What are your political deal breakers?

DonAlejandroVega said:
mmmmmm...........Kool-Aid
Click to expand...

first reason listed, six full sentences dedicated to it.

Screenshot2014-04-22at13126AM_zpsb3ab87aa.png
 
DonAlejandroVega said:
mmmmmm...........Kool-Aid
Click to expand...
I gotta admit. The bucktard is correct in that slavery played a major role in secession, it was either the first or second reason in the majority of states declarations. Tariffs played a role too but the ruling elite didn't want to give up slaves.

As for billy bob who never owned slaves and worked his own land, he was fighting because fereners were invading their lands and shooting at them, burning their crops and raping their women. It's a really dark period and pretending it was the war on slavery helps people to justify it.

Buck thinks the northern soldiers were fighting to free slaves and the southern soldiers were fighting to keep slaves (that 97% didn't own) It makes him feel better so let him.
 
UncleBuck said:
so black families should have endured another 50 or so years of slavery so that racist like you wouldn't be so bitter?

i'd love to see you preach this in real life.
Click to expand...
No.

It has nothing to do with me.

Look, they had shitty lives as slaves, and shittier as free. All that improved for them was they could live secure in the knowledge that their spouse or children wouldn't be sold. A vast improvement to be sure, but their quality of life still sucked.

But because of the spite generated by the forced emancipation, their father or older brother might be hanged for looking at a white woman. Or operating a business.

So the equation is this. ...

50 more years of slavery, then I imagine after voluntarily emancipation their plight would have started out at what analogue? 1964, 1970?

As it happened they were shit on for 100 years after the war, or longer, and there is a good measure of animosity between the races. It's getting better quicker now I think.

If there weren't forced emancipation, freedom and some civil rights at emancipation probably at 1900 give or take a decade.

There was no hatred prior to the civil war, not saying they were treated humane, they were treated like cattle, it wasn't out of hate though, the kkk, Jim Crow, and lynchings were out of hate.

That hate wouldn't have happened, and their climb to equality would have been easier and faster.

MLK's father might have been a leading Civil rights leader. MLK would have likely been the Jesse Jackson of the 1960's.
 
ginwilly said:
I gotta admit. The bucktard is correct in that slavery played a major role in secession
Click to expand...

that's not what you argue over on pocket 5s, two face.

ginwilly said:
pretending it was the war on slavery helps people to justify it.
Click to expand...

well that didn't take long. now the states were just "pretending" it was about slavery when they said so as they seceded.

fucking historical revisionist retards.
 
The south seceded to ensure their economic system; slave plantation cotton.

The south didn't start the war though.

It wasn't secession and declaration of war.

The north assembled an army, and made it clear they were going to use it.
 
UncleBuck said:
and historical revisionism gives way to outright historical denialism.
Click to expand...
I worded that poorly.

The words I chose seem to contemplate that everyone loved blacks.

They were thought of like cattle. They were just as nice, or cruel to the slaves as they are cattle or pigs. That's almost evil in my book.

But, it wasn't the same flavor as lynch mobs.
 
BigNBushy said:
I worded that poorly.

The words I chose seem to contemplate that everyone loved blacks.

They were thought of like cattle. They were just as nice, or cruel to the slaves as they are cattle or pigs. That's almost evil in my book.

But, it wasn't the same flavor as lynch mobs.
Click to expand...

you're an idiot.
 
UncleBuck said:
more historical revisionism.

the south fired the first shot.
Click to expand...
Firing the first shot, and starting the war are not the same thing.

FT. Sumpter was being occupied by a foreign army and they refused to leave.

Abe made it clear there would be a war.

He had already made it clear he was going to invade.

The war was started before any shots were fired.
 
BigNBushy said:
Firing the first shot, and starting the war are not the same thing.

FT. Sumpter was being occupied by a foreign army and they refused to leave.

Abe made it clear there would be a war.

He had already made it clear he was going to invade.

The war was started before any shots were fired.
Click to expand...

so the south fractured the union and fired first, but it's all totally the north's fault.
 
UncleBuck said:
so the south fractured the union and fired first, but it's all totally the north's fault.
Click to expand...
If Canada raised an army, massed it on our border, and said they were coming, would we be guilty of starting the war if we attacked them?

The south had no intention of going to war, read your history, it's all Lincoln.

That's a good thing as it preserved the union.

There is a chance we would have reunited.

There is also a good chance that there would be 5 or 6 countries in what is now the United States.
 
BigNBushy said:
There is also a good chance that there would be 5 or 6 countries in what is now the United States.
Click to expand...

If state sovereignty is eliminated by the central planners this our most likely outcome anyway. USSR is the blue print for what not to do. We have a good deal too many people here that think Russia just did it wrong.
 
ginwilly said:
If state sovereignty is eliminated by the central planners this our most likely outcome anyway. USSR is the blue print for what not to do. We have a good deal too many people here that think Russia just did it wrong.
Click to expand...
I think secession of a number of states is a rather good idea.

The old confederacy is 13 states, 100 million people, and the 3rd or 4th largest economy in the world.

We could start over, no debt.

I'd vote yes.
 
I will never vote for a candidate who has been evenslightly sympathetic to those who advocate for pedophiles. Just rubs me the wrong way.
 
killemsoftly said:
I will never vote for a candidate who has been evenslightly sympathetic to those who advocate for pedophiles. Just rubs me the wrong way.
Click to expand...

If that was an intentional pun then bravo . Agree about pedos though. They are the nut low.

Question though, our most famous pedo in history was Mohamed, does this mean you will never vote for someone of Muslim faith?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top