Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Santorum on Pornography

Santorum on Pornography (Page 5)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
However you want to fault him for not replying, his Civil War example is excellent WRT people teaching opinion as fact. Far better than the other examples given.
...and my reply?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 03:45 PM
 
Which one?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 03:46 PM
 
To the example.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's a historical account by someone who was there. Presented in a vacuum it could perhaps paint things in unfair light – but that's assuming that there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, and that the person reading it hasn't the smallest modicum of common sense that there might be bias considering the source.
TBH, I don't understand it.

Chongo is talking about a pair of teachers in the modern day. What is the historical account you speak of?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 03:56 PM
 
The one he posted? Was it fictional or something? If that's the case it wasn't clear and he should have demolished me for it.

Edit: This
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:13 PM
 
Ah... He posted the example as an edit, so I never saw it.

His original scenario was fiction; a teacher from Maine vs. a teacher from Georgia discussing the same POW camp.

Unfortunately, I'd say Chongo did make a mistake in choosing such a narrow example. He should have picked the whole subject of the Civil War... or War of Northern Aggression as the case may be.

As a Northerner, there is no question I was indoctrinated throughout my entire education that WRT Civil War it was "North good, South bad". Of course, it's nowhere even close to that simple.

To be clear, my post-scholastic inquiry into this subject hasn't made me a fan of the South, more it's made me hate the North about as much.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:15 PM
 
I found Ken Burns' documentary left Lincoln is a much less saintly light.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:17 PM
 
Sadly, I haven't had the fortitude to watch it.

However I have a friend who came away from it thinking Lincoln was the best guy ever.

This seems... wrong.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:18 PM
 
Fortitude? It's pretty engrossing stuff. I just wouldn't try and knock it out in a weekend or something.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:21 PM
 
Oh, no question. I love Ken Burns.

I meant fortitude against the enormously depressing.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:24 PM
 
I think I was in too much shock from the staggering numbers and blunders to be sad.

Oh, and that pussy who spent like two years just training his men and avoiding battle. McClellan?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 04:47 PM
 
Being a successful General in peacetime has way more to do with your political chops than your ability to make war. Unfortunately, most Presidents start out scared of sacking Generals, so they have to learn the lesson the hard way.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Being a successful General in peacetime has way more to do with your political chops than your ability to make war. Unfortunately, most Presidents start out scared of sacking Generals, so they have to learn the lesson the hard way.
He'd seen time serving in the Mexican-American War. This was his issue:

The immediate problem with McClellan's war strategy was that he was convinced the Confederates were ready to attack him with overwhelming numbers. On August 8, believing that the Confederates had over 100,000 troops facing him (in contrast to the 35,000 they actually deployed at Bull Run a few weeks earlier), he declared a state of emergency in the capital. By August 19, he estimated 150,000 enemy to his front. McClellan's future campaigns would be strongly influenced by the overblown enemy strength estimates of his secret service chief, detective Allan Pinkerton, but in August 1861, these estimates were entirely McClellan's own. The result was a level of extreme caution that sapped the initiative of McClellan's army and caused great condemnation by his government. Historian and biographer Stephen W. Sears has called McClellan's actions "essentially sound" if he had been as outnumbered as he believed, but McClellan in fact rarely had less than a two-to-one advantage over his opponents in 1861 and 1862.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2012, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
He'd seen time serving in the Mexican-American War. This was his issue:
I'm not going to pretend I didn't just look this up on wiki, but he served as a Lieutenant and a Captain. Much different kind of thing than being a General.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It is nice to see that you are backing off of the word "indoctrinate". Maybe you are teachable.
How exactly have I done that? Simply by not writing the word for a few posts? As others have pointed out (with examples like the Civil War), editorializing in the classroom has the effect of indoctrinating students towards a way of thinking. I don't know where I've backed off on that.

If your original claim had been about general left wing bias or about editorialization I probably wouldn't have responded, I responded because the word "indoctrinate" is totally overblown and designed to illicit emotional responses.
You are engaging in pointless semantic arguments again.

- ideologically narrow people
No need to have a broad base of ideological options, all of which have been proven failures in the past. Diversity of failure isn't exactly something to strive for, IMO.

- fear mongers, whether this is anti-Obama or anything else
That's funny, coming from a thread engaging in fear-mongering which is anti-Santorum.

- religious zealots with particularly backwards ways of thinking
Versus religious bigots who wish to devolve our traditional shared values and standards in order to create a climate of anarchy?

- "persecuted" Christians
See the bigoted attacks against Santorum for perfect examples.

- zealots that have a hard time controlling and getting past their emotions
THere are all kinds of zealots. The left and Democrat party are full of them. The "Occupy" movement is a perfect example of irrational zealotry.

This is not necessarily new, but I'm thinking that their image is increasingly ugly to those who do not fall into this narrow demographic. Time will tell if I'm on to something here, I guess.
Over the past twenty years I've seen many polls gauging the views of the American people, and typically the values more often espoused by the Republican party are supported by the majority of Americans, compared to the hot button issues the Democrats try to push. That's why the Democrats have had a much harder time winning national elections of late (and likely why Obama's job approval is so low). Nothing has really changed, including the tired cry that the "sky is falling' on those "extreme" Republicans.

Obama had to pretend to be a moderate "John McCain" style Republican to get a win. Had to renounce his long-time pastor, pretend his old friends weren't friends, deny his stands on issues and then when in office had a hard time even getting members of his own party to back the extreme initiatives he wanted to put into place. When I see people criticize the Republicans for their "image" while knowing the facts, I just have to chuckle to myself, watching the rocks being thrown by the guys standing in front of a big glass window.

Physician, heal thyself.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
From the "see, we told you so" files:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

More "progress" in our moral standards regarding what is acceptable or not acceptable, by accepted "experts." In the course of 40 or so years, we've went from a society that didn't tolerate the killing of the unborn, to one where the claim is that it shouldn't be any big deal to just kill your born children if they are not convenient to you.

This is why the people who cry and moan about those who promote traditional values are often times simply exposing themselves as the morals lacking creatures they really are. IMO, it's pure evil.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
There is an uncanny resemblance to the Modest Proposal, but then again that was satire and this couldn't possibly satire, no no chance of that at all.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
From the "see, we told you so" files:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

More "progress" in our moral standards regarding what is acceptable or not acceptable, by accepted "experts." In the course of 40 or so years, we've went from a society that didn't tolerate the killing of the unborn, to one where the claim is that it shouldn't be any big deal to just kill your born children if they are not convenient to you.

This is why the people who cry and moan about those who promote traditional values are often times simply exposing themselves as the morals lacking creatures they really are. IMO, it's pure evil.
Princeton Professor Peter Singer has espoused this view for years.

I saw this a few weeks ago.
Patrick Madrid : Dear Mom

January 22, 2023
Dear Mom:
Can you believe it is already the year 2023? I’m still writing ’22 on everything! It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting in the first grade and celebrating the change to a new century.
I know we really haven’t chatted since Christmas, Mom, and I’m sorry. Anyway, I have some difficult news to share with you and, to be honest, I really didn’t want to call or talk about this face to face.
But before I get to that, let me report that Ted just got a big promotion, and I should be up for a hefty raise this year if I keep putting in all those crazy hours. You know how I work at it. (Yes, we’re still struggling to pay the bills.)
Little Timmy’s been okay at kindergarten, although he complains about going. But then, he wasn’t happy about the day-care center either. So what can we do?
He’s been a real problem, Mom. He’s a good kid, but quite honestly, he’s an unfair burden on us at this time in our lives.Ted and I have talked this through, and we have finally made a choice. Plenty of other families have made the same choice and are really better off today.
Our pastor is supportive of our choice. He pointed out the family is a system, and the demands of one member shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the whole. The pastor told us to be prayerful and to consider all the factors as to what is right to make our family work. He says that even though he probably wouldn’t do it himself, the choice really is ours. He was kind enough to refer us to a children’s clinic near here, so at least that part is easy.
Don’t get me wrong, Mom. I’m not an uncaring mother. I do feel sorry for the little guy. I think he heard Ted and me talking about this the other night. I turned and saw him standing at the bottom of the stairs in his PJ’s with his little teddy bear that you gave him under his arm, and his eyes were sort of welled up with tears.
Mom, the way he looked at me just about broke my heart, but I honestly believe this is better for Timmy, too. It’s just not fair to force him to live in a family that can’t give him the time and attention he deserves.
And please, Mom, don’t give me the kind of grief that grandma gave you over your abortions. It’s the same thing, you know. There’s really no difference.
We’ve told Timmy he’s just going in for a “vaccination.” Anyway, they say the termination procedure is painless. I guess it’s just as well that you haven’t seen that much of little Timmy lately.
Please give my love to Dad.
Your daughter
(Author unknown)
45/47
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 11:53 AM
 
That's probably not satire either. Probably.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
More "progress" in our moral standards regarding what is acceptable or not acceptable, by accepted "experts." In the course of 40 or so years, we've went from a society that didn't tolerate the killing of the unborn, to one where the claim is that it shouldn't be any big deal to just kill your born children if they are not convenient to you.

This is why the people who cry and moan about those who promote traditional values are often times simply exposing themselves as the morals lacking creatures they really are. IMO, it's pure evil.
It hasn't been much more than 40 years since you "moral traditionalists" were still keeping slaves and lynching black people. Go back a bit more and you fought a war because you didn't like paying taxes then a few more centuries and you were slaughtering people in the tens of thousands looking for a cup that some guy drank out of this one time. Even now many of you are quite happy carpet bombing children on the other side of the world so you don't have to downsize the V12 engines in your lawnmowers. I don't think you are any more qualified to complain about morals than you are about progress, still you'll catch up eventually, so we hope.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't think you are any more qualified to complain about morals than you are about progress, still you'll catch up eventually, so we hope.
He does consider himself a "stupendous" guy so he's already there.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It hasn't been much more than 40 years since you "moral traditionalists" were still keeping slaves and lynching black people.
For the most part, it was "moral traditionalists" who fought against that sort of thing. It was those of faith and clergy, and those with a healthy respect for all life who took the moral stand against slavery and fought for civil rights. Remember, it's the party that currently supports the most liberal of views who fought against these things and they weren't the "party of Lincoln" either.

Your historical revisionism is noted.

I don't think you are any more qualified to complain about morals than you are about progress, still you'll catch up eventually, so we hope.
Catch up to what? Accepting evil as progress? No thanks.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2012, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
For the most part, it was "moral traditionalists" who fought against that sort of thing. It was those of faith and clergy, and those with a healthy respect for all life who took the moral stand against slavery and fought for civil rights. Remember, it's the party that currently supports the most liberal of views who fought against these things and they weren't the "party of Lincoln" either.
Of course, you conveniently forget to mention that it was the Southern Democrats who fought against civil rights, and they aren't anything like the Democrats of today.

Your historical revisionism is noted.
See my above statement.



Catch up to what? Accepting evil as progress? No thanks.
One hundred years ago, black people were evil, and women weren't smart enough to vote. I'm sure you'd still be happy with that today.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
For the most part, it was "moral traditionalists" who fought against that sort of thing. It was those of faith and clergy, and those with a healthy respect for all life who took the moral stand against slavery and fought for civil rights.
I was going by the fact the last states to ban it outright (the last of which was THIS CENTURY) were and still are strongly conservative and pretty keen on their faith too.Besides that, when slavery started pretty much everyone had faith.

Your complete failure to rebuke the one point of mine that where chose to try is noted.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I saw this a few weeks ago.
Patrick Madrid : Dear Mom
While this has been carefully put together for obvious reasons, it essentially mirrors the animal kingdom. While a parent will fight tooth and nail to protect young, there are many cases where they simply have to give up on them and try again later when they have more of what they need to succeed.

Of course the other end of the spectrum looks more like "Dear America, we have decided to put down tens of thousands of foreign nationals, including women and children, because we need some cheaper oil…."

Strangely that end seems to be met by "highly moral and god fearing americans" with such strong approval that one might even look upon it as relish in many cases.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Of course, you conveniently forget to mention that it was the Southern Democrats who fought against civil rights, and they aren't anything like the Democrats of today.
Robert Byrd was among the most notable of these and served in the Senate until June, 2010. You must be suggesting some massive paradigm shift among the left since 2010. You'll never meet a more egregious racist than the ones hiding under the guise of tolerance. The fact of the matter is that the entire country leans centre-right and has always leaned right; both parties. These racist Democrats attempted to join the Republican party and couldn't get enough votes; turning them back to their Democratic brethren with tail tucked between their legs. At that time, racism was among the few things that separated the parties and Republicans, much to the chagrin of our resident revisionists, were on the proper side of the debate. Racism has manifest itself among the left in the most egregious policies and manners imaginable today, it's just called something else entirely.

One hundred years ago, black people were evil, and women weren't smart enough to vote. I'm sure you'd still be happy with that today.
Government codified slavery, not the collective. Of course, we're much better off assuming black people need your help and the women who aren't in lock-step with the mentally ill left should be marginalized and publicly derided by your champions of tolerance.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
While this has been carefully put together for obvious reasons, it essentially mirrors the animal kingdom.
Is that supposed to be an endorsement?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Of course, you conveniently forget to mention that it was the Southern Democrats who fought against civil rights, and they aren't anything like the Democrats of today.
Who cares where they were located? The Republican party has had a consistent message since pretty much the beginning. The Democrats went from racist thugs who wanted to physically enslave people to patronizing dupes who want to psychologically enslave people.

Going from one wrong extreme to another is no virtue.

One hundred years ago, black people were evil, and women weren't smart enough to vote. I'm sure you'd still be happy with that today.
I'm sure I wouldn't, and I typically vote with the party who more strenuously tried to change all that.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I was going by the fact the last states to ban it outright (the last of which was THIS CENTURY) were and still are strongly conservative
Most of the states back then where still pretty "conservative." After that, one of the parties went overboard in the other direction.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Who cares where they were located? The Republican party has had a consistent message since pretty much the beginning. The Democrats went from racist thugs who wanted to physically enslave people to patronizing dupes who want to psychologically enslave people.

Going from one wrong extreme to another is no virtue.
Kaboom!
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 02:39 PM
 
Lincoln didn't give two shits about the slaves. What he cared about was forcing the South to remain bound by a contract they had every right to exit.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Lincoln didn't give two shits about the slaves. What he cared about was forcing the South to remain bound by a contract they had every right to exit.
So... you're saying he cared less for them than the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery? I guess I don't understand the argument here. It may not have been about slaves, but he stumped on it and had support. Would it have made a difference had the argument been; "and they weren't the party of Martin Luther King"?
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... you're saying he cared less for them than the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery? I guess I don't understand the argument here. It may not have been about slaves, but he stumped on it and had support.
My point is I think it's ironic the intent behind this supposed shining moment of Republicanism was forcing people to stay in a contract they had every right to withdraw from.

It gets double irony points this act was sold under the pretense of stopping the South from holding people under a contract they had every right to withdraw from.

I say "pretense" because the North had slavery in everything but name. As is still the case, it's not like Southerners sucked more than Northerners back then, the Northerners just felt more compelled to hide it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Would it have made a difference had the argument been; "and they weren't the party of Martin Luther King"?
I can see you have a point worthy of discussion, but I'm having trouble connecting the dots.

Would it have made a difference if which argument had been?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Lincoln didn't give two shits about the slaves. What he cared about was forcing the South to remain bound by a contract they had every right to exit.
I see two possible implications of this (relevant to the discussion): given that abolitionism was a pretense, either it was a pretense to lure legit abolitionists from within his own party, or from outside his party. Like, if voters from his party were already sewed up, then he could use this as a carrot to draw in others. Or it could be his own party wasn't secure and he used this pretense to solidify it. Do we know which of these was more true?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 05:17 PM
 
Pretty sure it's the former. The Republicans were able to rise to prominence here because the Democrats were split between Northerners and Southerners.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 05:19 PM
 
Sorry, I swapped former/latters within my post. Which one do you mean?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
Whoops! To draw in others.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 05:26 PM
 
I should also clarify I'm using "more true" to mean "he needed more numbers from outside the party".
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... you're saying he cared less for them than the ones who wanted to perpetuate slavery? I guess I don't understand the argument here. It may not have been about slaves, but he stumped on it and had support. Would it have made a difference had the argument been; "and they weren't the party of Martin Luther King"?
Good point. I should have said "party of Lincoln and Martin Luther King."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2012, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My point is I think it's ironic the intent behind this supposed shining moment of Republicanism was forcing people to stay in a contract they had every right to withdraw from.

It gets double irony points this act was sold under the pretense of stopping the South from holding people under a contract they had every right to withdraw from.
They fought for it and lost. This is the way of things.

I say "pretense" because the North had slavery in everything but name. As is still the case, it's not like Southerners sucked more than Northerners back then, the Northerners just felt more compelled to hide it.
"As is still the case"? Is this an indictment against corporate America or something? I'm definitely not connecting your dots here.

I can see you have a point worthy of discussion, but I'm having trouble connecting the dots.
Would it have made a difference if which argument had been?
Lincoln was brought up, you claimed he didn't give a shit about slaves. I asked you if he cared less for them than the ones who wanted to continue the practice and while I'm guessing the answer would be "no", you're going somewhere else entirely. Those dots. That argument.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2012, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Who cares where they were located? The Republican party has had a consistent message since pretty much the beginning. The Democrats went from racist thugs who wanted to physically enslave people to patronizing dupes who want to psychologically enslave people.
Kaboom!
Double history fail.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2012, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
They fought for it and lost. This is the way of things.
That's the other way around. They were fought for it and lost.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"As is still the case"? Is this an indictment against corporate America or something? I'm definitely not connecting your dots here.
Back then: the North sucked just as much as the South, the North only hid it better.

Now: the North sucks just as much as the South, the North only hides it better.

While there obviously has been much change in the overall level of suckage since the time of the Civil War, the relative levels of suck between the North and South has remained equal. The North just likes to pretend it sucks less by hiding it. IOW, as is still the case.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Lincoln was brought up, you claimed he didn't give a shit about slaves. I asked you if he cared less for them than the ones who wanted to continue the practice and while I'm guessing the answer would be "no", you're going somewhere else entirely. Those dots. That argument.
The dot I'm asking you about is "replace that with Martin Luther King". Replace what with Martin Luther King?

As for your other question, I've connected those dots, I'm just doing a bad job at communicating my point. Allow me to try and answer with an analogy.

Let's say SouthCo hires a bunch of illegal aliens, specifically because they can pay them almost nothing. The President says "this is a travesty, we should deport them!"

Who cares more for those immigrants? I'd say neither of them give the proverbial double pile.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,