In the News II

Quote: odiousgambit

I assume you are referring to Musk saying "Slavery was standard practice throughout human history until it was ended by White people." Well, you are certainly correct, white people do not get credit although this statement, though designed to provoke the Woke, is basically true.
Lots of white people did participate in the past. But it is also true that the only places in the world where it is still practiced are where people of color are in charge. Ironic, eh?

If slavery was ended by White people, why do we still have slavery? And what are the White people going to do about it?

Musk's statement is true, if you exclude the White people who fought to keep slavery, and people like Musk who doesn't think that was or is a bad thing.

And friendly reminder to both you and Elon that only reason slavery ended in the US was those aforementioned White people started a war to keep it. Where would slavery be in the US if they didn't?

Quote: GenoDRPh

If slavery was ended by White people, why do we still have slavery?

I just told you, people of color are keeping it going in parts of the world.

Quote:

And what are the White people going to do about it?

As much or more than anyone else

Quote:

Musk's statement is true, if you exclude the White people who fought to keep slavery

that war was more complicated than that, but I'll give you that point. Those Democrats!!

Quote:

... and people like Musk who doesn't think that was or is a bad thing.

??

Quote:

And friendly reminder to both you and Elon that only reason slavery ended in the US was those aforementioned White people started a war to keep it.

The war was *started* over the matter of Secession, with no initial purpose to end slavery. That ending slavery became a goal is another matter. I object when someone says the war was *started* over slavery, please note that I do not say that slavery wasn't an essential ingredient. When people say slavery caused the war, I don't disagree . It was an unsolvable difference between regions, a House divided, as Lincoln said

Quote:

Where would slavery be in the US if they didn't?

Come again?

Quote: odiousgambit

I just told you, people of color are keeping it going in parts of the world.

As much or more than anyone else

that war was more complicated than that, but I'll give you that point. Those Democrats!!

??

The war was *started* over the matter of Secession, with no initial purpose to end slavery. That ending slavery became a goal is another matter. I object when someone says the war was *started* over slavery, please note that I do not say that slavery wasn't an essential ingredient. When people say slavery caused the war, I don't disagree . It was an unsolvable difference between regions, a House divided, as Lincoln said
Come again?

If Donny or other White people cared, they'd airstrike the boats of slave runners and seize slave ships and threaten the leaders of those nations with beign deposed. Note that ain't happening.

Don't delude yourself, the US Civil War was fought over slavery. And no serious historian can tell us otherwise.

Those damn Democrats of old! What were they thinking! It's a good thing the Democrats of today are protecting civil rights, while MAGA is thinking of new ways to implement the 14 words.

Fishing boat according to the enemy:

Quote: GenoDRPh

Don't delude yourself, the US Civil War was fought over slavery. And no serious historian can tell us otherwise.

I agree. But the ACW was not begun in order to end slavery, don't delude yourself. A historian, btw, would say the irreconcilable difference was over the *expansion* of slavery into the new territories. The acrimony over that destroyed the Whigs and divided the Democrats into multiple 1860 candidates. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in 10 Southerns states, the final straw for so many who felt that it was time we were two different nations. Things devolved from there.

Quote: odiousgambit

I agree. But the ACW was not begun in order to end slavery, don't delude yourself. A historian, btw, would say the irreconcilable difference was over the *expansion* of slavery into the new territories. The acrimony over that destroyed the Whigs and divided the Democrats into multiple 1860 candidates. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in 10 Southerns states, the final straw for so many who felt that it was time we were two different nations. Things devolved from there.

Southern states feared Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and cause its eventual demise. Screw the Southerner traitors. May they burn in Hell for all eternity for their treason.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Southern states feared Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and cause its eventual demise.

They should have known only war might cause the instant demise of slavery, yet they started a war. They wanted to maintain a balance of power between slave states and free states. Failing that, to get out of the Union.

Quote:

Screw the Southerner traitors. May they burn in Hell for all eternity for their treason.

It's always the same with the Democrats, hard-headed narcissists who don't care what is best for the country, picking hills to die on that in retrospect are shameful.

Quote: odiousgambit

They should have known only war might cause the instant demise of slavery, yet they started a war. They wanted to maintain a balance of power between slave states and free states. Failing that, to get out of the Union.
It's always the same with the Democrats, hard-headed narcissists who don't care what is best for the country, picking hills to die on that in retrospect are shameful.

You don't think Lincoln acted more in the interests of big government? Seems more like a Democrat of today.

Quote:

No, Abraham Lincoln did not strictly believe in "small government" in the modern sense; he supported a strong federal role for promoting opportunity (like infrastructure, education) and preserving the Union, but also believed government shouldn't interfere where individuals or states could handle things well, viewing its purpose as doing for people what they can't do alone. His view was complex: advocating for limited interference in personal lives but strong action for national goals like economic progress and ending slavery, seeing government as an enabler of the "American Dream" for all.

Do you think the facts back up this answer? I would not have any problem with Lincoln as President today. Whereas I have a lot of problems with Republicans of today.

Another reason I could go with Lincoln

Quote:

Abraham Lincoln did not advocate for a theocratic or purely "Biblical government," but he did use Biblical language and moral arguments to appeal to a deeply religious public and frame the meaning of the Civil War. He maintained a firm separation between his personal (and often ambiguous) faith and his public role as a political leader in a secular republic.

I have a lot of trouble with both parties today

there is no shameful legacy that I know of with the Republicans, is all ... excepting individuals

Quote: odiousgambit

I have a lot of trouble with both parties today

there is no shameful legacy that I know of with the Republicans, is all ... excepting individuals

The Republican party is writing its shameful legacy today, as we speak. But hey, if you want to be stuck in amber and vote like it from 2 centuries ago, have fun with that.