilk defy history, evidence, critical thinking and common sense to pretend that the 19th century South was motivated to fight, starve and die so that the 1% elitists could stay rich. That's stupid on a scale heretofore never reached, but you did it.
You're happily brainwashed and can't stand for that indoctrination to be challenged because it exposes how gullible you were for swallowing it in the first place.
If someone calls you a dumbass, they're being generous.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 11, 2023 15:22:15 GMT
This simplistic dumbass just made my point. Folks that think like this don't have the intelligence to look at the actual history, so they make up lies based on some stereotype that they've seen in a cartoon. Poor Stupid Boy. The peons didn't want to compete with free blacks. They wanted to keep their places on the racist totem pole, degenerate. Thus, slavery benefitted them too. And they knew it, Stupid Boy. It's why the dumber of them fought.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 11, 2023 16:20:29 GMT
This simplistic dumbass just made my point. Folks that think like this don't have the intelligence to look at the actual history, so they make up lies based on some stereotype that they've seen in a cartoon. Poor Stupid Boy. The peons didn't want to compete with free blacks. They wanted to keep their places on the racist totem pole, degenerate. Thus, slavery benefitted them too. And they knew it, Stupid Boy. It's why the dumber of them fought. More lies from this putrid ballsack; as usual, thor gets it backwards. They were ALREADY competing against an enslaved unpaid workforce in the pre-secession South. An end to slavery would have made blacks have to charge for goods and services, thus making them LESS attractive as workers and suppliers, not more. And a quick look at post war history shows that there was no hierarchical shift at all, despite the fact that almost all of the ex-slaves remained in the South after the war.
Slavery suppressed the opportunities for free whites across the South since the richest folks already had free workers and didn't need any others. A war to protect slavery makes no sense as a motivation for those most harmed by continued slavery, and slavery was certainly not something that that would make them face near certain death on many battlefields.
About 52% of the entire free white population lived in the last four states that seceded.....states that seceded because Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to invade the South, not because of slavery. Every fact point to a Southern cause other than slavery, but this testicle-deficient libtard will never get that.
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 11, 2023 17:44:14 GMT
Do you didn’t read my post or ignored the facts in my post. You are a stubborn, stupid, racist that won’t let the past go. Yes the south lost its slaves The south seceded because of slavery, that is the bottom line. Slavery was a billion dollar industry. The south made their money based on slavery And you're lying when you call me a racist, but hey, that's what most liberals do. No, the South did not secede because of slavery, and the bottom line is that you are too stupid to care about the actual history that proves that fact. We make our money today because of Silicon Valley and similar elitists, but only a retarded fool would believe that our motivation for war and international intervention is to protect and preserve the riches of those elitists.
But your perverted narrative demands that you and your ilk defy history, evidence, critical thinking and common sense to pretend that the 19th century South was motivated to fight, starve and die so that the 1% elitists could stay rich. That's stupid on a scale heretofore never reached, but you did it.
You're happily brainwashed and can't stand for that indoctrination to be challenged because it exposes how gullible you were for swallowing it in the first place.
If someone calls you a dumbass, they're being generous.
Face it, the southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property. That is why the KKK was formed and the Jim Crow laws. Read your history and stop making shit up.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 11, 2023 18:24:19 GMT
And you're lying when you call me a racist, but hey, that's what most liberals do. No, the South did not secede because of slavery, and the bottom line is that you are too stupid to care about the actual history that proves that fact. We make our money today because of Silicon Valley and similar elitists, but only a retarded fool would believe that our motivation for war and international intervention is to protect and preserve the riches of those elitists.
But your perverted narrative demands that you and your ilk defy history, evidence, critical thinking and common sense to pretend that the 19th century South was motivated to fight, starve and die so that the 1% elitists could stay rich. That's stupid on a scale heretofore never reached, but you did it.
You're happily brainwashed and can't stand for that indoctrination to be challenged because it exposes how gullible you were for swallowing it in the first place.
If someone calls you a dumbass, they're being generous.
Face it, the southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property. That is why the KKK was formed and the Jim Crow laws. Read your history and stop making shit up. You're too f*cking stupid to be in this conversation. You need to face the fact that you are clueless on this and so many other subjects. Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white.
Perhaps brain washed is the wrong term to apply to a dumbass like you, since it implies that you have a brain worth scrubbing.
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 11, 2023 21:46:48 GMT
Anyone who disagreed with you used to be a non-critical thinker and a liar. Now they're mentally ill. Very objective and unemotional. You know the experts and their writings. Should have said that months ago instead of pretending they didn't exist because I didn't list them. Yes you can refute hundreds of books by yourself. Sure. You're not a wise man though. You can't refute anything except in your own mind, which doesn't get you very far. I have no trouble with that definition. But if one feels an intense, negative emotional reaction to a word, one would try to avoid using that word. So the problem is not the definition itself, but the mistaken way you employ it. Now I get it. Your supposed intellectual curiosity is good, mine is bad. How convenient. I can't recall attacking Bertie. I just said that he wasn't perfect and made mistakes. A truism is a statement that is self-evident. It is not self-evident that the opinion of the majority is wrong or that it is right. We have to look at the specific opinion. You can repeat the nonsense about northern lies as many times as you want to. They have no effect on my opinion. My denials don't indicate you've struck a nerve. Your position is too weak to strike anything except my funny bone. If you had read the article you would have known the falseness of the quote, but you posted it anyway as if it was actually Marx's own opinion. That's the dishonesty right there. No wonder you want me to let it go. It shows your dishonesty for all to see. Fill in any historical event and/or its cause and the same thing is true. The complexities and details, however interesting, are overshadowed by event/cause itself. They're sufficient evidence for the intellectually incurious. The intellectually curious would want to see first-hand evidence, not second-hand evidence from Border State Congressmen or newspaper rumors. I haven't seen that evidence, so I presume you don't have it. Ending with the it was a lie thing again, as if that's some kind of valid argument, when it's just Lost Cause fantasy. No sale. What a joke. This is the guy who emotionally brought up mental retardation in an earlier post, yet makes an accusation of emotionalism when it's turned back on him and shown that the true mental illness is joining the herd's embrace of the Northern lie that slavery was the Southern cause. You just can't make this stuff up.
As far as the experts and their writings, I do know what they have said is dishonest garbage. And no, I would not have to refute "hundreds of books" because those hacks use the same weak, easily debunked nonsense to try to peddle the falsehood that the Southern cause was slavery. They parrot each other like the Northern lie is their religion.....just as it's yours, your denials not withstanding.
And please try to stop being this stupid about the word "triggered". There's nothing in that definition that indicates that an aversion to the word is a requirement, and your negative, emotional reaction is to the South, not the word. Cultists like you use the word "slavery" as a bludgeon, a scarlett letter against anyone who is trying to open your closed mind to the reality that the cause was not slavery and the situation was far more complicated than you pretend it was in your religion of the Sacred Northern Lie.
Once again, you're the one whose sole argument is that slavery was the South's cause because the majority of historians agree that it was, yet you provide zero evidence to back that up. And the majority opinions, whether right or wrong, do tend to be a pile on by the lowest, most emotional dregs of society.
You've demonstrated no intellectual curiosity here, so it's a fair conclusion that you have none on this subject. And I fully understand why....your narrative gets less believable each time you look deeper into the details. You've been a reactionary full of denials and appeals to authority on this thread while I've not needed such weak minded tactics. All I have done is tell the truth and it makes you apoplectic. When it does, you use "slavery" as a bludgeon to halt anyone from looking deeper at the contradictory details that actually refute the Northern lie.
On the Marx quote, everyone can see that you are the only one being dishonest here. Only a sore loser keeps up this fetish about that quote after he was embarrassed into admitting "I don't know" when confronted with the fact that I added the contextual link to the article from the beginning. If you want to keep looking this stupid, that's fine with me.....it just lets everyone else see the pettiness, childishness and vanity that I have already had to deal with from our whiny little cultist.
Only a simpleton stops at the superficial event/cause and deems it to be "overshadowing" of other details. That's just your excuse to avoid looking at the details that tend to damage your triggered preconceptions. Such absolutism is akin to painting the Lexington/Concord patriots as murderers and criminals for firing on the King's troops in April 1775 (the Redcoats were just being good progressives by confiscating arms and powder, right?). Do you think that the underlying details and causes show an entirely contradictory history of that time that reflects a just patriot cause and reverses the villains and heroes of that event?
So, you can spew, without ANY evidence, that the Southerners were too dumb to realize secession hurt slavery or that the Northern Congressmen knew better than anyone else what the South wanted (Corwin), but you demand ever greater levels of evidence before you'll believe that the CSA was offering abolition in 1862? Despite the fact that, unlike you, I HAVE provided evidence and sources, INCLUDING OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE?
Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is a lie and nothing will change that, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
If the mental retardation fits....Outside of your fantasy there is no herd, just individuals who agree on something. You can make stuff up. You do it all the time. Yes, all the historians are wrong, but one Lost Cause fanatic knows better than all of them. Hilarious. It's not a religion, no supernaturalism involved. It's an opinion. If one has an extreme and negative reaction to a word, that person would likely not use the word. Wait a minute. All this time you've been saying I am triggered by the word slavery. Now you say my supposed negative reaction is to the South. Make up your mind, which is it? The word slavery is used because that's what the Civil War was basically about. It's like using the word Nazism when discussing Hitler. They both belong together. My argument is based on the evidence of the historians because it is much more persuasive than the phony Lost Cause narrative. It's not my fault that it is so. I've demonstrated the wrong kind of intellectual courage, the anti-Lost Cause type. Your only tactic is to repeat the Lost Cause nonsense over and over again apparently without realizing it's going nowhere. Your junk history doesn't make me apoplectic, it makes me laugh at its stupidity. Your other tactic is silly name calling, talking about herds and brainwashing and other idiocies. The majority of Americans believe in God. So I guess, according to you, they are the lowest, most emotional dregs of society. Your misquoting Marx just proves your deception. You tried to pass off a quote from Marx as something he thought himself, not something that the British press thought. Why you then included a link which contradicts what you quoted is what I don't know. Seems either dumb or careless. No doubt most colonists had a good opinion of them, and most Englishmen had a bad opinion of them It matters which side one was on. After the Spanish-American War the roles were reversed, when the Americans were the bad guys and the Filipino guerillas fighting against them were the good guys. If the Confederate leaders thought that secession would hurt slavery, they wouldn't have taken that step. They were too optimistic about their chances of winning the war. So they were wrong. Big deal. No one said either side was perfect. I think the Northern Congressmen knew that southern leaders wanted to preserve slavery and acted accordingly. They were both in the same Congress. I just want to see what first-hand evidence exists for this supposed promise to abolish slavery. So far I've haven't seen it. All you have is some letters and newspaper rumors. Oh no, it's all in caps it must be important, OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE. Oh my. I didn't know Lincoln was a Confederate official privy to their discussions. The facts have changed it, but they never reach the Lost Cause rabbit hole. And repeating that it's a lie changes nothing either, no matter how many times you say it.
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 12, 2023 0:10:30 GMT
Face it, the southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property. That is why the KKK was formed and the Jim Crow laws. Read your history and stop making shit up. You're too f*cking stupid to be in this conversation. You need to face the fact that you are clueless on this and so many other subjects. Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white.
Perhaps brain washed is the wrong term to apply to a dumbass like you, since it implies that you have a brain worth scrubbing.
LOL, no rebuttal, just insults
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 12, 2023 3:42:31 GMT
You're too f*cking stupid to be in this conversation. You need to face the fact that you are clueless on this and so many other subjects. Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white.
Perhaps brain washed is the wrong term to apply to a dumbass like you, since it implies that you have a brain worth scrubbing.
LOL, no rebuttal, just insults He's raging HARD. This is a spectacular meltdown by Paleo.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 12, 2023 14:11:44 GMT
You're too f*cking stupid to be in this conversation. You need to face the fact that you are clueless on this and so many other subjects. Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white.
Perhaps brain washed is the wrong term to apply to a dumbass like you, since it implies that you have a brain worth scrubbing.
LOL, no rebuttal, just insults You didn't post anything factual that required rebuttal. Do you want me to review your fictional account?
"Southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property"? That's a lie. of course, unless you didn't notice that almost all of the freed black people stayed in the South until the early 1900's.
Jim Crow laws were copies of the same kind of laws first started in the North. And, as I said, Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white, NOT for the stupid lie that "Southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property".
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 12, 2023 15:49:00 GMT
LOL, no rebuttal, just insults You didn't post anything factual that required rebuttal. Do you want me to review your fictional account?
"Southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property"? That's a lie. of course, unless you didn't notice that almost all of the freed black people stayed in the South until the early 1900's.
Jim Crow laws were copies of the same kind of laws first started in the North. And, as I said, Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white, NOT for the stupid lie that "Southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property".
Everything I posted actually happened, you idiot
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 12, 2023 16:13:45 GMT
You didn't post anything factual that required rebuttal. Do you want me to review your fictional account?
"Southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property"? That's a lie. of course, unless you didn't notice that almost all of the freed black people stayed in the South until the early 1900's.
Jim Crow laws were copies of the same kind of laws first started in the North. And, as I said, Southerners fought back during Reconstruction because of the brutal occupation, subjugation and corruption of the Yankees and their allies, black or white, NOT for the stupid lie that "Southerners couldn't handle freed black people and losing their property".
Everything I posted actually happened, you idiot Happened? Yes, events in history happen. But the reason why you say it happened was not true.
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 12, 2023 17:04:50 GMT
Everything I posted actually happened, you idiot Happened? Yes, events in history happen. But the reason why you say it happened was not true. bullshit
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 13, 2023 13:41:58 GMT
Happened? Yes, events in history happen. But the reason why you say it happened was not true. bullshit You and Greg seem to favor that crudely unintelligent response when you get cornered. Makes one wonder what else the two of you have a lot in common.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 13, 2023 22:49:42 GMT
If the mental retardation fits....Outside of your fantasy there is no herd, just individuals who agree on something. You can make stuff up. You doit all the time. A simpleton that stupidly embraces the cartoonish lie that slavery was the South's cause is the last person that has credibility to accuse anyone else of mental issues. You sure are full of…...denials. “NUH-UH!!!” is just about all we get from you nowadays. A member of the herd always denies their membership in that body. You’ve shown yourself as little more than a follower of a shallow narrative, while at the same time lacking the courage to meet the challenge to back up that discredited opinion of yours. And here’s another challenge: either back up your accusation that I've made something up or just admit that you just lied. Yes, all the historians are wrong, but one Lost Cause fanatic knows better than all of them. Hilarious. And you just proved that you've never even read the historians that you cower behind. Every one of those historians rely on the same weak and easily debunked nonsense to peddle their "slavery was the cause" lie. There's no diversity of thought among your sacred historians, just conformity to the dishonest, politically correct "slavery was the cause" fairy tale aimed toward the herd of simpletons and gullible fools that like easy, safe answers. It's not a religion, no supernaturalism involved. It's an opinion. And there's his canned, overused "NUH-UH!!"response again; he's a one trick pony with such lame denials. You've embraced the unfounded, weakly supported lie that slavery was the South's cause as fanatically and mindlessly as any religious zealot would. Your persistence has shown that your opinion is sacred to you, which is further evidenced by your intolerance and ridicule of any dissenting facts and historical realities. Supernatural? No, but in every other respect, these "slavery was the cause" sectarians are a cult that brooks no opposition to what its adherents consider to be their settled holy scripture.
If one has an extreme and negative reaction to a word, that person would likely not use the word. Wait a minute. All this time you've been saying I am triggered by the word slavery. Now you say my supposed negative reaction is to the South. Make up your mind, which is it? The word slavery is used because that's what the Civil War was basically about. It's like using the word Nazism when discussing Hitler. They both belong together. Your claim that being triggered means that someone has to avoid that trigger word is still stupidly wrong, especially when it's already been clearly defined as an emotional reaction. And a negative reaction tends to be directed to those who a triggered snowflake blames for the negative reaction, not a negative reaction to the word. This is just another example of how persistently shallow you continue to be. My argument is based on the evidence of the historians because it is much more persuasive than the phony Lost Cause narrative. It's not my fault that it is so. I've demonstrated the wrong kind of intellectual courage, the anti-Lost Cause type. Your only tactic is to repeat the Lost Cause nonsense over and over again apparently without realizing it's going nowhere. Your junk history doesn't make me apoplectic, it makes me laugh at its stupidity. First, you’ve shown no intellectual courage here; that would require you to think for yourself, to provide evidence to support your argument and to stop cowering behind historians that you never quote. What are you afraid of, cultist? You really do know what I’ll do to any evidence that you attempt to post here, don’t you? You’d rather remain in ignorance than to see me tear down your idols, so you flee when challenged. But it’s easy enough to prove me wrong; all you have to do is stop running away and meet my challenge to cough up evidence from the priests of your religion, the Sacred Historians of the Great Northern Lie. If your unseen evidence from these historians is so much more “persuasive” (gullible fools are easily swayed by such shiny objects), why do have you failed so miserably to do anything but brag about having what you never produce? Your misquoting Marx just proves your deception. You tried to pass off a quote from Marx as something he thought himself, not something that the British press thought. Why you then included a link which contradicts what you quoted is what I don't know. Seems either dumb or careless. This really has turned into a sick little fetish for you, hasn’t it? Are you still a child that you can’t let go when you’ve been proven wrong? It takes integrity and maturity to admit that the added link to the article proves that no deception was intended at all on my part. Your maturity will always be in question, but do you any integrity left?
No doubt most colonists had a good opinion of them, and most Englishmen had a bad opinion of them It matters which; side one was on. After the Spanish-American War the roles were reversed, when the Americans were the bad guys and the Filipino guerillas fighting against them were the good guys. So, to you, it’s all about one’s point of view, eh? But that’s not what history is about. What you’ve presented above (“good guys? bad guys” ) are emotional responses, not historical accuracy based on the evidence. That’s where you have failed throughout this thread. Slavery has triggered an emotional response in you, leading you to abandon any curiosity about deeper details. You found the answer that you wanted and you have become childishly defensive because I’ve proven you wrong.
No If the Confederate leaders thought that secession would hurt slavery, they wouldn't have taken that step. They were too optimistic about their chances of winning the war. But secession DID hurt slavery and it was obvious to everyone that it was going to damage slavery. Are you actually dumb enough to think that the Southerners didn’t know that their elitists wouldn’t be able to carry slaves into U.S. territories anymore? Are you actually stupid enough to believe that the seceding Southerners thought they would still be able to head North and retrieve escaped slaves? That damage to slavery occurred before there was any war, yet the Southerners DID take that step. That’s undeniable proof that slavery was not their cause.
No I think the Northern Congressmen knew that southern leaders wanted to preserve slavery and acted accordingly. They were both in the same Congress. And they failed accordingly, showing that those Northern Congressmen were completely wrong about what Southerners wanted. All you’ve done is help provide more proof that slavery was not the Southern cause. Feel free to start providing your alleged evidence to the contrary if you have any; you've been an abject failure so far at providing any.
No I just want to see what first-hand evidence exists for this supposed promise to abolish slavery. So far I've haven't seen it. All you have is some letters and newspaper rumors. Oh no, it's all in caps it must be important, OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE. Oh my. I didn't know Lincoln was a Confederate official privy to their discussions. Letters were not private rumors sent to one’s wife, they were official documents sent to POTUS, easily vetted by him and the government, yet undisputed by either. This “first hand evidence” requirement is not one that you’ve lived up yourself to here, yet you demand it from others. You haven’t refuted the evidence of the Southern offer to abolish slavery because you can’t, so you use the mobile goalpost tactic of demanding more. Nothing will be enough for the likes of you, but regardless of your denials, that’s even more proof that slavery was not the Southern cause.
No The facts have changed it, but they never reach the Lost Cause rabbit hole. And repeating that it's a lie changes nothing either, no matter how many times you say it. You’ve presented no facts to change anything. Don’t you understand how ridiculous you look by making a clearly false claim (slavery was the cause) without evidence while at the same time demanding that history is all settled in your favor because there’s a pile of historians out there that make it so? That’s like saying you have a team overseas, but you can assure us that they’re the best so that means you win.
Yeah, just that stupid.
Your “slavery was the cause” narrative is called a lie because it is a lie. Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is not true and nothing will change that fact, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Sept 14, 2023 1:16:30 GMT
You and Greg seem to favor that crudely unintelligent response when you get cornered. Makes one wonder what else the two of you have a lot in common. No one is cornered by you
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 14, 2023 21:43:28 GMT
If the mental retardation fits....Outside of your fantasy there is no herd, just individuals who agree on something. You can make stuff up. You doit all the time. A simpleton that stupidly embraces the cartoonish lie that slavery was the South's cause is the last person that has credibility to accuse anyone else of mental issues. You sure are full of…...denials. “NUH-UH!!!” is just about all we get from you nowadays. A member of the herd always denies their membership in that body. You’ve shown yourself as little more than a follower of a shallow narrative, while at the same time lacking the courage to meet the challenge to back up that discredited opinion of yours. And here’s another challenge: either back up your accusation that I've made something up or just admit that you just lied. Yes, all the historians are wrong, but one Lost Cause fanatic knows better than all of them. Hilarious. And you just proved that you've never even read the historians that you cower behind. Every one of those historians rely on the same weak and easily debunked nonsense to peddle their "slavery was the cause" lie. There's no diversity of thought among your sacred historians, just conformity to the dishonest, politically correct "slavery was the cause" fairy tale aimed toward the herd of simpletons and gullible fools that like easy, safe answers. It's not a religion, no supernaturalism involved. It's an opinion. And there's his canned, overused "NUH-UH!!"response again; he's a one trick pony with such lame denials. You've embraced the unfounded, weakly supported lie that slavery was the South's cause as fanatically and mindlessly as any religious zealot would. Your persistence has shown that your opinion is sacred to you, which is further evidenced by your intolerance and ridicule of any dissenting facts and historical realities. Supernatural? No, but in every other respect, these "slavery was the cause" sectarians are a cult that brooks no opposition to what its adherents consider to be their settled holy scripture.
If one has an extreme and negative reaction to a word, that person would likely not use the word. Wait a minute. All this time you've been saying I am triggered by the word slavery. Now you say my supposed negative reaction is to the South. Make up your mind, which is it? The word slavery is used because that's what the Civil War was basically about. It's like using the word Nazism when discussing Hitler. They both belong together. Your claim that being triggered means that someone has to avoid that trigger word is still stupidly wrong, especially when it's already been clearly defined as an emotional reaction. And a negative reaction tends to be directed to those who a triggered snowflake blames for the negative reaction, not a negative reaction to the word. This is just another example of how persistently shallow you continue to be. My argument is based on the evidence of the historians because it is much more persuasive than the phony Lost Cause narrative. It's not my fault that it is so. I've demonstrated the wrong kind of intellectual courage, the anti-Lost Cause type. Your only tactic is to repeat the Lost Cause nonsense over and over again apparently without realizing it's going nowhere. Your junk history doesn't make me apoplectic, it makes me laugh at its stupidity. First, you’ve shown no intellectual courage here; that would require you to think for yourself, to provide evidence to support your argument and to stop cowering behind historians that you never quote. What are you afraid of, cultist? You really do know what I’ll do to any evidence that you attempt to post here, don’t you? You’d rather remain in ignorance than to see me tear down your idols, so you flee when challenged. But it’s easy enough to prove me wrong; all you have to do is stop running away and meet my challenge to cough up evidence from the priests of your religion, the Sacred Historians of the Great Northern Lie. If your unseen evidence from these historians is so much more “persuasive” (gullible fools are easily swayed by such shiny objects), why do have you failed so miserably to do anything but brag about having what you never produce? Your misquoting Marx just proves your deception. You tried to pass off a quote from Marx as something he thought himself, not something that the British press thought. Why you then included a link which contradicts what you quoted is what I don't know. Seems either dumb or careless. This really has turned into a sick little fetish for you, hasn’t it? Are you still a child that you can’t let go when you’ve been proven wrong? It takes integrity and maturity to admit that the added link to the article proves that no deception was intended at all on my part. Your maturity will always be in question, but do you any integrity left?
No doubt most colonists had a good opinion of them, and most Englishmen had a bad opinion of them It matters which; side one was on. After the Spanish-American War the roles were reversed, when the Americans were the bad guys and the Filipino guerillas fighting against them were the good guys. So, to you, it’s all about one’s point of view, eh? But that’s not what history is about. What you’ve presented above (“good guys? bad guys” ) are emotional responses, not historical accuracy based on the evidence. That’s where you have failed throughout this thread. Slavery has triggered an emotional response in you, leading you to abandon any curiosity about deeper details. You found the answer that you wanted and you have become childishly defensive because I’ve proven you wrong.
No If the Confederate leaders thought that secession would hurt slavery, they wouldn't have taken that step. They were too optimistic about their chances of winning the war. But secession DID hurt slavery and it was obvious to everyone that it was going to damage slavery. Are you actually dumb enough to think that the Southerners didn’t know that their elitists wouldn’t be able to carry slaves into U.S. territories anymore? Are you actually stupid enough to believe that the seceding Southerners thought they would still be able to head North and retrieve escaped slaves? That damage to slavery occurred before there was any war, yet the Southerners DID take that step. That’s undeniable proof that slavery was not their cause.
No I think the Northern Congressmen knew that southern leaders wanted to preserve slavery and acted accordingly. They were both in the same Congress. And they failed accordingly, showing that those Northern Congressmen were completely wrong about what Southerners wanted. All you’ve done is help provide more proof that slavery was not the Southern cause. Feel free to start providing your alleged evidence to the contrary if you have any; you've been an abject failure so far at providing any.
No I just want to see what first-hand evidence exists for this supposed promise to abolish slavery. So far I've haven't seen it. All you have is some letters and newspaper rumors. Oh no, it's all in caps it must be important, OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE. Oh my. I didn't know Lincoln was a Confederate official privy to their discussions. Letters were not private rumors sent to one’s wife, they were official documents sent to POTUS, easily vetted by him and the government, yet undisputed by either. This “first hand evidence” requirement is not one that you’ve lived up yourself to here, yet you demand it from others. You haven’t refuted the evidence of the Southern offer to abolish slavery because you can’t, so you use the mobile goalpost tactic of demanding more. Nothing will be enough for the likes of you, but regardless of your denials, that’s even more proof that slavery was not the Southern cause.
No The facts have changed it, but they never reach the Lost Cause rabbit hole. And repeating that it's a lie changes nothing either, no matter how many times you say it. You’ve presented no facts to change anything. Don’t you understand how ridiculous you look by making a clearly false claim (slavery was the cause) without evidence while at the same time demanding that history is all settled in your favor because there’s a pile of historians out there that make it so? That’s like saying you have a team overseas, but you can assure us that they’re the best so that means you win.
Yeah, just that stupid.
Your “slavery was the cause” narrative is called a lie because it is a lie. Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is not true and nothing will change that fact, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it. Cartoonish. That's another word to add to your meaningless epithets along with brainwashed and herd. Of course I'm full of denials about the Lost Cause story. That should come as no surprise. A member of the herd always denies being a member of the herd. So dumb it's not worth a reply. Cower. Another fake word to add. Historians can't help it if the evidence is so strong, though I'm sure they approach the subject in various manners. Sacred and holy. Two more exaggerations to add. It's only an unfounded weakly supported lie to the Lost Cause crowd, which doesn't have a leg to stand on. Slavery was the cause is based on the evidence, it has nothing to do with zealotry or holy scripture. Add those and cult/cultist to the list. If a Jew is triggered by the k word they would be unlikely to use it. The same with the word slavery. If I was truly triggered by that word I wouldn't tend to use it. Once again you're trying to bring contemporary words into a situation that make no sense. It's just another of your many linguistic absurdities. I meant to write intellectual curiosity, but believing that slavery was the cause takes no intellectual courage. Yes, you'll ignore the evidence and go into one of your herd, brainwashing, lies, blah blah blah routines. Add idols, priests, sacred to the list. I thought you said you've already seen the evidence and have totally refuted it--in your own delusional mind. No sense in doing it again. Not a fetish. I just enjoy pointing out your deceptiveness on this topic. Actually the added link proves your dishonesty. It shows that Marx was quoting the opinion of the British press, which he disagreed with. Yet you still tried to present the quote as if it was Marx's own opinion. So your own link contradicted you. Talk about being clueless. It's historical accuracy with irony thrown in. The colonists who were fighting the British imperialistas later became the American imperialistas who were trying to control the Filipinos. You can get into all the deeper details, complexities, and contradictions you want. That doesn't change the fact that secession was caused by the fear that Abe wanted to abolish slavery. Again, the only place you've proven anyone wrong is in your own mind, which counts for zero to anyone else. Sure secession hurt slavery. The dumb southerners managed to end slavery in four years when they went to war to save it. Expanding slavery into other territories not being able to catch their fugitive slave up north were secondary concerns compared to preserving slavery in the Confederate states. Lincoln's letter to the Border State Congressmen was an attempt to get them to go along with his plan of gradual and compensated emancipation in the Border States. They weren't interested. I don't see where there is anything about the Confederate States dealing to abolish slavery for foreign intervention. Unless you can provide that first-hand evidence I guess that's a thing you made up. I guess I don't look too ridiculous. The people on this thread seem to have the same opinion of your so-called evidence as I do. Yes there're a pile of historians out there who believe slavery was the cause, and most of them are right here, not overseas. They follow the evidence, not your absurd Lost Cause junk. It's a lie because it's a lie. Gee, that's so persuasive and profound. The great bulk of your evidence is repetitive linguistic nonsense. Herd, brainwashed, cultist, northern lies, priest, holy, zealots, sacred and its goes on and on as if it really means anything. It means nothing.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 17, 2023 18:55:26 GMT
A simpleton that stupidly embraces the cartoonish lie that slavery was the South's cause is the last person that has credibility to accuse anyone else of mental issues. You sure are full of…...denials. “NUH-UH!!!” is just about all we get from you nowadays. A member of the herd always denies their membership in that body. You’ve shown yourself as little more than a follower of a shallow narrative, while at the same time lacking the courage to meet the challenge to back up that discredited opinion of yours. And here’s another challenge: either back up your accusation that I've made something up or just admit that you just lied. And you just proved that you've never even read the historians that you cower behind. Every one of those historians rely on the same weak and easily debunked nonsense to peddle their "slavery was the cause" lie. There's no diversity of thought among your sacred historians, just conformity to the dishonest, politically correct "slavery was the cause" fairy tale aimed toward the herd of simpletons and gullible fools that like easy, safe answers. And there's his canned, overused "NUH-UH!!"response again; he's a one trick pony with such lame denials. You've embraced the unfounded, weakly supported lie that slavery was the South's cause as fanatically and mindlessly as any religious zealot would. Your persistence has shown that your opinion is sacred to you, which is further evidenced by your intolerance and ridicule of any dissenting facts and historical realities. Supernatural? No, but in every other respect, these "slavery was the cause" sectarians are a cult that brooks no opposition to what its adherents consider to be their settled holy scripture.
Your claim that being triggered means that someone has to avoid that trigger word is still stupidly wrong, especially when it's already been clearly defined as an emotional reaction. And a negative reaction tends to be directed to those who a triggered snowflake blames for the negative reaction, not a negative reaction to the word. This is just another example of how persistently shallow you continue to be. First, you’ve shown no intellectual courage here; that would require you to think for yourself, to provide evidence to support your argument and to stop cowering behind historians that you never quote. What are you afraid of, cultist? You really do know what I’ll do to any evidence that you attempt to post here, don’t you? You’d rather remain in ignorance than to see me tear down your idols, so you flee when challenged. But it’s easy enough to prove me wrong; all you have to do is stop running away and meet my challenge to cough up evidence from the priests of your religion, the Sacred Historians of the Great Northern Lie. If your unseen evidence from these historians is so much more “persuasive” (gullible fools are easily swayed by such shiny objects), why do have you failed so miserably to do anything but brag about having what you never produce? This really has turned into a sick little fetish for you, hasn’t it? Are you still a child that you can’t let go when you’ve been proven wrong? It takes integrity and maturity to admit that the added link to the article proves that no deception was intended at all on my part. Your maturity will always be in question, but do you any integrity left?
So, to you, it’s all about one’s point of view, eh? But that’s not what history is about. What you’ve presented above (“good guys? bad guys” ) are emotional responses, not historical accuracy based on the evidence. That’s where you have failed throughout this thread. Slavery has triggered an emotional response in you, leading you to abandon any curiosity about deeper details. You found the answer that you wanted and you have become childishly defensive because I’ve proven you wrong.
But secession DID hurt slavery and it was obvious to everyone that it was going to damage slavery. Are you actually dumb enough to think that the Southerners didn’t know that their elitists wouldn’t be able to carry slaves into U.S. territories anymore? Are you actually stupid enough to believe that the seceding Southerners thought they would still be able to head North and retrieve escaped slaves? That damage to slavery occurred before there was any war, yet the Southerners DID take that step. That’s undeniable proof that slavery was not their cause.
And they failed accordingly, showing that those Northern Congressmen were completely wrong about what Southerners wanted. All you’ve done is help provide more proof that slavery was not the Southern cause. Feel free to start providing your alleged evidence to the contrary if you have any; you've been an abject failure so far at providing any.
Letters were not private rumors sent to one’s wife, they were official documents sent to POTUS, easily vetted by him and the government, yet undisputed by either. This “first hand evidence” requirement is not one that you’ve lived up yourself to here, yet you demand it from others. You haven’t refuted the evidence of the Southern offer to abolish slavery because you can’t, so you use the mobile goalpost tactic of demanding more. Nothing will be enough for the likes of you, but regardless of your denials, that’s even more proof that slavery was not the Southern cause.
You’ve presented no facts to change anything. Don’t you understand how ridiculous you look by making a clearly false claim (slavery was the cause) without evidence while at the same time demanding that history is all settled in your favor because there’s a pile of historians out there that make it so? That’s like saying you have a team overseas, but you can assure us that they’re the best so that means you win.
Yeah, just that stupid.
Your “slavery was the cause” narrative is called a lie because it is a lie. Claiming that slavery was the South’s cause is not true and nothing will change that fact, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise and how often you scamper away when challenged to prove it. Cartoonish. That's another word to add to your meaningless epithets along with brainwashed and herd. Of course I'm full of denials about the Lost Cause story. That should come as no surprise. A member of the herd always denies being a member of the herd. So dumb it's not worth a reply. Cower. Another fake word to add. Historians can't help it if the evidence is so strong, though I'm sure they approach the subject in various manners. Sacred and holy. Two more exaggerations to add. It's only an unfounded weakly supported lie to the Lost Cause crowd, which doesn't have a leg to stand on. Slavery was the cause is based on the evidence, it has nothing to do with zealotry or holy scripture. Add those and cult/cultist to the list. If a Jew is triggered by the k word they would be unlikely to use it. The same with the word slavery. If I was truly triggered by that word I wouldn't tend to use it. Once again you're trying to bring contemporary words into a situation that make no sense. It's just another of your many linguistic absurdities. I meant to write intellectual curiosity, but believing that slavery was the cause takes no intellectual courage. Yes, you'll ignore the evidence and go into one of your herd, brainwashing, lies, blah blah blah routines. Add idols, priests, sacred to the list. I thought you said you've already seen the evidence and have totally refuted it--in your own delusional mind. No sense in doing it again. Not a fetish. I just enjoy pointing out your deceptiveness on this topic. Actually the added link proves your dishonesty. It shows that Marx was quoting the opinion of the British press, which he disagreed with. Yet you still tried to present the quote as if it was Marx's own opinion. So your own link contradicted you. Talk about being clueless. It's historical accuracy with irony thrown in. The colonists who were fighting the British imperialistas later became the American imperialistas who were trying to control the Filipinos. You can get into all the deeper details, complexities, and contradictions you want. That doesn't change the fact that secession was caused by the fear that Abe wanted to abolish slavery. Again, the only place you've proven anyone wrong is in your own mind, which counts for zero to anyone else. Sure secession hurt slavery. The dumb southerners managed to end slavery in four years when they went to war to save it. Expanding slavery into other territories not being able to catch their fugitive slave up north were secondary concerns compared to preserving slavery in the Confederate states. Lincoln's letter to the Border State Congressmen was an attempt to get them to go along with his plan of gradual and compensated emancipation in the Border States. They weren't interested. I don't see where there is anything about the Confederate States dealing to abolish slavery for foreign intervention. Unless you can provide that first-hand evidence I guess that's a thing you made up. I guess I don't look too ridiculous. The people on this thread seem to have the same opinion of your so-called evidence as I do. Yes there're a pile of historians out there who believe slavery was the cause, and most of them are right here, not overseas. They follow the evidence, not your absurd Lost Cause junk. It's a lie because it's a lie. Gee, that's so persuasive and profound. The great bulk of your evidence is repetitive linguistic nonsense. Herd, brainwashed, cultist, northern lies, priest, holy, zealots, sacred and its goes on and on as if it really means anything. It means nothing. So, now you've expanded your laughable series of constant denials of the truth to include the words that I use to express the truth. Seriously, you are the champion at being a one trick pony. Holy’s M.O.: Deny! Deny! Deny! Obfuscate so no one notices that I've got nothing! Shuck and jive proclaiming historians are on my side! Bait and switch so that no one notices that I’ve provided no evidence at all to support that!
Evidently, the truth sounds like a meaningless epithet to the ears of a fanatic. After all, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. The lie that slavery was the South's cause is, above all else, universal deceit. No one is surprised that you have followed the herd and spend your time denying anything that challenges your herd's narrative. You lack the self awareness to see that I'm feeding you reality.....and the reality is that you really are cowering behind historians, that you actually are part of a herd mentality and that you surely have embraced a cartoonish lie tailored for the pleasure of the brainwashed simpletons. Those aren't fake nor are they empty epithets, they are words of truth and the truth is not your friend on this thread. Claiming that the evidence held by these historians is "strong" is utter nonsense since their ideas are so easily refuted. That very fact seems to be why you refuse to even try to provide any evidence from those historians that you grovel behind. Your intransigence shows everyone how empty and weak your little fairy tale is and has always been. Why don't you man up and post what you think is "evidence" from the historians? What are you afraid of, cultist? Are you too slow and weak minded to make your own case here? Looks like it. You're right...it takes zero intellectual courage (or curiosity) to mindlessly line up behind the politically correct lie that slavery was the South's cause. It does take intellectual courage and integrity to look deeper and see the undeniable contradictions that refute that Northern lie. Instead from you we get unsupported pinhead proclamations that the seceding Southerns were too dumb to know they were irreparably damaging slavery and that Northern Congressmen knew better what Southerners wanted than Southerners themselves. The "k" word to a Jew is a personal, direct affront....when you hear "slavery", is it directed AT you? Is someone calling you a "slavery"? You can't even get an analogy right. Yes, personally derogatory words may be avoided if one is triggered, but slavery is not one of those words. As I said, you embrace rather than shun the word slavery because you use it as either as a set of blinders for you or bludgeon against an opponent. You should endeavor to be less stupid about word meanings, but less stupid doesn't seem to be a path you're interested in. Look at him run again, tail tucked neatly between his legs. So, since I already know what the Northern lies are, he’s conveniently absolving yourself of having the courage to make the case himself. You're like a boxer whose excuse for not entering the ring is that his opponent is already very knowledgeable in pugilism. We can see that you're afraid and it's understandable....if you engage, if you step into that ring, you lose. Your refusal to man up and defend your ideas is just sad and pathetic. Again, if you're not afraid, if you believe that you've got the goods, let’s see you meet the challenge. Claiming there was any deception with the Marx quote is a lie, but you seem to have a fetish for embracing lies. Are you really stupid enough to pretend that, because I honestly and completely linked to my source when I posted the Marx quote, that somehow proves a deception on my part? You really are a desperate fool looking for a victory, aren’t you? If that’s the case, you might as well get lost, because you’ll find no victory on this thread. Claiming that I’ve made anything up is another lie (anyone noticing a pattern from this cultist?). No one has said that Lincoln’s letter to the Congressmen said anything about the CSA plan to offer to abolish slavery, yet it was a well known point of fact shared in the letter responding to Lincoln’s letter. Here’s your problem…there IS evidence that the CSA was offering manumission for intervention in 1862, and you’ve given us neither firsthand evidence or hearsay that challenges the veracity of any of that evidence. Do you think that U.S. Border Congressmen and newspapers hallway around the world were in cahoots to tell the same exact story? All you do is deny and demand more without delivering anything yourself, which makes you a joke on this thread. Instead of your constant screaming of “NUH-UH!”, strap on a pair and start providing your own evidence to support your own narrative. Those historians can't help you when you don't have the courage to share what you claim that they have.
Remember, I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,492
|
Post by thor on Sept 17, 2023 19:55:42 GMT
Cartoonish. That's another word to add to your meaningless epithets along with brainwashed and herd. Of course I'm full of denials about the Lost Cause story. That should come as no surprise. A member of the herd always denies being a member of the herd. So dumb it's not worth a reply. Cower. Another fake word to add. Historians can't help it if the evidence is so strong, though I'm sure they approach the subject in various manners. Sacred and holy. Two more exaggerations to add. It's only an unfounded weakly supported lie to the Lost Cause crowd, which doesn't have a leg to stand on. Slavery was the cause is based on the evidence, it has nothing to do with zealotry or holy scripture. Add those and cult/cultist to the list. If a Jew is triggered by the k word they would be unlikely to use it. The same with the word slavery. If I was truly triggered by that word I wouldn't tend to use it. Once again you're trying to bring contemporary words into a situation that make no sense. It's just another of your many linguistic absurdities. I meant to write intellectual curiosity, but believing that slavery was the cause takes no intellectual courage. Yes, you'll ignore the evidence and go into one of your herd, brainwashing, lies, blah blah blah routines. Add idols, priests, sacred to the list. I thought you said you've already seen the evidence and have totally refuted it--in your own delusional mind. No sense in doing it again. Not a fetish. I just enjoy pointing out your deceptiveness on this topic. Actually the added link proves your dishonesty. It shows that Marx was quoting the opinion of the British press, which he disagreed with. Yet you still tried to present the quote as if it was Marx's own opinion. So your own link contradicted you. Talk about being clueless. It's historical accuracy with irony thrown in. The colonists who were fighting the British imperialistas later became the American imperialistas who were trying to control the Filipinos. You can get into all the deeper details, complexities, and contradictions you want. That doesn't change the fact that secession was caused by the fear that Abe wanted to abolish slavery. Again, the only place you've proven anyone wrong is in your own mind, which counts for zero to anyone else. Sure secession hurt slavery. The dumb southerners managed to end slavery in four years when they went to war to save it. Expanding slavery into other territories not being able to catch their fugitive slave up north were secondary concerns compared to preserving slavery in the Confederate states. Lincoln's letter to the Border State Congressmen was an attempt to get them to go along with his plan of gradual and compensated emancipation in the Border States. They weren't interested. I don't see where there is anything about the Confederate States dealing to abolish slavery for foreign intervention. Unless you can provide that first-hand evidence I guess that's a thing you made up. I guess I don't look too ridiculous. The people on this thread seem to have the same opinion of your so-called evidence as I do. Yes there're a pile of historians out there who believe slavery was the cause, and most of them are right here, not overseas. They follow the evidence, not your absurd Lost Cause junk. It's a lie because it's a lie. Gee, that's so persuasive and profound. The great bulk of your evidence is repetitive linguistic nonsense. Herd, brainwashed, cultist, northern lies, priest, holy, zealots, sacred and its goes on and on as if it really means anything. It means nothing. So, now you've expanded your laughable series of constant denials of the truth to include the words that I use to express the truth. Seriously, you are the champion at being a one trick pony. Holy’s M.O.: Deny! Deny! Deny! Obfuscate so no one notices that I've got nothing! Shuck and jive proclaiming historians are on my side! Bait and switch so that no one notices that I’ve provided no evidence at all to support that!
Evidently, the truth sounds like a meaningless epithet to the ears of a fanatic. After all, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. The lie that slavery was the South's cause is, above all else, universal deceit. No one is surprised that you have followed the herd and spend your time denying anything that challenges your herd's narrative. You lack the self awareness to see that I'm feeding you reality.....and the reality is that you really are cowering behind historians, that you actually are part of a herd mentality and that you surely have embraced a cartoonish lie tailored for the pleasure of the brainwashed simpletons. Those aren't fake nor are they empty epithets, they are words of truth and the truth is not your friend on this thread. Claiming that the evidence held by these historians is "strong" is utter nonsense since their ideas are so easily refuted. That very fact seems to be why you refuse to even try to provide any evidence from those historians that you grovel behind. Your intransigence shows everyone how empty and weak your little fairy tale is and has always been. Why don't you man up and post what you think is "evidence" from the historians? What are you afraid of, cultist? Are you too slow and weak minded to make your own case here? Looks like it. You're right...it takes zero intellectual courage (or curiosity) to mindlessly line up behind the politically correct lie that slavery was the South's cause. It does take intellectual courage and integrity to look deeper and see the undeniable contradictions that refute that Northern lie. Instead from you we get unsupported pinhead proclamations that the seceding Southerns were too dumb to know they were irreparably damaging slavery and that Northern Congressmen knew better what Southerners wanted than Southerners themselves. The "k" word to a Jew is a personal, direct affront....when you hear "slavery", is it directed AT you? Is someone calling you a "slavery"? You can't even get an analogy right. Yes, personally derogatory words may be avoided if one is triggered, but slavery is not one of those words. As I said, you embrace rather than shun the word slavery because you use it as either as a set of blinders for you or bludgeon against an opponent. You should endeavor to be less stupid about word meanings, but less stupid doesn't seem to be a path you're interested in. Look at him run again, tail tucked neatly between his legs. So, since I already know what the Northern lies are, he’s conveniently absolving yourself of having the courage to make the case himself. You're like a boxer whose excuse for not entering the ring is that his opponent is already very knowledgeable in pugilism. We can see that you're afraid and it's understandable....if you engage, if you step into that ring, you lose. Your refusal to man up and defend your ideas is just sad and pathetic. Again, if you're not afraid, if you believe that you've got the goods, let’s see you meet the challenge. Claiming there was any deception with the Marx quote is a lie, but you seem to have a fetish for embracing lies. Are you really stupid enough to pretend that, because I honestly and completely linked to my source when I posted the Marx quote, that somehow proves a deception on my part? You really are a desperate fool looking for a victory, aren’t you? If that’s the case, you might as well get lost, because you’ll find no victory on this thread. Claiming that I’ve made anything up is another lie (anyone noticing a pattern from this cultist?). No one has said that Lincoln’s letter to the Congressmen said anything about the CSA plan to offer to abolish slavery, yet it was a well known point of fact shared in the letter responding to Lincoln’s letter. Here’s your problem…there IS evidence that the CSA was offering manumission for intervention in 1862, and you’ve given us neither firsthand evidence or hearsay that challenges the veracity of any of that evidence. Do you think that U.S. Border Congressmen and newspapers hallway around the world were in cahoots to tell the same exact story? All you do is deny and demand more without delivering anything yourself, which makes you a joke on this thread. Instead of your constant screaming of “NUH-UH!”, strap on a pair and start providing your own evidence to support your own narrative. Those historians can't help you when you don't have the courage to share what you claim that they have.
Remember, I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting.
But wait....there's more... The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… The Vidette was a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade. In one of the November, 1862 issues, the following appeared: Now, any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass. Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,221
|
Post by Paleocon on Sept 17, 2023 19:58:55 GMT
So, now you've expanded your laughable series of constant denials of the truth to include the words that I use to express the truth. Seriously, you are the champion at being a one trick pony. Holy’s M.O.: Deny! Deny! Deny! Obfuscate so no one notices that I've got nothing! Shuck and jive proclaiming historians are on my side! Bait and switch so that no one notices that I’ve provided no evidence at all to support that!
Evidently, the truth sounds like a meaningless epithet to the ears of a fanatic. After all, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. The lie that slavery was the South's cause is, above all else, universal deceit. No one is surprised that you have followed the herd and spend your time denying anything that challenges your herd's narrative. You lack the self awareness to see that I'm feeding you reality.....and the reality is that you really are cowering behind historians, that you actually are part of a herd mentality and that you surely have embraced a cartoonish lie tailored for the pleasure of the brainwashed simpletons. Those aren't fake nor are they empty epithets, they are words of truth and the truth is not your friend on this thread. Claiming that the evidence held by these historians is "strong" is utter nonsense since their ideas are so easily refuted. That very fact seems to be why you refuse to even try to provide any evidence from those historians that you grovel behind. Your intransigence shows everyone how empty and weak your little fairy tale is and has always been. Why don't you man up and post what you think is "evidence" from the historians? What are you afraid of, cultist? Are you too slow and weak minded to make your own case here? Looks like it. You're right...it takes zero intellectual courage (or curiosity) to mindlessly line up behind the politically correct lie that slavery was the South's cause. It does take intellectual courage and integrity to look deeper and see the undeniable contradictions that refute that Northern lie. Instead from you we get unsupported pinhead proclamations that the seceding Southerns were too dumb to know they were irreparably damaging slavery and that Northern Congressmen knew better what Southerners wanted than Southerners themselves. The "k" word to a Jew is a personal, direct affront....when you hear "slavery", is it directed AT you? Is someone calling you a "slavery"? You can't even get an analogy right. Yes, personally derogatory words may be avoided if one is triggered, but slavery is not one of those words. As I said, you embrace rather than shun the word slavery because you use it as either as a set of blinders for you or bludgeon against an opponent. You should endeavor to be less stupid about word meanings, but less stupid doesn't seem to be a path you're interested in. Look at him run again, tail tucked neatly between his legs. So, since I already know what the Northern lies are, he’s conveniently absolving yourself of having the courage to make the case himself. You're like a boxer whose excuse for not entering the ring is that his opponent is already very knowledgeable in pugilism. We can see that you're afraid and it's understandable....if you engage, if you step into that ring, you lose. Your refusal to man up and defend your ideas is just sad and pathetic. Again, if you're not afraid, if you believe that you've got the goods, let’s see you meet the challenge. Claiming there was any deception with the Marx quote is a lie, but you seem to have a fetish for embracing lies. Are you really stupid enough to pretend that, because I honestly and completely linked to my source when I posted the Marx quote, that somehow proves a deception on my part? You really are a desperate fool looking for a victory, aren’t you? If that’s the case, you might as well get lost, because you’ll find no victory on this thread. Claiming that I’ve made anything up is another lie (anyone noticing a pattern from this cultist?). No one has said that Lincoln’s letter to the Congressmen said anything about the CSA plan to offer to abolish slavery, yet it was a well known point of fact shared in the letter responding to Lincoln’s letter. Here’s your problem…there IS evidence that the CSA was offering manumission for intervention in 1862, and you’ve given us neither firsthand evidence or hearsay that challenges the veracity of any of that evidence. Do you think that U.S. Border Congressmen and newspapers hallway around the world were in cahoots to tell the same exact story? All you do is deny and demand more without delivering anything yourself, which makes you a joke on this thread. Instead of your constant screaming of “NUH-UH!”, strap on a pair and start providing your own evidence to support your own narrative. Those historians can't help you when you don't have the courage to share what you claim that they have.
Remember, I can make you less stupid, but you have to stop resisting.
But wait....there's more...The Black Hand of Truth comes and whips your ass again, Stupid Boy… The Vidette was a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade. In one of the November, 1862 issues, the following appeared: Now, any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."It must suck having a Black Hand whip your ass.Tell us again, filthy moral degenerate, how it was totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s', scumbag. Think the enslaved would have been OK with that? Why does your cowardly ass keep running from a simple question, Stupid Boy? Also, Self- government for WHOM, filthy degenerate scumbag? Further, degenerate, why are you excusing Andersonville? You're the only one getting his ass kicked here. You were, are and always will be a joke on this forum. Another meaningless, anecdotal quote from another obscure elitist representing the South's one percenters doesn't even move the needle. You can't help being a dumbass, can you, boy? Only a liar claims that I ever claimed that it was "totally OK for slavery to exist because 'it would have undoubtedly ended in the 1880s'". And I'm hardly "excusing Andersonville" by pointing out that the impoverished South was starving at the same time that Andersonville prisoners were doing the same. Only a f*cking idiot would pretend that the South was supposed to let their own people starve just to coddle the perverted Union killers in that stockade. Those Yankee bastards were the ones trying to force the South into starvation and destruction before they were captured, yet the Confederates tried to care for them and tried to exchange them.
Thor's just bitter after he traded his balls for a pussy hat.
|
|