54% Of Republicans Believe Obama Is A Muslim

[Remobz]

Threads like this feel a little intolerant to me. Why does it matter if he's Muslim? An even better question; why does it matter what stupid people think?

The day America has a Muslim President is the day some foreign Muslim super power conquers the great America. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

 

[schmuckley]

This is who Obama traded for Bergdahl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_Five

"All five are deemed "high" risk to the United States "

The worst of the worst.
nice.

What about that oath to protect ..eh..nevermind..

 

[Vic]

So you subscribe to the war of northern aggression theory?

Always a sure sign of crazy.

 

[fskimospy]

Always a sure sign of crazy.

I always found it funny that the south doesn't view the systematic enslavement, torture, rape, and murder of a race of people as tyranny; they view someone stopping them as tyranny.

 

[dank69]

I always found it funny that the south doesn't view the systematic enslavement, torture, rape, and murder of a race of people as tyranny; they view someone stopping them as tyranny.

The North was intolerant of intolerance!

 

[realibrad]

What is it that makes 5 released high-level Taliban not dangerous to Americans?

As for Buchanan..It was Lincoln that made the final decisions to invade the South..He behaved largely as a despot, to be honest.

Oh yeah..and here's how Egypt feels about the Muslim Brotherhood:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fe-prison-including-leader-Mohamed-Badie.html

Why and how people don't know basic American history is amazing. Here is a quick order of events.

Some states succeeded.
Lincoln did not invade.
The Confederate army attacked the Union army at Fort Sumter

There was also the fact that the Confederate army fired on an unarmed supply ship called the "Star of the West"

The south fired the first shots.

 

[brycejones]

Why and how people don't know basic American history is amazing. Here is a quick order of events.

Some states succeeded.
Lincoln did not invade.
The Confederate army attacked the Union army at Fort Sumter

There was also the fact that the Confederate army fired on an unarmed supply ship called the "Star of the West"

The south fired the first shots.

It wasn't the south. The CIA went back in time and executed a false flag operation to frame the kind and gentle people of the South who wanted nothing more than peace and prosperity on the backs of their of the happy slaves.

 

[schmuckley]

getting OT here..
"In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/

Mostly it was fought over tariffs.
The issue of slavery was secondary..if not tertiary or less..

 

[rudeguy]

getting OT here..
"In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/

Mostly it was fought over tariffs.
The issue of slavery was secondary..if not tertiary or less..

Dude you are a moron. You are not helping anyone by posting the stupid shit you post.

First your 223 thread and now this?

Step away from the internet. You are done for the day.

 

[fskimospy]

getting OT here..
"In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/

Mostly it was fought over tariffs.
The issue of slavery was secondary..if not tertiary or less..

That is insanely, ridiculously wrong.

If you have any doubt that the south seceded because of slavery go read the various ordinances of secession. The south came right out and explicitly stated they were seceding because of slavery.

There has been a pretty strong revisionist history movement in the US trying to make the South appear less horrible than it was. This is probably because people don't want to accept the fact that the confederacy existed to perpetuate race based enslavement.

 

[realibrad]

getting OT here..
"In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated near the end of the war."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/

Mostly it was fought over tariffs.
The issue of slavery was secondary..if not tertiary or less..

That article is written by someone who is not a historian.

I ask you this, what did the south want freedom from?

To say that the Civil War was not about slavery is ignorant of the facts. Lincoln ran on a anti-slavery ticket. The whole group was running on anti-slavery. The tariffs were an issue, but not the cause of succession. You can tell this, by the fact that the south did not leave after they were passed, but instead, left after Lincoln won his election.

The historical context was that the north was largely anti-slavery and the south was not. There had been rising tensions over this issue, which is why the election was so important. Cali was a big state, that could tip the tide in the anti slavery movement. With Cali, the south was outnumbered and the 13th constitutional amendment could be passed. The victory of Lincoln was seen as the final nail in the slavery coffin. That is the reason the south left before Lincoln even took office, because it was assumed.

The nation saw a Lincoln win as the path to ending slavery. Lincoln also saw this, and knew it could very well spark a civil war. That is why he did not push for the 13th constitutional amendment, because he felt it would trigger a war. He sought to try and work out a deal with the south almost the entire war. He personally said that slavery was wrong and wanted it ended. He also knew that if it were simply ended, there would be a war. He figured a compromise that would eventually lead to the end of slavery would be best.

So, to say that the Civil war was not about slavery is wrong. There is a reason just about every historian that has researched the topic agrees that slavery was the key issue.

 

[fskimospy]

That article is written by someone who is not a historian.

I ask you this, what did the south want freedom from?

To say that the Civil War was not about slavery is ignorant of the facts. Lincoln ran on a anti-slavery ticket. The whole group was running on anti-slavery. The tariffs were an issue, but not the cause of succession. You can tell this, by the fact that the south did not leave after they were passed, but instead, left after Lincoln won his election.

The historical context was that the north was largely anti-slavery and the south was not. There had been rising tensions over this issue, which is why the election was so important. Cali was a big state, that could tip the tide in the anti slavery movement. With Cali, the south was outnumbered and the 13th constitutional amendment could be passed. The victory of Lincoln was seen as the final nail in the slavery coffin. That is the reason the south left before Lincoln even took office, because it was assumed.

The nation saw a Lincoln win as the path to ending slavery. Lincoln also saw this, and knew it could very well spark a civil war. That is why he did not push for the 13th constitutional amendment, because he felt it would trigger a war. He sought to try and work out a deal with the south almost the entire war. He personally said that slavery was wrong and wanted it ended. He also knew that if it were simply ended, there would be a war. He figured a compromise that would eventually lead to the end of slavery would be best.

So, to say that the Civil war was not about slavery is wrong. There is a reason just about every historian that has researched the topic agrees that slavery was the key issue.

To know that the Civil War was about slavery all you need to do is read this:

http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf

 

[Jaskalas]

To know that the Civil War was about slavery all you need to do is read this:

http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf

You guys keep listing the reason for seceding, not the reason for that movement to turn to bloody war.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys keep listing the reason for seceding, not the reason for that movement to turn to bloody war.

The secession was the reason it became a bloody war, and the secession was due to slavery.

 

[piasabird]

Many people have a kinship to their country of origin. The same would hold true to people who were Irish or Italian or British, etc. You judge a man by his actions. Look at his political decisions. The man seems to treat Christians and Jews poorly while making decisions that seem to favor the Muslim point of view. His actions say he is pro-Muslim and Anti Christian, and Anti-Zionist.

Men are judged by their actions.

 

[Jaskalas]

The secession was the reason it became a bloody war, and the secession was due to slavery.

Two sides existed on the issue of slavery, but they killed each other for other, more practical reasons. The Confederacy wanted the withdrawal of the Union army from South Carolina. They were stupidly aggressive about it, but Fort Sumter was not about slavery.

Americans simply could not let each other live and let live.

 

[realibrad]

You guys keep listing the reason for seceding, not the reason for that movement to turn to bloody war.

It "grew" into a bloody war. I honestly don't think either side wanted blood, but knew it was going to happen because both sides were not going to budge. Lincoln seemed to desperately not want a war, and was very willing to try and compromise. The emancipation proclamation was itself an attempt to compromise. The union states could have simply freed all slaves, but Lincoln hoped that he could get the south to return by giving them the option to keep the slaves if they joined back.

The war got bloody because that is what wars do when both sides do not want to surrender and don't compromise.

A little research will show that the issue of slavery had been boiling for a long while. As far back as Jefferson, it was understood that there was going to be a big problem with slavery.

 

[fskimospy]

Two sides existed on the issue of slavery, but they killed each other for other, more practical reasons. The Confederacy wanted the withdrawal of the Union army from South Carolina. They were stupidly aggressive about it, but Fort Sumter was not about slavery.

Americans simply could not let each other live and let live.

Fort Sumter was absolutely about slavery. The Confederacy wanted to establish a new, sovereign territory in order to protect slavery. Federal holdings on that territory were standing in the way of that.

If someone stabs you while trying to take your wallet because they want your money you can't say that the confrontation wasn't about your wallet.

 

[realibrad]

Two sides existed on the issue of slavery, but they killed each other for other, more practical reasons. The Confederacy wanted the withdrawal of the Union army from South Carolina. They were stupidly aggressive about it, but Fort Sumter was not about slavery.

Americans simply could not let each other live and let live.

Saying Fort Sumter was not about slavery, is like saying that D-Day was not about the Nazi party. Its very likely that there would not have been a civil war if slavery was not an issue. The south did not like tariffs, but they did not leave until they felt slavery was on the table.

 

[brycejones]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/john-v-denson/why-did-lincoln-invade-the-south/

Lewrockwell is the same site A420 went to all the time. That fact alone speaks volumes about that site's accuracy and point of view.

I think the last time we had this debate it was with A420 as a matter of fact. Schmuckley you have hit a new low.

 

[Jhhnn]

The ability of the conservative mind to enter denial is often astounding.

Schmuckley represents Bergdahl to be a traitor rather than a deserter/AWOL, but Jefferson Davis obviously wasn't a traitor because.... why, he was just resisting the War of Northern Aggression!

Mow-rons who claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery are just apologists for it.

 

[Vic]

I always found it funny that the south doesn't view the systematic enslavement, torture, rape, and murder of a race of people as tyranny; they view someone stopping them as tyranny.

They falsely believe that freedom includes the freedom to take away someone else's freedom.

Or as Jefferson so eloquently stated: "What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment . . . inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose."

 

[Vic]

Many people have a kinship to their country of origin. The same would hold true to people who were Irish or Italian or British, etc. You judge a man by his actions. Look at his political decisions. The man seems to treat Christians and Jews poorly while making decisions that seem to favor the Muslim point of view. His actions say he is pro-Muslim and Anti Christian, and Anti-Zionist.

Men are judged by their actions.

Which actions were those again?

BTW, in line with the current discussion, early Mormons were abolitionists who sided with the North. That's a big reason why they got massacred in Missouri in 1838. And now look who you're siding with.

 

[fskimospy]

They falsely believe that freedom includes the freedom to take away someone else's freedom.

Or as Jefferson so eloquently stated: "What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment . . . inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose."

That's particularly interesting coming from Jefferson, who kept his slaves for his entire life. Interesting that he could see his own contradictions and then keep going with them.

 

[realibrad]

That's particularly interesting coming from Jefferson, who kept his slaves for his entire life. Interesting that he could see his own contradictions and then keep going with them.

A lot of his writings are muses about that subject. To be able to do what he did was no small feat. Its pretty amazing how society as a whole was able to do what it did. I really do think that slavery in the way it came to be in that time, could not have gotten as prolific and brutal if it did not have the enforcement of the state. Its kinda like WW2, where people kinda knew horrible things were going on, but used the argument that it was out of their hands. Very sad, very sick.