House slavery would never become economically un-realistic.

(08-16-2011 03:43 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Sorry, it is unlike that. The important part being that it's a voluntary contract between employer and employee.

As I stated, I'm not talking about the moral piece of it. I'm saying that in the context of industry it's like that. If tomorrow someone came and said you must double the salary of every employee you have the economic impact would be substantial. The south's dependence on slavery was about industry and economics.

(08-16-2011 04:23 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  House slavery would never become economically un-realistic.

House slavery is not this issue. The end of "field slavery" make ALL slavery un-realistic because at that point the fear of ostracism becomes the next incentive.

Here are a couple of question for you Abe lovers.

Why did honest Abe not do as most of the Presidents after him have done in regard to nations that do not respect human rights?

The overwhelming majority of them have chosen to simply ostracize nations that have poor human rights policies.

If you really believe that this stuff is that important then why don't you openly and vocally support invading the hell out EVERY damn nation that does not respect human rights?

After all...The CSA was a nation.

(08-16-2011 07:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Here are a couple of question for you Abe lovers.

Why did honest Abe not do as most of the Presidents after him have done in regard to nations that do not respect human rights?

The overwhelming majority of them have chosen to simply ostracize nations that have poor human rights policies.

If you really believe that this stuff is that important then why don't you openly and vocally support invading the hell out EVERY damn nation that does not respect human rights?

After all...The CSA was a nation.

Jebus H Cricket, up is down and down is up. The CSA is the victim, don't you know?

I have consistently been an advocate for an aggressive US foreign policy that encourages and supports, through violence if needed, nascent democracy. I've been to, and experienced, totalitarian BS in countries such as Indonesia and Burma. I've been detained in Jakarta because my papers weren't in order. The Burmese junta interrogated my father during a business trip to Rangoon. So I need no lecture from molly-coddled nihilists who take advantage of all the luxury of the greatest civil liberties in the history of humanity on how Lincoln was wrong in his painful decision to fight the Civil War.

Ostracism to defeat slavery?

* 1865 United States abolishes slavery
* 1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
* 1886 Cuba abolishes slavery
* 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery
* 1894 Korea abolishes slavery
* 1905 Siam (Thailand) abolishes slavery
* 1906 China abolishes slavery
* 1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery
* 1942 Ethiopia abolishes slavery
* 1958 Bhutan abolishes slavery
* 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
* 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
* 1970 Oman abolishes slavery
* 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

How ******* long were you willing to see blacks sold into slavery? 10 years? 30 years? 50 years? To 1981? Any answer than "not one minute past the surrender of the CSA" is the only acceptable answer.

By God, I'm tired of undergrad nihilst thinking.

(08-16-2011 08:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How ******* long were you willing to see blacks sold into slavery? 10 years? 30 years? 50 years? To 1981? Any answer than "not one minute past the surrender of the CSA" is the only acceptable answer.

The grammar is a little confusing, but it seems by your own statement that "you were willing to see blacks sold into slavery" at any time prior to the surrender of the CSA.

Granted, that puts you in the company of men like George Washington and Abe Lincoln, but it still seems strange in light of your other comments.

(08-15-2011 08:34 PM)miko33 Wrote:  What is the primary reason(s) that make Lincoln the devil to a few on here?

Because they're bat$hit crazy.

(08-16-2011 08:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-16-2011 07:23 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Here are a couple of question for you Abe lovers.

Why did honest Abe not do as most of the Presidents after him have done in regard to nations that do not respect human rights?

The overwhelming majority of them have chosen to simply ostracize nations that have poor human rights policies.

If you really believe that this stuff is that important then why don't you openly and vocally support invading the hell out EVERY damn nation that does not respect human rights?

After all...The CSA was a nation.

Jebus H Cricket, up is down and down is up. The CSA is the victim, don't you know?

I have consistently been an advocate for an aggressive US foreign policy that encourages and supports, through violence if needed, nascent democracy. I've been to, and experienced, totalitarian BS in countries such as Indonesia and Burma. I've been detained in Jakarta because my papers weren't in order. The Burmese junta interrogated my father during a business trip to Rangoon. So I need no lecture from molly-coddled nihilists who take advantage of all the luxury of the greatest civil liberties in the history of humanity on how Lincoln was wrong in his painful decision to fight the Civil War.

Ostracism to defeat slavery?

* 1865 United States abolishes slavery
* 1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
* 1886 Cuba abolishes slavery
* 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery
* 1894 Korea abolishes slavery
* 1905 Siam (Thailand) abolishes slavery
* 1906 China abolishes slavery
* 1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery
* 1942 Ethiopia abolishes slavery
* 1958 Bhutan abolishes slavery
* 1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
* 1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
* 1970 Oman abolishes slavery
* 1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

How ******* long were you willing to see blacks sold into slavery? 10 years? 30 years? 50 years? To 1981? Any answer than "not one minute past the surrender of the CSA" is the only acceptable answer.

By God, I'm tired of undergrad nihilst thinking.

OK...When does the invasion of Somali begin? Let's get this sh!t started!!:ncaabbs:

Never mind. I presume the real dark folks do not merit that much attention.

(08-17-2011 05:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  OK...When does the invasion of Somali begin? Let's get this sh!t started!!:ncaabbs:

Never mind. I presume the real dark folks do not merit that much attention.

Somalia? You mean the type libertarian paradise you so pine for in this country? No government, no enforcement of law, just let me do what I choose?

We've been in Somalia, and I didn't support the withdrawal of the troops at that time. And considering the current administration, which I didn't vote for, I have somewhere between zero and no influence on the priorities of humanitarian or nascent democracy support operations.

So it's all about shades of brown to you, eh? Yeah, the USA is a veritable cesspool of racist militarism, only helping those pasty white Scandinavians. Nothing to be said about interventions in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Japan and all of Europe?

(08-17-2011 09:17 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Somalia? You mean the type libertarian paradise you so pine for in this country? No government, no enforcement of law, just let me do what I choose?

Care to point out who on this board wants NO government? I know it's not Fo, just wondering if you have someone else in mind. I mean, no possible way could you be making a completely hyperbolic argument, could you?

(08-16-2011 08:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How ******* long were you willing to see blacks sold into slavery? 10 years? 30 years? 50 years? To 1981? Any answer than "not one minute past the surrender of the CSA" is the only acceptable answer.

You realize slavery (and certainly not racial inequality) in the U.S. didn't stop right after the Civil War ended, right? And you also realize that most of the soldiers who died in the war were not the slave owners themselves, don't you? I don't think the slight deceleration of oppression that resulted from the war was worth 625,000+ people dying. Not to mention, much of the South was so thoroughly messed up and neglected by the gov't after the war that it made it impossible for most blacks in the South to make a decent living, and many didn't have the means to move up North.

(08-17-2011 09:17 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 05:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  OK...When does the invasion of Somali begin? Let's get this sh!t started!!:ncaabbs:

Never mind. I presume the real dark folks do not merit that much attention.

Somalia? You mean the type libertarian paradise you so pine for in this country? No government, no enforcement of law, just let me do what I choose?

We've been in Somalia, and I didn't support the withdrawal of the troops at that time. And considering the current administration, which I didn't vote for, I have somewhere between zero and no influence on the priorities of humanitarian or nascent democracy support operations.

So it's all about shades of brown to you, eh? Yeah, the USA is a veritable cesspool of racist militarism, only helping those pasty white Scandinavians. Nothing to be said about interventions in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Japan and all of Europe?

So why did we stand idly by while Cambodians were slaughtered by the hundred thousand by the Khmer Rouge? Why aren't we in Darfur?

(08-17-2011 09:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 09:17 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Somalia? You mean the type libertarian paradise you so pine for in this country? No government, no enforcement of law, just let me do what I choose?

Care to point out who on this board wants NO government? I know it's not Fo, just wondering if you have someone else in mind. I mean, no possible way could you be making a completely hyperbolic argument, could you?

This board has a hard on for self-enforcement. Myself included many times.

But +1 to you for your semantic win on the call-out of my lazy language by sayin "no" government instead of the better stated "limited" government.

(08-17-2011 10:00 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So why did we stand idly by while Cambodians were slaughtered by the hundred thousand by the Khmer Rouge? Why aren't we in Darfur?

How in Sam Hell am I supposed to deploy the US military to overseas hot-spots? What a strange question.

I support, and have supported for years, the military intervention in humanitarian and nascent democracy movements. My support /= to my ability to physically deploy American troops!

I'll step back for a while. I do honestly like all of you and admire many of your stands. And Fo, sorry for the name calling, that wasn't cool. Reb, I know you were just itchin' to be a little meaner to me in your posts, and you held back, thanks for not escalating.

Let me just say that personally, I am positively amazed that this board has so many revisionist views on the Civil War. Maybe it's because so many of you are from the South, and the views on the loss are more personal. So very many of you are limited government types who seemingly are cool with an entire subjegated race, so that you can maintain an ideological purity of hatin' the man and loving the Constitution. When faced with slavery of despotism or facism, that priority is foreign to me. Sometimes you ought to just do what is right. Even if you have to post against your main ideology.

(08-17-2011 10:27 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  So very many of you are limited government types who seemingly are cool with an entire subjegated race,

More hyperbole.

(08-17-2011 10:18 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 10:00 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So why did we stand idly by while Cambodians were slaughtered by the hundred thousand by the Khmer Rouge? Why aren't we in Darfur?

How in Sam Hell am I supposed to deploy the US military to overseas hot-spots? What a strange question.

I support, and have supported for years, the military intervention in humanitarian and nascent democracy movements. My support /= to the physical deployment of American troops!

Where exactly did I say any of that? Generally on this board, when someone asks someone else a question, it's asking for their opinion, not saying "Hey, you must have the power to authorize this." Try to stay on task for once instead of dancing around the question.

(08-17-2011 10:27 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'll step back for a while. I do honestly like all of you and admire many of your stands. And Fo, sorry for the name calling, that wasn't cool. Reb, I know you were just itchin' to be a little meaner to me in your posts, and you held back, thanks for not escalating.

Let me just say that personally, I am positively amazed that this board has so many revisionist views on the Civil War. Maybe it's because so many of you are from the South, and the views on the loss are more personal. So very many of you are limited government types who seemingly are cool with an entire subjegated race, so that you can maintain an ideological purity of hatin' the man and loving the Constitution. When faced with slavery of despotism or facism, that priority is foreign to me. Sometimes you ought to just do what is right. Even if you have to post against your main ideology.

I'm amazed how many revisionists there are like you up North who still like to pretend that "their side" was on some kind of moral crusade to end slavery and to "preserve the union."

(08-17-2011 10:32 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 10:18 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 10:00 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So why did we stand idly by while Cambodians were slaughtered by the hundred thousand by the Khmer Rouge? Why aren't we in Darfur?

How in Sam Hell am I supposed to deploy the US military to overseas hot-spots? What a strange question.

I support, and have supported for years, the military intervention in humanitarian and nascent democracy movements. My support /= to the physical deployment of American troops!

Where exactly did I say any of that? Generally on this board, when someone asks someone else a question, it's asking for their opinion, not saying "Hey, you must have the power to authorize this." Try to stay on task for once instead of dancing around the question.

Then I don't understand you question to me on why the US Govenment doesn't intervene. You came out of left field asking me why the US Government didn't intervene in Cambodia and Sudan. They don't intervene for whatever their raison d'être.

(08-17-2011 10:36 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 10:27 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'll step back for a while. I do honestly like all of you and admire many of your stands. And Fo, sorry for the name calling, that wasn't cool. Reb, I know you were just itchin' to be a little meaner to me in your posts, and you held back, thanks for not escalating.

Let me just say that personally, I am positively amazed that this board has so many revisionist views on the Civil War. Maybe it's because so many of you are from the South, and the views on the loss are more personal. So very many of you are limited government types who seemingly are cool with an entire subjegated race, so that you can maintain an ideological purity of hatin' the man and loving the Constitution. When faced with slavery of despotism or facism, that priority is foreign to me. Sometimes you ought to just do what is right. Even if you have to post against your main ideology.

I'm amazed how many revisionists there are like you up North who still like to pretend that "their side" was on some kind of moral crusade to end slavery and to "preserve the union."

Then why do you think we went to war?