RE: The South shall rise again???

RE: The South shall rise again??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 1:36:54 AM)
Nah, they're my friends. I just haven't written to anyone on the other side yet, but figure they'll recognize me sooner or later. M

AquaticSub -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 1:41:17 AM)
Interesting. I usually like to let my friends know when I'm around so I can talk with them instead of waiting for them to figure it out. But to each their own! [:)]

Termyn8or -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 1:41:21 AM)
"To be a criminal one has to break the law. They were not breaking their laws therefore they were not criminals." With that I disagree about 527%. The law is not exhaustive and never will be. Everything else is fine, but I disagree with that specific assertion. T

AquaticSub -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 1:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "To be a criminal one has to break the law. They were not breaking their laws therefore they were not criminals." With that I disagree about 527%. The law is not exhaustive and never will be. Everything else is fine, but I disagree with that specific assertion. T Oh I agree with you that the law isn't exhaustive. But what isn't breaking the law isn't criminal act, unless a society believes in creating laws to punish people after the fact - which is a whole different can of worms! Immoral, repugnant, vile, disgusting? Yup, but unless it breaks a law it's not criminal. Unless you've got some other definition for criminal than the one I'm working with. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal Unless, of course, you mean the adverb criminally. [:)]

dreamofme9669 -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 2:11:05 AM)
Take a look at this website www.fuckthesouth.com

AquaticSub -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 2:28:13 AM)
It's certainly a strongly worded rant but also historically incorrect. The North didn't found America. At least four of the first 13 would be Confederate states and the first colony was Jamestown, VA. Many of the founding fathers were Virginians. Which is ironic, in the context of that statement, given that Richmond would be the capital of the Confederacy till Davis retreated along the tracks. At least it amuses me. [:)]

Hillwilliam -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 5:27:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub It's certainly a strongly worded rant but also historically incorrect. The North didn't found America. At least four of the first 13 would be Confederate states and the first colony was Jamestown, VA. Many of the founding fathers were Virginians. Which is ironic, in the context of that statement, given that Richmond would be the capital of the Confederacy till Davis retreated along the tracks. At least it amuses me. [:)] Why would anyone want to be historically correct when bashing? The opposite is more likely to be true.

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 5:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn dreamofme9669 is a fag So what is your point? M

DarkSteven -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 6:02:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW quote: If you can not see the difference between explaining the thinking of a society hundreds of years ago and agreeing with it, you have a lot of learning to do. You take my calling them criminals, feel you have to explain to me that it wasn't illegal (in the law books) at the time, duh. I cannot afford to look at the actions of the past as legal, or ethical, just because I live in a time where the law has caught up with humanity. Than you take my comments regarding your statement (discussion, not personal feeling of yours I thought) quote: I don't see why you would think the people buying and selling would be the criminals. personally, get defensive, condescending, and vulgar. As I said, whatever gets you through the night. M Ease up. Put the slavery in context. At the time that the Torah was written, slavery was a common practice. It was legal. The antislavery laws had not yet been written - they wouldn't be for a couple of thousand years. So AT THE TIME, the slave buyers, sellers, and owners were entirely legal. The Torah accepted that Jews and non-Jews would own slaves. With that assumption, the Torah laid down rules that governed how the Jews must treat their slaves. For its day, that was pretty shockingly progressive. Obviously, with slavery illegal today, it's a quaint historical item. Edited to add: back on topic, I'm confused by Charles' concept. There is a lot of anger at the federal government - which is what inspired Secession - but it is not localized in the south. Texas governor Rick Perry actually talked about Texas seceding, but most of the rhetoric comes from the Tea Party. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there IS a secession, I don't see the secessionary forces as being confined to the South.

DomImus -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 6:23:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 Being a Yankee in the South was at one time almost as bad as being a Black person.Now,times have changed but there's still a few who still have this mindset. I'm a born and bred Yankee who has lived in Georgia for over thirty years. The first twenty years of that was in less urban (and even somewhat rural) areas with the last ten years or so in the metro Atlanta suburbs.I've never been given any grief about being a Yankee other than good natured joking around any time I mentioned that I was a product of the superior "Nawthun" education system (also intended in good natured fun). At no time was being a Yankee (I think the industry term is "Damn Yankee") almost as bad as being a black person for those folks who had issues with blacks, in my experience. Not even close. I had an opportunity for many years to work alongside other transplanted Yankees and the only ones who were ever really taken to task deserved it. They were jerks. In Atlanta and the surrounding suburbs I actually think there are more non-native Atlantans than there are native Atlantans. Just my observations.

Edwynn -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 6:45:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn dreamofme9669 is a fag So what is your point? M It's called irony. Read the rant. PS While we're at it, you might take notice of the bit of information just beneath the poster's nick. A post like that one as the first and only post of someone with no profile means what's called a "sock puppet," meaning someone who is a regular at a forum but is too chickenships to use their regular nick, so as to lob a drive-by shidtball like that one. Like I said, a fag.

thishereboi -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 6:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW That's your only observation and opinion rule, misspelling attitude? Charles, I don't think anyone's going to touch this... It's too uncomfortable a subject, and objective discussion does not quite do justice to something fairly subjective and personal to each. M Yea, spelling is about the only thing worth mentioning in the OP. Unless you want to get into the irony of a bigot posting a rant against racism. [8\|]

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 6:56:19 AM)
quote: At the time that the Torah was written, slavery was a common practice. It was legal. The antislavery laws had not yet been written - they wouldn't be for a couple of thousand years. So AT THE TIME, the slave buyers, sellers, and owners were entirely legal. How is accepting inhumanity against humanity helpful? How do I get to yes, it was okay because it wasn't illegal (in the books) at the time? How do I accept the majority of the people accepted the laws as they were, so therefore nothing was wrong? The rich/powerful have always written the laws to suit and bolster their position, but please don't ask me to chill, and understand past, now poof!. Those in power wrote the law, therefore they must have been right! If I were a lawyer, and this was a court of law, I'd grant they were acting within the parameters or the law. As a human being, my position is they were retroactively inhumane, and should be judged as such. quote: Obviously, with slavery illegal today, it's a quaint historical item. Slavery being legal for 400 years, but illegal for the last 60+ years, hardly makes it a quaint historical item where many are concerned. There are plenty of ramifications as a result of those laws. The people who felt it lawful before, and the people who suffered from it, are not yet able to depersonalize it, IMO. Saying slavery is now illegal, so all is resolved/forgotten/equal is a bit naive, if not insensitive? I'm not arguing from a lawyer's perspective. I'm speaking from a human perspective. M

thishereboi -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 6:56:44 AM)
Maybe he wanted to see if he could get a post reported?

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 7:12:53 AM)
lol

Musicmystery -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 7:24:56 AM)
quote: It's called irony. No, it's not.

Edwynn -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 7:35:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It's called irony. No, it's not. It was addressed to that poster and that poster only. I'll accept comment or questions on the matter from that poster.

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 7:47:40 AM)
I'll take your point, regarding new name, and first post, but what do fags have to do with this? Fags are ironic as a group, and should never be taken seriously? M

Edwynn -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 8:18:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW I'll take your point, regarding new name, and first post, but what do fags have to do with this? Fags are ironic as a group, and should never be taken seriously? M - sigh ... No, that's not what I meant or even implied. The OP displays a somewhat 'innocent' bigotry, i.e. he doesn't even realize what a bigot he is. The rant alluded to by "dreamofme-whoever" was by a person who displayed blatant and quite intentional bigotry, the ranter obviously having himself a grand time of it. Since the poster citing that rant felt the need to disrupt attempts at semi-civil discourse with a juvenile stink bomb of blatant bigotry of one sort, I merely responded with another blatant bigotry for purpose of response to that poster. No actual genuine sentiment intended or other intention implied. It was obvious to me that this is the sort of person for whom subtlety would not have much of an effect.

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The South shall rise again??? (1/12/2011 8:25:30 AM)
All of that given, you realize calling him a fag, hardly makes you seem more reasonable or enlightened. M

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125