What do conservatives conserve? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14978783
Exactly that. They were traitors and deserved the whipping they got and more. My relative, Robert E. Lee should have been hung or at least imprisoned.

But you have to be careful with the civil war folks though. They were fighting mostly in state militias. They asserted the right to succeed. They would have said that they were not traitors but patriots fighting for the Confederate States of America.

None of that applies to what Hindsite and other idiotic gun nuts are saying. They are talking about taking up arms against their elected officials and the military.
#14978792
Drlee wrote:Exactly that. They were traitors and deserved the whipping they got and more. My relative, Robert E. Lee should have been hung or at least imprisoned.

But you have to be careful with the civil war folks though. They were fighting mostly in state militias. They asserted the right to succeed. They would have said that they were not traitors but patriots fighting for the Confederate States of America.

None of that applies to what Hindsite and other idiotic gun nuts are saying. They are talking about taking up arms against their elected officials and the military.


Both sides were hastily recruited militias killing the legitimate militias of the other.
I was hoping The Civil War thread would remove these common misconceptions, but I can see from your comment they haven’t. You still see 21st century people fighting the Civil War.
#14978795
Can you even fucking read?

:roll:

By the way. The US had a standing army at the beginning of the civil war.
#14978798
Can you even fucking read?

:roll:

Can you act like an adult? Eyerolls are best left to 5th grade girls.
By the way. The US had a standing army at the beginning of the civil war.

Barely. 16 infantry regiments, 5 artillery, and 4 cavalry.
Citizens took up arms against them because they had arms.
#14978861
So you finally agree. It is like talking to stone. People with private firearms took up arms against the soldiers and police of their native land over a political difference. And today citizens are claiming that the right to keep and bear arms is so they can kill the soldiers and police of their native land over a political disagreement if the vote does not go the way they like.

That alone is a good enough reason to do away with the private ownership of firearms not to mention military style arms.

It is funny how some people are simply unable to read what I just wrote and see it for what it is. People, mostly republicans, claiming the right to own military style weapons so that if they get pissed at the government they can attack and kill our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Too bad they don't believe in the democracy they claim so often to be committed to.

It is even more disgraceful for Hindsite to do this. He claims to be a retired soldier. He swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. And, having taken that oath myself, I can assert that there is nothing in there about being off the hook if liberals get into office.
#14978866
Drlee wrote:So you finally agree. It is like talking to stone. People with private firearms took up arms against the soldiers and police of their native land over a political difference. And today citizens are claiming that the right to keep and bear arms is so they can kill the soldiers and police of their native land over a political disagreement if the vote does not go the way they like.

That alone is a good enough reason to do away with the private ownership of firearms not to mention military style arms.

It is funny how some people are simply unable to read what I just wrote and see it for what it is. People, mostly republicans, claiming the right to own military style weapons so that if they get pissed at the government they can attack and kill our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Too bad they don't believe in the democracy they claim so often to be committed to.

It is even more disgraceful for Hindsite to do this. He claims to be a retired soldier. He swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. And, having taken that oath myself, I can assert that there is nothing in there about being off the hook if liberals get into office.


I think they were right to take up arms based upon what people believed at the time. If they had succeeded the US would probably resemble my view today. I believe people still need to be willing to do so. The Civil War may have freed the slaves early (they were going to be freed anyway), but it also created the loss of state’s sovereignty that has created our centralized authoritarian government that is the same government people complain about abusing other countries. It too was created by the Civil War. We may have been better off today if the South had won and then you would be cheering them taking up arms against the government.
So, how do you judge things when you don’t have an alternative reality to compare it too?
#14978873
A load of bullshit from @One Degree. Slavery was a BIG issue and one of the primary reasons for the traitorous South, seceding.

The Reasons for Secession
Slavery
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.

2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

States' Rights
1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.

2) The states argue that the North's reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... -secession
#14978882
Godstud wrote:A load of bullshit from @One Degree. Slavery was a BIG issue and one of the primary reasons for the traitorous South, seceding.

The Reasons for Secession
Slavery
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.

2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

States' Rights
1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.

2) The states argue that the North's reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... -secession


Can you understand defending slavery is not the same as defending a state’s right to have slavery. Or another way to explain it is you can not separate slavery from the state’s right to have slavery or not. It is not an ‘either or’ where you can weigh them against one another. If there were no state’s rights issue then slavery would have already been a decided issue.
#14978889
Can you understand defending slavery is not the same as defending a state’s right to have slavery. Or another way to explain it is you can not separate slavery from the state’s right to have slavery or not. It is not an ‘either or’ where you can weigh them against one another. If there were no state’s rights issue then slavery would have already been a decided issue.


Nonsense again. The civil war was not fought about states rights. That is an old but now discredited excuse.

It is not possible to defend a state right to have slavery without considering slavery defensible. It is not. Besides. No state lost its right to keep its slaves. They rebelled anyway.
#14978890
Drlee wrote:Nonsense again. The civil war was not fought about states rights. That is an old but now discredited excuse.

It is not possible to defend a state right to have slavery without considering slavery defensible. It is not. Besides. No state lost its right to keep its slaves. They rebelled anyway.


So, you haven’t been following the Civil War thread that explains the thinking of the time on this quite well?
You just ignore the actual history and stick with the distortion you were indoctrinated with?
Figures.
#14978900
Sorry, you trying to rewrite history to suit your racism isn't going to work. Everyone, since the Civil War was fought, has been well aware that one of the prime reasons for the war was for the abolition of slavery.

One Degree wrote:It is not possible to defend a state right to have slavery without considering slavery defensible.
QTF.

One Degree wrote:So, you haven’t been following the Civil War thread that explains the thinking of the time on this quite well?
I provided a source showing you were full of shit. You just blather on about your "beliefs", and racist ideals.
#14978901
Drlee wrote:I'm a conservative. Hindsite is not. He is a reactionary populist.

You do see that people like Hindsite, who claims to be a retired soldier, is prepared to take up arms against the army he served in and kill them over a political disagreement. At some time he supposes, that he will decide the people, through their votes and elected officials, have chosen a government that is is "too socialist" or "communist" and he will get his AR-15 out of the closet and kill American soldiers who are just obeying the same oath he has taken to defend the duly elected government. This is why people like him are dangerous. They do not believe in democracy. They wish to be the sole arbitrators of when to kill our police, soldiers and fellow citizens.

People like him imagine a world that will never exist unless we keep electing soft on communist populists like Trump. He and people of his ilk are allowing us to fall to the communist, Putin.

You really enjoy making straw-man arguments. We conserve the second amendment today for defense of individual life, liberty, as well as justice for all.
#14978964
Godstud wrote:Sorry, you trying to rewrite history to suit your racism isn't going to work. Everyone, since the Civil War was fought, has been well aware that one of the prime reasons for the war was for the abolition of slavery.

QTF.

I provided a source showing you were full of shit. You just blather on about your "beliefs", and racist ideals.


The fact you think providing one source has any meaning on an issue that has thousands of sources shows how little you understand. I gave an explanation and referred to the Civil War thread that gave insight into the actual words of the people of the time. Those actual words far outweigh what one person decides over 100 years later. Read what they actually said, not someone’s distortion of what they wanted.
#14979026
OD SAID: I gave an explanation and referred to the Civil War thread that gave insight into the actual words of the people of the time. Those actual words far outweigh what one person decides over 100 years later.


Really? Did you ever study history? Let me ask you a question. Do you want historians 100 years from now to take what Trump says as gospel? Do you believe that every word that comes out of all of our politicians mouths should be the basis for written history?

Here are some examples of history 100 years from now in your world:

“There is something on that birth certificate — maybe religion, maybe it says he’s a Muslim, I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t want that. Or, he may not have one.”


“Well, somebody’s doing the raping, Don. I mean somebody’s doing it,” Trump said, according to CNN. “Who’s doing the raping? Who’s doing the raping?”


“There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am“


Children's history book 2118: Donald Trump was the greatest military president in American history to that time.

"I'm also honored to have the greatest temperament that anybody has."


"My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well been documented, are various other parts of my body."


"We should just cancel the election and just give it to Trump."


Children's history book 2118: People in the USA at the time were considering canceling the election and giving it to Trump.

"You know, it really doesn't matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."


"His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being—you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it."


"Iraq and Iran were very similar militarily, and they’d fight, fight, fight, and then they’d rest. They’d fight, fight, fight, and then Saddam Hussein would do the gas, and somebody else would do something else, and they’d rest."


"I've seen numbers of 24 percent—I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent. 5.3 percent unemployment—that is the biggest joke there is in this country.…The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it's a 30, 32. And the highest I've heard so far is 42 percent."


Just reminding everyone that OD defended his position saying:

OD SAID: I gave an explanation and referred to the Civil War thread that gave insight into the actual words of the people of the time. Those actual words far outweigh what one person decides over 100 years later.
#14979056
Drlee wrote:Really? Did you ever study history? Let me ask you a question. Do you want historians 100 years from now to take what Trump says as gospel? Do you believe that every word that comes out of all of our politicians mouths should be the basis for written history?

Here are some examples of history 100 years from now in your world



Since you asked, I am a history major and these things do pop up in history. It is the historian’s job to put them in perspective. The Civil War thread appears to do this very well. I don’t see any instances of what you suggest. If you do, then please point them out. Otherwise your post is irrelevant.
#14979124
@One Degree There are a great many sources for this information. I will cite two more.
That a Canadian abroad has to teach you about your own history should be embarrassing.

Fact #4: The issues of slavery and central power divided the United States.
Slavery was the law of the land, north and south, until the early 19th century. It was concentrated in the southern states, where slaves were used as farm laborers and formed the backbone of the southern economy.In the northern states, where industry drove the economy, many people believed that slavery was immoral and wrong. Southerners felt threatened by these northern “abolitionists” and claimed that the common government had no power to end slavery against the wishes of the states. Eventually, southerners became convinced that the common government would attempt to abolish slavery nation-wide. Eleven states left the United States in the following order and formed the Confederate States of America: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... -civil-war

Slavery

Slavery was a major cause of disunion.[29] Although there were opposing views even in the Union States,[30][31] most northern soldiers were mostly indifferent on the subject of slavery,[32] while Confederates fought the war mainly to protect a southern society of which slavery was an integral part.[33] From the anti-slavery perspective, the issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an anachronistic evil that was incompatible with republicanism. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment—to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction.[34] The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their Constitutional rights.[35] Southern whites believed that the emancipation of slaves would destroy the South's economy, due to the large amount of capital invested in slaves and fears of integrating the ex-slave black population.[36] In particular, southerners feared a repeat of "the horrors of Santo Domingo", in which nearly all white people – including men, women, children, and even many sympathetic to abolition – were killed after the successful slave revolt in Haiti. Historian Thomas Fleming points to the historical phrase "a disease in the public mind" used by critics of this idea, and proposes it contributed to the segregation in the Jim Crow era following emancipation.[37] These fears were exacerbated by the recent attempts of John Brown to instigate an armed slave rebellion in the South.

Slavery was illegal in much of the North, having been outlawed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It was also fading in the border states and in Southern cities, but it was expanding in the highly profitable cotton districts of the rural South and Southwest. Subsequent writers on the American Civil War looked to several factors explaining the geographic divide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
#14979127
Godstud wrote:@One Degree There are a great many sources for this information. I will cite two more.
That a Canadian abroad has to teach you about your own history should be embarrassing.

Fact #4: The issues of slavery and central power divided the United States.
Slavery was the law of the land, north and south, until the early 19th century. It was concentrated in the southern states, where slaves were used as farm laborers and formed the backbone of the southern economy.In the northern states, where industry drove the economy, many people believed that slavery was immoral and wrong. Southerners felt threatened by these northern “abolitionists” and claimed that the common government had no power to end slavery against the wishes of the states. Eventually, southerners became convinced that the common government would attempt to abolish slavery nation-wide. Eleven states left the United States in the following order and formed the Confederate States of America: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... -civil-war

Slavery

Slavery was a major cause of disunion.[29] Although there were opposing views even in the Union States,[30][31] most northern soldiers were mostly indifferent on
the subject of slavery,[32] while Confederates fought the war mainly to protect a southern society of which slavery was an integral part.
[33] From the anti-slavery perspective, the issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an anachronistic evil that was incompatible with republicanism. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment—to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction.[34] The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their Constitutional rights.[35] Southern whites believed that the emancipation of slaves would destroy the South's economy, due to the large amount of capital invested in slaves and fears of integrating the ex-slave black population.[36] In particular, southerners feared a repeat of "the horrors of Santo Domingo", in which nearly all white people – including men, women, children, and even many sympathetic to abolition – were killed after the successful slave revolt in Haiti. Historian Thomas Fleming points to the historical phrase "a disease in the public mind" used by critics of this idea, and proposes it contributed to the segregation in the Jim Crow era following emancipation.[37] These fears were exacerbated by the recent attempts of John Brown to instigate an armed slave rebellion in the South.

Slavery was illegal in much of the North, having been outlawed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It was also fading in the border states and in Southern cities, but it was expanding in the highly profitable cotton districts of the rural South and Southwest. Subsequent writers on the American Civil War looked to several factors explaining the geographic divide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War


If you are going to teach me, you need to understand your own sources as a start. They don’t dispute what I said, they just diminish it by writing more about slavery. You then misinterpret ‘volume’ as ‘a definitive decision’.
I bolded one deliberate attempt to prejudice the view. See if you can figure out why it is misleading.
#14979128
:roll: It's not about "volume". It's about facts. You like to ignore facts that don't support your fanciful fantasies.
#14979131
Godstud wrote::roll: It's not about "volume". It's about facts. You like to ignore facts that don't support your fanciful fantasies.


Your own source tells you the Northern soldiers did not care about slavery. It tells you the Southern soldiers were fighting for their society (State’s rights), then adds the totally extraneous information that slavery was part of that society. The only reason to include this in the sentence is to give the impression the Southerners were fighting for slavery when they didn’t actually say that. It is deliberately misleading.
Your own source says these men were not fighting for slavery and you use it as proof they were.
To save yourself some time, you are not going to find anything in Wikipedia to add to the tremendous amount of information that has been written on the causes of the Civil War.
#14979138
It's not misleading. It's facts. You don't even know your own country's history. You downplay slavery as a major source of dissent. Slavery was a MAJOR factor. I take it you didn't read the other source I posted, or was that simply too much facts in one place?

Slavery was a major reason for the Civil War. if you can't accept that, it's simply because you can't accept reality.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

It doesn't matter. You are trying to defend Londo[…]

@Drlee writing like a conservative for the first[…]

You are dealing with lying president and a bunch […]

Here are another few reasons why travelling by tra[…]