By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Left Wing Activist NOMINEE for Supreme Court

bdbdbd said:

Actually, the cotton production of the south relied on slave work, while the fabric industries of the north didn't.

Thats true, another economic reason the South had to protect slavery.



Around the Network
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:

hobbit said:

lol what? the civil war was started because Lincoln wanted to use the power of the President to take away states rights. The southern states jumped the gun and started a war instead of fighting it in court. And yes in The usa we follow the constitution, just wait until the health care case gets to the Supreme Court to see this. If a majority ever got big enough that they could replace the constitution then you will see the usa break apart again.

No, it was all about slavery...

Only 8% of the population owned slaves, but almost everyone was willing to die for the cause.

Tell me how this is all about slavery again?

Slaves partially counted towards political representation and tax allocation.  For instance, if South Carolina had 2 million whites and 1 million blacks, they were represented as having 2.66 million people in Congress.  Take away slavery and the South loses big time politically.

???

Take away Slavery, and you would have 3 million people counted. How is that worse? It's not like the million people working in the fields, who most got paid by the way, would just leave. Most of them would still do the jobs they were doing.

Yeah, but then black people would be voting and be given the rights of full citizens.  Not exactly what Southern Whites desired at the time, be they slave owner or not.

Free black men of the day could not vote anyway. Black men did not get the right to vote until 1870, long after the war was over and all black men were free.



TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:

hobbit said:

lol what? the civil war was started because Lincoln wanted to use the power of the President to take away states rights. The southern states jumped the gun and started a war instead of fighting it in court. And yes in The usa we follow the constitution, just wait until the health care case gets to the Supreme Court to see this. If a majority ever got big enough that they could replace the constitution then you will see the usa break apart again.

No, it was all about slavery...

Only 8% of the population owned slaves, but almost everyone was willing to die for the cause.

Tell me how this is all about slavery again?

Slaves partially counted towards political representation and tax allocation.  For instance, if South Carolina had 2 million whites and 1 million blacks, they were represented as having 2.66 million people in Congress.  Take away slavery and the South loses big time politically.

???

Take away Slavery, and you would have 3 million people counted. How is that worse? It's not like the million people working in the fields, who most got paid by the way, would just leave. Most of them would still do the jobs they were doing.

Yeah, but then black people would be voting and be given the rights of full citizens.  Not exactly what Southern Whites desired at the time, be they slave owner or not.

Free black men of the day could not vote anyway. Black men did not get the right to vote until 1870, long after the war was over and all black men were free.

The North wanted black men to vote, but they couldn't do that with the South being overrepresented in government.  Granting them that privelage in 5 years after the end of war isn't a 'long time.'  In fact, that is a very short period of time.

Of course, you got your way in the end.  Blacks were counted as full citizens but were barred from voting and participating in government by Southern society.  I guess the North appointing black politicans was more of a slap in the face than long-term, positive change.



ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:

hobbit said:

lol what? the civil war was started because Lincoln wanted to use the power of the President to take away states rights. The southern states jumped the gun and started a war instead of fighting it in court. And yes in The usa we follow the constitution, just wait until the health care case gets to the Supreme Court to see this. If a majority ever got big enough that they could replace the constitution then you will see the usa break apart again.

No, it was all about slavery...

Only 8% of the population owned slaves, but almost everyone was willing to die for the cause.

Tell me how this is all about slavery again?

Slaves partially counted towards political representation and tax allocation.  For instance, if South Carolina had 2 million whites and 1 million blacks, they were represented as having 2.66 million people in Congress.  Take away slavery and the South loses big time politically.

???

Take away Slavery, and you would have 3 million people counted. How is that worse? It's not like the million people working in the fields, who most got paid by the way, would just leave. Most of them would still do the jobs they were doing.

Yeah, but then black people would be voting and be given the rights of full citizens.  Not exactly what Southern Whites desired at the time, be they slave owner or not.

Free black men of the day could not vote anyway. Black men did not get the right to vote until 1870, long after the war was over and all black men were free.

The North wanted black men to vote, but they couldn't do that with the South being overrepresented in government.  Granting them that privelage in 5 years after the end of war isn't a 'long time.'  In fact, that is a very short period of time.

Of course, you got your way in the end.  Blacks were counted as full citizens but were barred from voting and participating in government by Southern society.  I guess the North appointing black politicans was more of a slap in the face than long-term, positive change.

??

I got my way in the end? I am not white, so not sure how it's my way. I am simply saying the war was not over slavery. It was over states rights. The state right that was the spark that started it, was slavery.

It's like if today the US federal government told people they could not get medication if they didn't visit the US.Gov website once a month. If that caused a war, in 150 years people would be saying the war was over healthcare. It wouldn't be. It would just be the last straw in a sea of government takeover.

Same thing happened here.



Rath said:
sbvgc20123 said:

Like I said before,left wing sounds good,but does bad;seems nice,actually end in a liar.Go research some communist party controlled countries,you will know,more slavery oriented,sacrificing a lot of human rights on behalf of their party's benefit in the name of the people.

AGAIN
FREEDOM life style needs SUPERPOWER to remain and gain.
PEACE needs SUPERPOWER to remain and gain.
Fair rules need SUPERPOWER to remain and gain.
BAD GUYS like Hitler need SUPERPOWER to punish.
Fair rule breakers need SUPERPOWER to punish.
WII BAD Japanese militarism needs SUPERPOWER to punish(not the NEW JAPAN).

 

Everything is one kind of political result,freedom,slavery,even playing games.

Slavery oriented politcs or Freedom oritented politics.

Every social system kills one kind of people's living style(Slavery killed or Freedom killed),that's why they all get their own enemies.

The right wing sounds good, but does bad. Go research some fascist controlled countries.

 

(You're attacking a straw man, while communism may (in theory at least) be left wing not all left wing is communist)

1,Same here,Bush maybe a bad example for right wing,but you see thing only on your side in a small-scale comparison.

2,Left wing and Right wing,do some bigger comparison,I mean "Worldwide" and "History".

3,A left ring party only controlled country never do things for greater good,but for therir party's benefits only (not for people or other conutry)also in the name of others/people's benefits.(YEAH,both left and right use the same FLAG,but see the results in history,you will know who lied much much more,this is NOT a PERFECT world,both of them lied,true,but that doesn't mean they are EQUAL,how much is the key question for eveything in HUMAN BEING WORLD).

4,They may had A-bombed JAPAN in WWII,but GAINED WORLD PEACE and FREEDOM living style,killed the japanese militarism and built a NEW JAPAN ORDER,that just means they won't give up any method for greater good(peace and freedom,not peace and slavery).SACRIFICED A LOT,VERY TRUE,but put an end to something much much evil also.If the world repeated WWII again,we know SACRIFICEING those JAPANESE INNOCENTS may a very bloody but righteous choice---And Janapese is really an amazing race,they built their country up on f***ING ruins,with American new policy,but still they are truely AMAZING,from ruin to quality.

5,Since WWII A right wing leaded alliance(including JAPAN and GERMANY) built a much much more advanced peaceful and free world,they may sacrificed something for that but for a greater good and doing it so well definitely.(I'm not talking guys LIKE BUSH)this is not a perfect world,you can't expect anything to be perfect,only how close to PERFECT.

SAD,nowadays right wing is more like a left wing under the leaders like BUSH,go search BUSH's "DEEDS" you will know what I mean.

6,Both left wing and right wing are doing things in the name of PEACE,but in the opposite direction.

7,Appeasement policy will only get you more appeasements,and sacrificing freedom living style for everyone,and right wing never means VIOLENT or WAR,they just won't give up those methods for greater good.(peaceful and freedom living style,LEARN HISTORY then you may understand a lot,'cause this is a HUMANBEING WORLD,we repeated things always,but every time right wing wins,the world get more advanced,same for the left,more wins more slavery living style).That's why everything is one kind of politics(right or left) result,EVEN FREEDOM.

8,We are HUMANBEINGS,we do thing ACTIVELY---YES/NO,SUICIDE/LIVE,APPEASE/ZERO TOLERANCE,we choose or under others selection influences or even this dead physical world.

A DEAD WORLD with HUMANBEINGS,that's it.If you ask why we exsit,answer that for yourself by doing anything,anything is meaningless to the DEAD world,they just move,that's all.

PS:In the name of ring wing but use appeasement policy made you a left wing already.



Around the Network

Appeasement policy will get you more appeasements,and sacrificing freedom living style for everyone,and right wing never means VIOLENT or WAR,they just won't give up those methods for greater good.(peaceful and freedom living style,LEARN HISTORY then you may understand a lot,'cause this is a HUMANBEING WORLD,we repeated things always,but every time right wing wins,the world get more advanced,same for the left,more wins more slavery living style).That's why everything is one kind of politics(right or left) result,EVEN FREEDOM.

Zero tolerance is the only way to treat some major event,before it gets more appeasements or have to use "VIOLENT" method.

But abusing WAR method is definitely f***ING wrong,like BUSH.



I completely fail to understand almost anything in those posts. Not trying to be a dick or anything but I really really do struggle to read them.

Did you even mean to quote me? I can't really tell.



@sbvgc20123: What i could get from your posts, you need to re-evaluate your view on left and right, because they mean the excact opposite of what you said.

Look, right wing is usually seen as a bad thing, because they drive the interest of a selected group.
And left wing is usually seen as a good thing, because they drive equality for people.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:
ManusJustus said:

hobbit said:

lol what? the civil war was started because Lincoln wanted to use the power of the President to take away states rights. The southern states jumped the gun and started a war instead of fighting it in court. And yes in The usa we follow the constitution, just wait until the health care case gets to the Supreme Court to see this. If a majority ever got big enough that they could replace the constitution then you will see the usa break apart again.

No, it was all about slavery...

Only 8% of the population owned slaves, but almost everyone was willing to die for the cause.

Tell me how this is all about slavery again?

Slaves partially counted towards political representation and tax allocation.  For instance, if South Carolina had 2 million whites and 1 million blacks, they were represented as having 2.66 million people in Congress.  Take away slavery and the South loses big time politically.

???

Take away Slavery, and you would have 3 million people counted. How is that worse? It's not like the million people working in the fields, who most got paid by the way, would just leave. Most of them would still do the jobs they were doing.

Yeah, but then black people would be voting and be given the rights of full citizens.  Not exactly what Southern Whites desired at the time, be they slave owner or not.

Free black men of the day could not vote anyway. Black men did not get the right to vote until 1870, long after the war was over and all black men were free.

The North wanted black men to vote, but they couldn't do that with the South being overrepresented in government.  Granting them that privelage in 5 years after the end of war isn't a 'long time.'  In fact, that is a very short period of time.

Of course, you got your way in the end.  Blacks were counted as full citizens but were barred from voting and participating in government by Southern society.  I guess the North appointing black politicans was more of a slap in the face than long-term, positive change.

??

I got my way in the end? I am not white, so not sure how it's my way. I am simply saying the war was not over slavery. It was over states rights. The state right that was the spark that started it, was slavery.

It's like if today the US federal government told people they could not get medication if they didn't visit the US.Gov website once a month. If that caused a war, in 150 years people would be saying the war was over healthcare. It wouldn't be. It would just be the last straw in a sea of government takeover.

Same thing happened here.

Believe what you will, but thats simply not true.  Slavery was the cause of the civil war.  Slavery caused economic problems between the industrialized North and agriculture South, Slavery caused social problems between the city oriented, progressive North and the rural oriented, conservative South, Slavery caused the South to push for more state rights since the North's growing population threatened the ability of the South to control federal government (even with their slaves being represented), and so forth.

Making the Civil War about state rights and not about slavery is Southern revisionist history and an attempt to give the Confederacy a more honorable and respectable image, worthy of being proud of.



OH NO......when did the thread go from supreme court nominee to civil war, slavery, left v right.