Racism is White America’s HIV

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dbphoenix, Aug 3, 2014.

  1. dbphoenix

    dbphoenix

    Actually, I did. You just didn't like the answer. Which is not the same thing.
     
    #111     Aug 19, 2014
  2. dbphoenix

    dbphoenix

    Actually it's just the opposite.
     
    #112     Aug 19, 2014
  3. jsp326

    jsp326

    Nope. You avoided my question with a red herring.
     
    #113     Aug 20, 2014
  4. fhl

    fhl


    Uh, sorry, but no. Lincoln did in fact say categorically that if there was to be war with the south, it would have nothing to do with slavery and everything with forcing the south to collect and pay import duties. It's right in in first inaugural address, hoofie. You might want to skim that over before you continue.

    The south was goaded into the attack on Fort Sumpter. Historians acknowledge this. Why won't you.
    The south just wanted to LEAVE. They didn't want a war. Why would they want a war? The side that wanted to get the other's money needed a war. That's called common sense Hoofie.

    I'll leave you with a couple of quotes that you might enjoy, seeing as how you're so interested in the American Indian.

    "Why did Yankees almost instantly discover gold in California, which had been trodden upon and overlooked by Indians and Mexican greasers for centuries?”---Abe Lincoln, "Lecture on Discoveries, Inventions, and Improvements, Springfield, Illinois, February 22, 1860.

    "Indians have nothing human except the shape ...the gradual extension of our settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to retire; both being beasts of prey, tho' they differ in shape. They are wolves and beasts who deserved nothing from the whites but 'total ruin'."---George Washington, 1783.

    "The idea that a handful of wild, half-naked, thieving, plundering, murdering savages should be dignified with the sovereign attributes of nations, enter into solemn treaties, and claim a country 500 miles wide by 1,000 miles long as theirs in fee simple, because they hunted buffalo or antelope over it, might do for a beautiful reading of Hiawatha, but is unsuited to the intelligence and justice of this age, or the natural rights of mankind."---New Mexico Supreme Court, United States v. Lucero, 1 NM S. Ct. 422, 1869.
     
    #114     Aug 20, 2014
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    That is how he operates. He'll ignore your question, then ask you one and claim you didn't like his answer, and won't answer his question. Classic redirect.
     
    #115     Aug 20, 2014
  6. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Gellman Paradox.jpg
     
    #116     Aug 20, 2014
  7. Lucrum

    Lucrum


    A must see on our ED system

     
    #117     Aug 20, 2014
    Tsing Tao likes this.
  8. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    The American Civil War had far less to do with slavery than what we're taught/led to believe.
     
    #118     Aug 20, 2014
  9. I'll tell you what. Whoever loses just has to sit back for about 5 minutes and think about what a prick they've been.

    But this is no small wager and its doubtful you could handle it. :)
     
    #119     Aug 20, 2014
    dbphoenix likes this.
  10. No need to, I'll just quote the part you are referring to.

    "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read..."


    Well, if you'd given me a chance to, instead of assuming so much, you might find that I'd agree, or at the very least, I doubt I could disagree with that notion.

    Did I ever once even remotely attempt to tell you the south wasn't goaded into attacking the U.S. troops at Sumter?


    Also- If you re-read what Lincoln said, regarding the matter of slavery, and which I have already quoted above, ^^^;
    You might see where he clearly states he CAN NOT take the right to own slaves from individuals, as he HAS NO LAWFUL RIGHT TO DO SO.

    He was addressing the issue of the people wanting to HIM to act, and abolish slavery.

    He is clearly saying that the issue of Slavery Abolition would not be on HIS agenda as he stated all along in his campaign, and he clearly leaves it to The People to decide whether or not slavery is to be abolished. [EVEN AT HIS WARNING AGAINST DOING SO]


    Lincoln, being a competent lawyer, saw many constitutional problems with taking the rights of slavery from individual states.

    As any competent U.S. President should do, Lincoln left the matter in the hands of The People, who clearly made their wishes known to the rebels in the south.


    Let's not forget, the southern folk didn't just give up their slave trade- they were forced to at gun point.

    This war was VERY much about the south fighting to keep that right, as well as some others.



    Well, Texans, or a great bunch of them any way, would probably like to leave the U.S., but after seeing what happened to those who rebelled in the south...Well, some of them may be tough, and some of them may be dumb- but most of them ain't that tough and that dumb. LOL!



    Indigenous People, but Thanks :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
    #120     Aug 20, 2014