Warbler

nu·cle·ar
/ˈn(y)o͞oklēər/

https://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS694US694&oq=nuclear&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61j0l4.2598j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

click on the

CatBus said:

NeverarGreat said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

What do you mean Republicans are saying the name of their party wrong?

“Their” in that context meaning the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. As an exercise, go through any official Republican press release, speech by a Republican national candidate, or opinion piece by a Republican political operative, for the past ten years, and see if you can find even one saying the words “Democratic Party” when talking about their opposition. Just one reference using the actual name of a major US political party in the age of the Internet when anyone can look anything up, shouldn’t be a problem, right? Yeah, not so much. Now go back thirty years, and the same exercise is easy.

They once got it right every single time, and then suddenly they all got it wrong every single time. Staying on message is one thing the Republicans tend to do very well, even for petty name-calling. Shit, look at Freedom Fries or Death Taxes or whatnot. They even rode with Homicide Bombers for a week or so when even their own people couldn’t bear how stupid it sounded from the get-go. They practically have their own Newspeak division.

Although calling them the ‘Democrat Party’ was an insult by Republicans, it has been so ingrained in their speech patterns that they probably think theirs is the ‘proper’ way of saying it. There’s some sense to that after all. The Republicans and the Republican party are the same word, so it makes sense that the Democrats and the Democrat party would follow the same rule. It’s stupid, sure. But at least there’s some consistency in that thought.

Oh I get that after so many years, it’s ingrained and people have even been raised never knowing it by another name so it probably sounds wrong when it’s said correctly. But the point is that it was a conscious choice to do things wrong, in an attempt to goad Dems into wasting their time being pedantic and correct instead of talking about issues. You think Dubya didn’t really know how to pronounce “nuclear”? That was as rehearsed as his fake Texas accent, designed to make him seem the poor everyman, beset by the mocking self-righteous intelligentsia. And it worked.

So when you make fun of Trump, don’t do it about the P’s and Q’s. Just stick to the pee.

I am not so sure it is all rehearsed and a conscious choice and whatnot. I honestly think W. Bush could not pronounce “nuclear”. I also honestly think Trump is a dope.

What do you mean Republicans are saying the name of their party wrong?

Bingowings said:

Final, Final day at my current job today.
It feels weird.
I did two ten hour shifts this week to clear my desk. So now I’ve kind of run out of things to do but a co-worker who is also leaving today and myself are really not sure what is happening next. very strange 😄

I hope you are moving to a new and better job and not getting fired or something like that.

http://6abc.com/utah-nurse-screaming-handcuffed-after-refusing-blood-test-on-unconscious-patient/2365927/

*sigh*

The guy makes W. Bush look like a scholar.

He was in a whole lot of things. 😦

ok, I tried looking it up, but I couldn’t see anything. What does FTFIS mean?

SilverWook said:

These are probably the same sort of idiots who believe Pizzagate is for real. Facts are meaningless to them.

pizzagate?

edit: I looked it up.

I would have to say yes. If the Doctor can change gender, I don’t know others wouldn’t be able to.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

They stated opposition to states’ rights in their secession documents? Didn’t know this.

Yes. Many of the Confederate States listed their “causes for secession” as sort of a formality/justification/PR effort. South Carolina and Georgia certainly included this language, and others may have as well, although I’m not sure about those. Basically, they stated that they (as states) had the right to have slavery without having to defer to the federal government (pro-states’ rights), but also that northern states (as states) had no similar right to decide their own policies about so-called fugitive slaves (anti-states’ rights). Basically the concept of states’ rights extends to the right to own slaves, but no further, as far as the Confederates were concerned. It was an “a la carte” style of Constitutional interpretation, take what you like, discard what you don’t.

perhaps they were arguing that because of the of the fugitive slave clause, the 10th amendment and/or states rights, did not apply to fugitive slaves.

I am just trying to get at the truth.

Sorry, I’m not referring to you, so much as the professional Confederate apologists out there trying to muddy the waters for fun and profit.

I would certainly be against that.

It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory.

perhaps.

There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable.

Fort Sumter was in the south. When south seceded, they thought the area was in their country. I think they gave the north time to get out of the fort, but of course the north was going to recognize the Confederacy. To the north, Fort Sumter was in America, to the South it was in the Confederacy. Thus disagreement and fighting ensued.

If you ignore the fact that Fort Sumter was federal property and wasn’t part of South Carolina to begin with (which is often done),

true, but it was physically in South Carolina.

then that’s what leads to the “the United States failed to surrender quickly enough after the Confederacy laid claim to their territory, therefore the North was the real aggressor” argument I referred to earlier.

The problem is that once you make the jump to the Constitutional right to secession, you’re already just making shit up, so why not add more like “states have the right to just take over federal property” while you’re at it, which people do.

I could be wrong, but I think Jefferson himself thought states that the right to secede from the union. There is also the text of the 9th amendment to consider:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

There is only one legal way to secede from the US – call a Constitutional Convention and re-write the Constitution to create this right.

that would definitely work.

But that’s an intentionally high hurdle, and the Confederates decided to invent another lower legal standard known as “I can because I say so and I have an army”.

So why did they secede when even Lincoln may not have wanted to end slavery in the first place? They saw the writing on the wall – a long-term trend that was not in their favor, and Lincoln’s election was a strong indicator of that trend. By that point, the US had held onto slavery far longer than practically any other Western nation, but worldwide and national opinions were hardening against slavery and eventually the US would catch up. They saw that there would be a time – maybe not now, but soon – when white rule was not even seen as a desirable thing, let alone possible even for the people who did see it as desirable.

What you say makes sense. Sometime, I would like to read the secession documents for myself. I also wonder if there is any documentation of the debates and discussion in the US House and Senate prior to session. Same with the southern state houses and senates.

Wait, no, I started writing about the 2016 election again. Dangit.

lol!

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

You can always find someone who will retroactively apply some less ignoble cause onto the Confederacy. But the fact still stands that when the very people who seceded chose to publicly document exactly why they seceded, they cited slavery and white supremacy as their principal reasons,

true.

and also explicitly stated their direct opposition to the general principle of States’ Rights, only supporting it in a narrow sense as it applied specifically to the ownership of slaves.

They stated opposition to states’ rights in their secession documents? Didn’t know this.

Looking for additional evidence when such plain and unambiguous documentation already exists seems like searching for a way to support a conclusion that’s already been reached.

I am just trying to get at the truth.

It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory.

perhaps.

There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable.

Fort Sumter was in the south. When south seceded, they thought the area was in their country. I think they gave the north time to get out of the fort, but of course the north was going to recognize the Confederacy. To the north, Fort Sumter was in America, to the South it was in the Confederacy. Thus disagreement and fighting ensued.

And it was about slavery and white supremacy, based on what the Confederates said it was about at the time.

Very possible. It is just that a few things don’t add up to me, read what I wrote to yhwx.

All of that is a little beside the point of Confederate statues, which were erected during the Reign of Terror (the Jim Crow era), not by Confederates themselves, but by those who had largely given up on the idea of slavery and instead focused on white supremacy, suppressing voting rights, segregation, lynching, etc. The cause of the Confederate statues has very little to do with slavery and more to do with supporting the domestic terror campaign that erupted after the end of Reconstruction.

It does look that way, more and more.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

I don’t think your argument really make sense.

It wasn’t may argument. I made clear I wasn’t agreeing with the video.

You keep on saying that “maybe the Civil War wasn’t about slavery,”

no that is not what I have been saying, I have being that maybe it wasn’t JUST about slavery.

(which sounds a hell of a lot like a conspiracy theory) but never have the courage of your convictions to follow that theory through.

I don’t have any conspiracy theory. Maybe the Civil War only about slavery. Maybe there were other reasons. I don’t know. At this point I am simply asking questions.

All of the other explanations for the Civil War make no sense.

Here is one thing that doesn’t make sense to me. Everyone says the south fought the war to preserve slavery. Yet seems to clear that the push in the North to end slavery really didn’t begin until the middle of the war. I have been told in this thread that the North wasn’t fighting to free the slaves, but preserve the union. To quote Lincoln:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that

So here is the thing. If the North didn’t care all the much early in the war about freeing the slaves, and slavery is all the south was fighting for, Why couldn’t they make agreement? The south returns to the union and slavery will be preserved.
Sounds like it would have made both sides happy and prevented war, right? So why didn’t this happen?

States’ rights? A state’s right to what, Mr. Warbler?

I agree one of the major things they wanted was a state’s right to decide the slavery issue for themselves.

Economic differences? Economic differences because of what?

Slavery, yes I know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warb certainly needs to invest in a sarcasm detector.

maybe I can find an app for that for my new smart phone.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’ll bet a certain ex-forum member has one.

teamnegative_1

That is not who I was thinking of.

I’ll bet a certain ex-forum member has one.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

.* sigh *

Just type \*sigh\*.

He’s not allowed an neither are you. Its copyrighted.

Jeebus said:

LOL!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/neo-nazi-stabbing-fake-colorado-joshua-witt

What an idiot.

lets just hope its permanent.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Furthermore, I’m not all that impressed by some of the emblems. “In God We Trust” is hardly an appropriate emblem for a nation touting separation of church and state.

If it needs to be taken off things like our money and what not, I’m ok with that.

generalfrevious said:

Warbler said:

generalfrevious said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

Now things are just getting stupid.
http://ew.com/movies/2017/08/26/gone-with-the-wind-theater-canceled-screening/
For those idiots who’ve never seen the movie, spoiler alert the North wins the Civil War.

Hell will freeze over before we ever see an official release of Song Of The South now.

Yes. It’s on MySpleen, though. (Not that that was your point, but I thought I’d mention it.)

Why does this matter? The Confederacy may have lost, but it’s becoming clear the South won the Civil War.

Donald Trump will inevitably declare himself eternal president, and by 2030 all black and latinos in this country will be murdered. He has pardoned Joe Arpaio and has allowed the police to remilitazize while Houston was being wiped off the map by hurricane Harvey. He will stay in power indefinitely by destroying the system of checks and balances, like he has already done with Gorsuch and Arpaio.

I’ve PMed Silverwook about this.

Trying to silence me? Just like how the government is censoring information about climate change from its websites?

Banning me is not going to alter the facts.

but it will shut you up.

deleted.

generalfrevious said:

TV’s Frink said:

You violated the thread rule right down to the specific example.

DuracellEnergizer said:

• No ridiculous doom saying (like all non-Trump supporters will be rounded up and executed)

Reported.

In light of what is happening, the president enacting genocide is not ridiculous doom saying anymore.

We have a confirmed WHITE SUPREMACIST in the White House, and 100 million people who will be unconditionally loyal to him until the day they die.

We have committed genocide multiple times in our nation’s past. Even Hitler ripped off American eugenics laws when he began state persecution of the Jews, and the Holocaust was financed by American corporations. It definitely can happen again.

I shall pm Silverwook about this as well.