Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Are you kidding me?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Are you kidding me? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 7:19:01 AM   
WickedsDesire


Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline
MwahhhhhHHH Hilary

MwahhhhhHHH Obama

MwahhhhhHHH Aliens Actually whilst i was watching his inauguration I thought Aliens were going to land and put a stop to this tomfoolery. But as we all know 8 billion attended and there was simply no place for the mother of all ships to land.

Mr Trump launched an immigration hotline for people to reported suspected 'illegal aliens' in the US.

But, it appears many people got the wrong end of the stick or have been making deliberate hoax calls.

On its opening day, there were mass calls reporting alien and UFO sightings.

Set up amid much controversy, the VOICE hotline launched last week was a bid to tackle and stem illegal immigration.

Twitter users have been trolling the phone number with reports of extraterrestrials. guffaws


So he set up grass anyone looking a bit darkie hotline - oh dear.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 7:25:33 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

MwahhhhhHHH Hilary

MwahhhhhHHH Obama

MwahhhhhHHH Aliens Actually whilst i was watching his inauguration I thought Aliens were going to land and put a stop to this tomfoolery. But as we all know 8 billion attended and there was simply no place for the mother of all ships to land.


?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to WickedsDesire)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 8:15:30 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I suggest, K, that for your own education, that you read the accounts of the suffering...

This is not a man that would have done a fucking thing to prevent the civil war by abolishing one of the primary causes of the war.

Spare me the mind-reading act. I know the history of the Trail of Tears. But the personality of the Founder of the Democratic Party wasn't the subject under contention. Moreover, Trump was right at least insofar as Jackson wanting sectional peace, and also right in daring to think that such an incredibly destructive war might have been avoided.

Could Slavery Have Ended Without the Civil War?

K.



K, Jackson's own Hermitage depended on the continuation of slavery.

As far as your link is concerned, at least four times legislation was introduced which copied the British Empire's formula for the elimination of slavery, where in the government bought the slaves at current value, then abolished slavery thus ending the institution without undue financial hardship on the southern slave owners, and each time the legislation never even made it to the floor.

The reason, the majority of loans held by plantation owners were issued by banks in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and the major collateral on those loans was not the land but the slaves.

Oh yes, the northern states made great strides in the elimination of slavery within those states, but the article you hold so much value in neglects to mention that the ships that carried slaves from Africa to the southern states sailed from Boston and New York.

It neglects the Ivory triangle trade route, Boston to Africa to the Southern States, and when the direct importation of slaves was outlawed, there was a slight change, Boston to Africa to the West Indies, then slaves from the Indies to the southern states, because the importation of slaves born into slavery was still legal.

Then it was cotton from those southern ports to the mills up north.

The problem of slavery was not that the southern states wanted to keep slaves, even in the early 1800's southern slave owners could see the problems arising from being a totally agrarian economy dependent on slavery.

Those southern plantations had two markets for their cotton, the mills in the northern states and England.

However, if slavery was ended by the government purchasing slaves, that meant the southern plantation owners would have the money to pay off loans and do something that would directly impact the economy of the north, building their own mills.

Jackson supported the government buyout, but he was also a realist. He knew it would not happen, and as such fought just as hard to keep the institution.

A sectional peace? As long as slavery existed, it was not going to happen.

Yes slavery could have been abolished without the civil war, but it wasn't. And when the war was over, those bankers from up north came down south and took those plantations and left the south bankrupt.

And the emancipation proclamation didn't do much for the former slaves, it granted them freedom but then left them to generations of share cropping, which was little better.

The civil war created the racism problems we have today, and Jackson was a racist from the word go, so to believe that he could have or would have done a damn thing to end slavery, or find a way to prevent the war is foolish.

Those hundreds of thousands of acres stolen from the indians after the relocation act become even more plantations operated on the backs of slaves.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 8:48:06 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Interesting article in Politco about Trumps ...unusual comments over the past few days.


Trump's dizzying day of interviews
Comments on Civil War, big banks and Kim Jong Un perplex aides, historians.
By JOSH DAWSEY 05/01/17 09:24 PM EDT

President Donald Trump questioned why the Civil War— which erupted 150 years ago over slavery — needed to happen. He said he would be "honored" to meet with Kim Jong-Un, the violent North Korean dictator who is developing nuclear missiles and oppresses his people, under the "right circumstances."

The president floated, and backed away from, a tax on gasoline. Trump said he was "looking at" breaking up the big banks, sending the stock market sliding. He seemed to praise Philippines strongman President Rodrigo Duterte for his high approval ratings. He promised changes to the Republican health care bill, though he has seemed unsure what was in the legislation, even as his advisers whipped votes for it.

And Monday still had nine hours to go.

"It seems to be among the most bizarre recent 24 hours in American presidential history," said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian. "It was all just surreal disarray and a confused mental state from the president."

The interviews — published by Bloomberg, Face the Nation and the SiriusXM radio network — seemed timed to the president's 100-day mark but contained a dizzying amount of news, even for a president who often makes news in stream-of-consciousness comments. Trump's advisers have at times tried to curb his media appearances, worried he will step on his message. "They were not helpful to us," one senior administration official said. "There was no point to do all of them."

White House officials said privately there was no broader strategy behind the interviews. GOP strategists and Capitol Hill aides were puzzled by it all. "I have no idea what they view as a successful media hit," said one senior GOP consultant with close ties to the administration. "He just seemed to go crazy today," a senior GOP aide said.

Trump's comments questioning the need for the Civil War, aired Monday afternoon, seemed to disregard history and downplay slavery, several historians said.

"Why couldn't that one have been worked out?" Trump told SiriusXM, praising Andrew Jackson, who he said would have stopped the war had he still been alive.

The Civil War was largely fought over slavery and its expansion, with Southern states saying they had a right to have slaves and secede from the union. Trump has been compared to Jackson, most prominently by Stephen Bannon, his chief strategist. Trump again praised Jackson on Twitter Monday night saying he saw the war coming. Jackson died years earlier.

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!
8:55 PM - 1 May 2017
9,344 9,344 Retweets 42,508 42,508 likes

"White supremacists, lost causers, states-rights activists could latch onto this,” said David Blight, a Civil War historian at Yale University. “I don’t know if Trump even knows he’s doing it. You can be too ignorant to know you’re ignorant.”

Trump broke with longstanding precedent by telling Bloomberg he would consider a meeting with the North Korean president. The United States has no ties with North Korea and the country has repeatedly tried to fire missiles and build up a stockpile to harm the United States. Recently, the country posted video of the country sending a missile into the White House, blowing it up.

Later in the day, Trump said "none of us are safe," mentioning North Korea. Spicer defended the president's words, crediting the dictator for "assuming power at an early age, and he led his country forward." Other advisers said the meeting would only happen if the president changed his ways, an unlikely scenario, and noted that Trump has criticized the North Korean leader. But Spicer's comments struck many as almost praising the North Korean president.

"I would not say Kim III has moved the country forward," Jay Nordlinger, an editor at the conservative National Review wrote on Twitter. "Why is the presidential spokesman talking like this? Are we America?"

Trump's comments on the big banks to Bloomberg would be favored by Democrats and seemed to take Wall Street officials by surprise. Stock markets immediately slid. Several people close to Trump noted he often uses the phrase “looking at" when asked about a position where he's unfamiliar or doesn't have a definitive answer he wants to give. Spicer later declined to say Trump would do it.

Trump also told Bloomberg he would consider a gas tax — a policy proposal often favored by Democrats — that drew fire from conservative groups more aligned with his agenda, like Club for Growth. The idea even seemed to even take Democrats by surprise, with Sen. Charles Schumer, the Minority Leader, declining to comment. A senior administration official said the idea of a gas tax "had not been seriously proposed by anyone in the White House."

"He did not express support," Spicer said later, adding he was only considering the idea because industry executives asked him to do so.

Trump surprised senior Hill Republicans later Monday by also telling Bloomberg that his proposed health law was likely to change, even as his advisers furiously tried to get votes for the current bill. Some wondered if he was just referring to the bill changing in the Senate, which is widely expected, if it passes the House. Two senior administration officials said there were no big changes coming to the House of Representatives text and that they weren't exactly sure what he was saying. Republican legislators were still seeking guidance from the White House Monday night, officials said.

He also lauded Duterte, the leader in the Philippines, who is notorious for ruling with an iron fist, for being popular. Trump has often praised other rulers who are strong and have high approval ratings, using "famous" and "strong" as high compliments.

"You know he's very popular in the Philippines," Trump said of Duterte, who he praised for getting rid of drugs.

Duterte’s methods for cracking down on drugs, which have included condoning of extrajudicial killings, have drawn scorn from human rights groups and other observers of his record.

The comments took politicians of both parties — and some of his aides — by surprise. They came after Trump had earlier surprised foreign policy experts with a "very friendly" conversation with Duterte on Saturday night, and an invitation to visit the White House. Duterte has not accepted and said he might be too busy to come.

“This is a man who has boasted publicly about killing his own citizens,” Sen. Ben Cardin, a Democrat, said. “The United States is unique in the world because our values — respect for human rights, respect for the rule of law — are our interests. Ignoring human rights will not advance U.S. interests in the Philippines or any place else. Just the opposite.”
Spicer was asked if Trump was "briefed" on Duterte's human rights record. "The president gets fully briefed," he said, not elaborating.

Finally, Trump's mantra of "never retreat-never surrender" was revived by John Dickerson of "Face the Nation," who asked if the president stood by his claims that Obama was a "bad (or sick) guy!" for allegedly tapping his phones in Trump Tower. That claim is unsubstantiated.

"I don't stand by anything," Trump said,before adding: "I think our side's been proven very strongly."

Later, Spicer said Trump fully stood by his comments on Obama.

Pushed by Dickerson, Trump walked away, ending the interview and going back to his desk.

"OK it's enough," he said. "Thank you. Thank you very much."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/01/trump-civil-war-banks-korea-237859

There was also an interesting convo on Morning Joe about it this morning(oh no snowflakes, a lefty discussion)
concerning the dickerson interview(which IS bizarre all on its own), regarding obama and his surveillance.
His bluster over NK and his "relationships with dictators"
And his civil war stupidity.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/president-trump-s-dizzying-series-of-interviews-934409795987

It maybe misdirection but its getting more bizarre not less.
It started(?) with his comments in PA



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 9:36:59 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The civil war created the racism problems we have today, and Jackson was a racist from the word go, so to believe that he could have or would have done a damn thing to end slavery, or find a way to prevent the war is foolish.

Well that's your opinion. And fine, you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

K.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 10:17:47 AM   
WickedsDesire


Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline
Why a penguin? (why not a penguin)

he is right - the Republican Supporters of Trump also fascinate me - granted they do defy complete logic...and coherence....and rationality etc

As soon as he understands the concept of alphanumeric (well as long as you don’t ask dumbotrumpboner to spell it) we are all fuked. Still, I did hear from voices in my head he was trying to get the codes voice activated, and so he doesn’t accidentally launch he would choose something totally safe like “pussy13” whatever that means guffaws guffaws

< Message edited by WickedsDesire -- 5/2/2017 10:24:16 AM >

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 10:22:37 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I suggest, K, that for your own education, that you read the accounts of the suffering...

This is not a man that would have done a fucking thing to prevent the civil war by abolishing one of the primary causes of the war.

Spare me the mind-reading act. I know the history of the Trail of Tears. But the personality of the Founder of the Democratic Party wasn't the subject under contention. Moreover, Trump was right at least insofar as Jackson wanting sectional peace, and also right in daring to think that such an incredibly destructive war might have been avoided.

Could Slavery Have Ended Without the Civil War?

K.


Except that not only are we to 'read Trump's mind' specifically due to his failure to comprehensively explain his reasoning but now we are to read Jackson's mind as to just what he was supposed to do or was to have done that he didn't about preventing the civil war while in office...as in fact, he did nothing at all.

As far as I am concerned that for Trump to say that if Jackson 'had been a little later' we wouldn't have the civil war' is tantamount to saying that because he was a believer in slavery, had slaves and was not an abolitionist, the south would not have seceded in the first place.

No big stretch there and so what ? All that means is that we have a civil war later when the south thought an abolitionist had been elected. So again...Trump is flat out wrong and particularly as exemplified by claiming that all Jackson just needed, was to be elected later. Why ? Why couldn't Jackson have done while in office, what he might have done say 1860 or so ?

Here's a quote of Jackson's: "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes."

Well didn't Jackson bend the 'acts of govt.' or at the very least bend the bounds of morality by owning human beings as chattel slavery for his own selfish purpose by stealing their labor ?

What I see is a man who despite whatever perspective Trump would like us to assume, that as a slave owner, and Indian butcher and as president...did nothing whatsoever, that would indicate that he would have in any way 'solved' the question of, or compromised on slavery or prevented the civil war except that for the south, he was...one of them.

I guess that mindset comes from the very idea that Trump claims to be 'cleaning out the swamp' in Wash. by being and his cabinet being as 'swampy' as what is there now...or worse.

1828 acts:

South Carolinians, led by Jackson’s former vice-president, John Calhoun, felt the Tariff of 1832 unduly harmed their state while directly benefiting northern manufacturing states since it protected northern manufacturers from foreign competitors who offered cheaper goods.

Calhoun advanced the idea that the states had the constitutional right to nullify (or invalidate) any federal law and that states could secede from the Union.

In late 1832, South Carolina nullified the Tariff of 1832 and threatened secession. Jackson rejected these ideas and promised the use of force if South Carolina disobeyed the law. After much brinksmanship, Congress passed a compromise tariff that placated South Carolina and a bill that authorized the use of force against nullification. (how do we know that the 'civil' war doesn't in fact start sooner, over tariffs and succession ?)

Jackson’s actions prevented a break in the union as well as setting precedents that Abraham Lincoln would later use to oppose secession.

So in fact with the above, Jackson set in motion the very political basis for southern succession as soon as they thought a true abolitionist became president.

Furthermore, you link merely points out that the concept of human chattel had worn thin simply by the prospect that 'slave wage' labor eventually and in time, even in the colonies, would be much more cost-effective and therefore more profitable. Even op-eds, politicking and advice to the bankers upon Lincoln's treasury's issuance of greenback currency alluded to that.

So to suggest that Jackson after the tariff act of 1832 somehow could have stepped in and particularly in S. Car. or other southern states then and there, prevented the civil war is ridiculous on its face.

Your link's only contribution that slavery could have peacefully ended and certainly not on religious grounds as Christianity had sanctioned slavery for centuries, had only the 'enlightened' secular movement was somehow an influence, is specious at best. Cearly, it was on economic grounds and only that did in Europe, and the US that could have...peacefully ended slavery.

So in fact, one could just as easily argue that as opposed to what Trump told these media...in fact, the opposite was true. Jackson in fact, had...precipitated the civil war.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 11:12:09 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So to suggest that Jackson after the tariff act of 1832 somehow could have stepped in and particularly in S. Car. or other southern states then and there, prevented the civil war is ridiculous on its face.

Well that's your opinion (stop me if this sounds familiar) and you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

K.


(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 11:14:57 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So to suggest that Jackson after the tariff act of 1832 somehow could have stepped in and particularly in S. Car. or other southern states then and there, prevented the civil war is ridiculous on its face.

Well that's your opinion (stop me if this sounds familiar) and you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

K.



Or an excuse for not voting for somebody who opposed the drooling spakker you voted for's presidency because the "if" in querstion would have started a war with Russia and infested the country with wife-stoning, clit-cutting, poof-hanging, neo-ottoman moslem shites.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 11:41:55 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Or an excuse for not voting for somebody who opposed the drooling spakker you voted for's presidency because the "if" in querstion would have started a war with Russia and infested the country with wife-stoning, clit-cutting, poof-hanging, neo-ottoman moslem shites.

Another mind-reader! And an illiterate one at that. What is this, a fucking convention? You don't even know if I voted at all. It's obvious that your connection with reality is tenuous, but the fact remains that claims about what someone "would" have done are only opinions, whether coming from Trump or anyone else. Now put the bottle down before you hurt yourself. This "would have started a war with Russia" business is troubling. I think you're showing signs of delirium.

K.


(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 11:45:52 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Or an excuse for not voting for somebody who opposed the drooling spakker you voted for's presidency because the "if" in querstion would have started a war with Russia and infested the country with wife-stoning, clit-cutting, poof-hanging, neo-ottoman moslem shites.

Another mind-reader! And an illiterate one at that. What is this, a fucking convention? You don't even know if I voted at all. It's obvious that your connection with reality is tenuous, but the fact remains that claims about what someone "would" have done are only opinions, whether coming from Trump or anyone else. Now put the bottle down before you hurt yourself. This "would have started a war with Russia" business is troubling. I think you're showing signs of delirium.

K.



Tell you what: stop making excuses for the piece of shit stinking up the white house, and I'll stop assuming that you voted for the sorry little turd.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for your argument against "if"ing had we heard anything from the trumptooners since November besides "but Hilary would have been worse".

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 12:25:14 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



Well that's your opinion. And fine, you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

K.




Well, if you dont want to take my word for it, how about:

quote:


Cillizza: Donald Trump said the following over the weekend: "Had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn't have had the Civil War." How much of the claim -- if any -- is defensible? Could or would Jackson have worked to prevent the Civil War?

Meacham: I'm with William Seward, who, in 1858, referred to the existential tension between free states and slave states as the "irrepressible conflict." The Civil War might have been delayed, but not avoided, if the South had agreed to Lincoln's condition in the winter of 1860-61 that slavery could exist but not expand. But the Slave Power, as it is sometimes called, felt isolated, even bereft, after the rise of the Republican Party and Lincoln's narrow victory in 1860. And so, as Lincoln would say, the war came.

What would Jackson have done? Impossible to say, of course, but here are two ways to think about it.
The first is that Jackson was fundamentally a man of the Union. His mother and his brothers had died in the Revolutionary War; I think he believed their blood had sanctified the nation — not a section, but a nation. We were, as he put it in 1832, "one great family." In this light, Jackson would have fought as hard as he possibly could (and that was pretty damned hard) to avert a civil war.
Which, in fact, he did. It was Jackson who had staved off a possible civil war — and certainly civil violence — in the winter of 1832-33 when he successfully managed (with an assist from Henry Clay) the Nullification Crisis with South Carolina.
The second way to think about Jackson and the early 1860s turns on his unapologetic slave-owning. Would he have been willing to sign his own economic, political, and cultural death warrant by opposing secession? By 1860-61, the choice facing the planter class was pretty clear: American slavery was not going to be extended westward (or southward, to the Caribbean), so "the irrepressible conflict" proved to be just that: irrepressible. We don't know where Jackson would have stood. We are left to ponder his mixed historical legacy: a man who defended the Union, giving us three additional decades in which to form what Lincoln would call the "mystic chords of memory," and the defiant slave-owner and architect of Native American removal. There was nothing simple about Jackson—nor about the country he led.

What is difficult but essential is to judge the past not by our own standards but by theirs. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liked to say, "self-righteousness in retrospect is easy, also cheap." Abolitionist sentiment in the 1830s was not what it was in the 1850s: we were, as a nation, on a tortuous, overlong journey toward a more perfect union. Even many advanced thinkers on race in Jackson's presidential days tended to argue for colonization, not the creation of an integrated United States. Such was the sad reality of the day.
Source


But then Trump asking the question "Why was there a civil war is just as stupid as his asking why the Palestinians and Jews are fighting in the holy land." source

The argument about State's Rights, and slavery at the core of that issue was the root cause of the Civil War, Trump either is 1) too fucking stupid to see a simple historic fact or 2) too separated from reality to understand simple truths.

But there is one thing for certain, while Jackson prevented a civil war during the nullification crisis, he did nothing during his presidency to directly address the problems of slavery, and to be honest, his own treatment of his slaves would lead one to doubt that he would have considered ending slavery to save the union.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 12:30:16 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Tell you what: stop making excuses for the piece of shit stinking up the white house, and I'll stop assuming that you voted for the sorry little turd.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for your argument against "if"ing had we heard anything from the trumptooners since November besides "but Hilary would have been worse".

Arguing for a rational recognition of the limits on what we are justified in asserting as facts is not "making excuses," and the validity of the argument has fuck all to do with what other people say about Hillary.

K.


(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 12:31:32 PM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Arguing for a rational recognition of the limits on what we are justified in asserting as facts is not "making excuses,"...

You've not been paying any attention to the shite your peers have spent the last five months spouting, have you?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 12:37:09 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well that's your opinion. And fine, you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

Well, if you dont want to take my word for it, how about:

quote:

What would Jackson have done? Impossible to say....


How about you take your own quote's word for it?

K.



(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 12:51:30 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Arguing for a rational recognition of the limits on what we are justified in asserting as facts is not "making excuses,"...

You've not been paying any attention to the shite your peers have spent the last five months spouting, have you?

My peers?? Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you? Is it beyond your mental capacity to see people as individuals in their own right, or are you so insanely committed to Identity Politics that you suppress that ability? I wonder if you even know. It might be worth thinking about.

K.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 10:46:19 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well that's your opinion. And fine, you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

Well, if you dont want to take my word for it, how about:

quote:

What would Jackson have done? Impossible to say....


How about you take your own quote's word for it?

K.





and yet you were totally oblivious to the second quote, and picked one item out of a thought concerning his probable thought processes concerning the situation, which tended toward him supporting slavery to the exception of all other possibilities.

You also seem to be completely oblivious of his record during the compromise measures passed by congress, which would tend to support the institution of unrestricted slavery, which while "impossible to say what he would have done" does lead one to an educated guess of him leaning toward the south on both the subject of slavery and secession.

Which is my point on the subject.

It rates up there with the counter arguments to the statement that JFK was one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. He never finished his first term, so his detractors point to the fact "he never had the chance to prove himself" while those who believe he earned the title simply due to his actions during the Cuban missile crisis.

You also seem to want to dwell on the opinion of Jackson and not the more glaring statements of President Trump, to whit "Why was there even a civil war?"

Any person with even a high school knowledge of American History can cite the causes of the civil war on one hand, usually leading the list with the issue of slavery, some would lead with State's rights, pointing to the fact the southern states felt it was within their powers under the constitution to address issues such as slavery, tariffs and even trade.

The simple fact that you have neglected to deal with is that President Trump seems far removed from facts, and indeed the ability to see the facts as you are from the ability to fly by sheer force of will.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/2/2017 11:26:45 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The most blatently stupid crap out of his mouth involved President Jackson being upset about what he saw happening to the country during the civil war. Neat trick, considering that Jackson died in 1845 and the civil war started in 1861.

Who's kidding who here? Are you illiterate or something?

I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War.

He was obviously referring to Jackson's feelings about what he saw coming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Then there was his questions about why there was a civil war in the first place...

Let me guess. It's settled science?
K.


Not exactly, but close enough.

Can you name a war that was not essentially unavoidable? In one way or another?

Were it not for the hyper-belligerent on all sides; no, the US civil war didn't 'have to happen, ' WW I didn't' 'have to happen,' etc.

The only sense in which any of that 'had to happen' is that people who propose to 'lead' humans are such phenomenal fuckwits.

We read about what happened 1,000 years ago, 600 yrs. ago, 300 yrs. ago, etc. in history class and yet we still can't extricate ourselves from the most basic stupidity, because we cling onto it as if for dear life.

< Message edited by Edwird -- 5/2/2017 11:33:20 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/3/2017 4:32:24 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well that's your opinion. And fine, you may be right. But trying to scry what someone would or would not have done "if" is a risky business. In the final analysis, all you can ever end up with is a difference of opinion. And, of course, it's always the other fellow whose opinion is foolish.

Well, if you dont want to take my word for it, how about:

quote:

What would Jackson have done? Impossible to say....


How about you take your own quote's word for it?

and yet you were totally oblivious to the second quote, and picked one item...

Well of course, because it embodies the point I have been trying over and over, though obviously unsuccessfully, to drive home. Everyone has reasons, or rationalizations at least, for the opinions they hold. But the fact remains that their conclusions (and yours) are opinions. Insisting that you are right, especially to someone who isn't even arguing that you're wrong (!), is just picking an argument for contentiousness' sake over something that nobody will ever know.

K.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Are you kidding me? - 5/3/2017 4:47:40 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

I thought I would treat this separately...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The simple fact that you have neglected to deal with is that President Trump....

Where is it written that I have to do what you want me to do, and can be held at fault for failing to do so? I am not interested in bashing Trump. I wasn't interested in bashing Obama either, or Bush before him. I think it's a waste of time. Frankly, I have no idea what people get out of it, though I could offer some unflattering speculation on the subject.

K.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Are you kidding me? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094