Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Explain me why this is wrong?

Topic: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War? (Read 8249 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1275
I support THAT marriage.  That one marriage because it was reported to be a happy one. 
No.
It was anticipated to be a happy one.
Are you confused about the difference between a wedding and a marriage?
One more time: we have no idea how it turned out, and neither did Ms. O'mara, AFAICT.

Quote
This is a science forum.
Well, alternative science, anyway.   :unsure:

Quote
Take your non-evidence based preaching somewhere else please.
What evidence do you have that the marriage in question ended up being a "happy" one, Rev. Hawkins?

:icare:
  • Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 08:18:48 PM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1276
Read Orwell's book "1984"
Have you ever actually read* that book, Hawkins?
If so, when?


*(And, no, "Hawkinzing" doesn't count.)
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1277
I don't spew bullshit.  Others do in response to me.  And yes, she is patient with them.  All I do is post on topics that interest me and I always try to find the truth in detail.  Others get mad because the truth is painful sometimes.
:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



:no:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1278
Here's the full text ... as I thought ... you people have twisted Trump's words to make him look like a racist. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662
But those very words DO make him look like a racist.
No "twisting" required.
Which is undoubtedly because he IS a racist.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1279
Basically, defending the south's position in the civil war cannot be divorced from the south's causes for engaging in the war which were explicitly given as the right to maintain slavery. Whatever, er, shithole the North might have been is entirely irrelevant since the explicit reasoning for secession and hence the war itself was the right to maintain the institution of chattel slavery. There is no argument that can give the south even a tiny bit of redemption since they fought explicitly to preserve their right to own human beings.
If you really believe what you are saying here, then you are automatically an advocate of World Government.  Which I think will be an even greater evil.  Read Orwell's book "1984"

Several things.

1) 1984 did not state there was a world government (and at most, implies that there may be a possibility of one, if I remember the conversation with O'Brien).

2) 1984 was certainly not about the dangers of a world government. If anything, the closest is that it warned about the dangers of an all-encompassing government - one which decided what was true, what was right, what was given, and what was taken. The closest we have these days probably is North Korea. Which is nowhere near a world government.

3) nothing in Testy's post has to do with a world government - or even an all-encompassing government. The idea that states are allowed to object to the treatment of members of other states in no way implies support for a world government.
  • Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 09:27:33 PM by uncool

  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1280
Here's the full text ... as I thought ... you people have twisted Trump's words to make him look like a racist. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662
But those very words DO make him look like a racist.
No "twisting" required.
Which is undoubtedly because he IS a racist.
My bet: Dave had never seen the context (or had forgotten it, as with one of Dave's Rules), and doesn't realize that the presence of that statement - even in its context - has awful implications.

Dave: Trump is making excuses for people who willingly marched (as you have admitted) to chants of "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us". To people who deliberately followed Richard Spencer and twitter handles like @awyattmann88 ("a white man heil hitler").
  • Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 08:43:09 PM by uncool

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1281
Read Orwell's book "1984"
Have you ever actually read* that book, Hawkins?
If so, when?


*(And, no, "Hawkinzing" doesn't count.)
Lol. No.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1282
Basically, defending the south's position in the civil war cannot be divorced from the south's causes for engaging in the war which were explicitly given as the right to maintain slavery. Whatever, er, shithole the North might have been is entirely irrelevant since the explicit reasoning for secession and hence the war itself was the right to maintain the institution of chattel slavery. There is no argument that can give the south even a tiny bit of redemption since they fought explicitly to preserve their right to own human beings.
If you really believe what you are saying here, then you are automatically an advocate of World Government.  Which I think will be an even greater evil.  Read Orwell's book "1984"

Several things.

1) 1984 did not state there was a world government (and at most, implies that there may be a possibility of one).

2) 1984 was certainly not about the dangers of a world government. If anything, the closest is that it warned about the dangers of an all-encompassing government - one which decided what was true, what was right, what was given, and what was taken.

3) nothing in Testy's post has to do with a world government - or even an all-encompassing government. The idea that states are allowed to object to the treatment of members of other states in no way implies support for a world government.
But Oceana has always been at war with ...
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1283
Basically, defending the south's position in the civil war cannot be divorced from the south's causes for engaging in the war which were explicitly given as the right to maintain slavery. Whatever, er, shithole the North might have been is entirely irrelevant since the explicit reasoning for secession and hence the war itself was the right to maintain the institution of chattel slavery. There is no argument that can give the south even a tiny bit of redemption since they fought explicitly to preserve their right to own human beings.
If you really believe what you are saying here, then you are automatically an advocate of World Government.  Which I think will be an even greater evil.  Read Orwell's book "1984"

Several things.

1) 1984 did not state there was a world government (and at most, implies that there may be a possibility of one).

2) 1984 was certainly not about the dangers of a world government. If anything, the closest is that it warned about the dangers of an all-encompassing government - one which decided what was true, what was right, what was given, and what was taken.

3) nothing in Testy's post has to do with a world government - or even an all-encompassing government. The idea that states are allowed to object to the treatment of members of other states in no way implies support for a world government.
But Oceana has always been at war with ...
Eastasia, you saboteur! We have always been at war with Eurasia!

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1284
Newspeak does not include the word saboteur.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • ToThePoint
  • search & destroy
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1285
This is a science forum.

Take your non-evidence based preaching somewhere else please.

:ironicat:
"This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time."

  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1286
What if the North had let the South secede? Their government that would at least initially be powerfully pro-slavery. It would be a symbol of their new-found independence, the main reason they seceded. Also, cotton remained a massive export business for the USA well into the 20th century in real life, so the cotton-interest lobby would not have been short on cash, and in the South they would have been pretty much the only game in town. There would be international pressure to abolish it, but on the other hand the European powers were buying and profiting from an awful lot of that slave-grown cotton. Whole industries in Europe depended on American cotton imports, so much so that the South tried to use cotton exports to pressure the UK into recognizing them as a legitimate nation.

How long would slavery have continued? Years? Decades? Into the 20th century even? What about that kind of violence, and the misery that it caused? Would it really have been better to let that continue in order to avoid a war? How many deaths of abused slaves would we have been talking about, even if slavery would have ended in, say 20 years?

And let's not forget that the South was actually calling for the importing of slaves from Africa to be made legal again before the civil war broke out, as slaves were getting more expensive. Independence would have allowed them to go ahead with that.

The option to do nothing would avoid war-violence, but it would have meant that a different kind of violence would continue. Millions of enslaved people, for at least another generation, and possibly much longer.

would that have been better?
Hey Dave: you still have yet to answer this post. And it pretty much requires an answer.

  • Faid
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1287
Dave on child sex with adults:
A single South African English teacher writes that a child bride is happy with their situation.
That situation - again - is nothing more than a prospective marriage. 

Again: we have no idea how that worked out, and no particular reason to assume it worked out any better than that of the other women whose testimony Hawkins is so eager to ignore.


So true.  We have seen again and again where if a single reference supports Dave's position then any position that refutes or completely contradict Dave's position is summarily dismissed. 

Dave continues to be unable to defend his child sex, slavery, or white supremacist positions, all while insisting that these positions are supported by his christian god.

Simply amazing.


Nope.  I support THAT marriage.  That one marriage because it was reported to be a happy one.  Other marriages with 15 year old brides are not so happy.  Someone should try to influence the tribe to change those situations.

This is a science forum.

Take your non-evidence based preaching somewhere else please.
First of all, the marriage was NOT "reported to be a happy one". Your all-knowing witness (which was also a "female" yadda yadda) only mentioned that both parties seemed happy and excited of the PROSPECT of getting married. We have no idea how the marriage itself turned out, and related accounts of other child brides do not offer much hope.

So, if you were to apply your OWN LOGIC (in the same way that you have applied it for, say, Trump and members of the alt-right), you would have to say that you don't have "ENOUGH INFO" to say their marriage was happy.

But you don't, do you? Even tough you yourself have said that child marriage also has 'economic' benefits for the bride and her family, and you know it also coincides with social acceptance and the chance for the bride to even HAVE a future.

And secondly, although you admit that "other" (hah!) mariagges of the kind are "not so happy", you ignore the basic REASON for that, the very NATURE of the bond. A child or adolescent marrying an adult, a 74 year old man even! The mere thought of that should make one's skin crawl, dave. NOT say "woo hoo". And fucking "culture" has nothing to do with it, just as "culture" would have nothing to do on whether we accept SLAVERY or INFANTICIDE. You do understand that, right?

Read C.S.Lewis again, dave. I'm afraid you've Hawkinsed through some of the most important parts.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1288
Basically, defending the south's position in the civil war cannot be divorced from the south's causes for engaging in the war which were explicitly given as the right to maintain slavery. Whatever, er, shithole the North might have been is entirely irrelevant since the explicit reasoning for secession and hence the war itself was the right to maintain the institution of chattel slavery. There is no argument that can give the south even a tiny bit of redemption since they fought explicitly to preserve their right to own human beings.
If you really believe what you are saying here, then you are automatically an advocate of World Government.
No. He isn't.

YOU read 1984, dave. I'm pretty sure you haven't.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1289
She lived in the village and made friends there.  Jesus Christ.  She was qualified to give an opinion.
 
So were all the child brides who have given their personal accounts.

I wonder whose opinion you value more...
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1290
Do you read anything here at all? Several people now have told you that is not what 'Nazi' means. It does NOT mean 'violent, rule-breaking, or insubordinate. Please try to use words in the sense that others use them, Dave, otherwise you sound like an idiot.
Of course it means those things.  The Nazis broke every rule of human decency there is.
Dear god you are an idiot.
It's not a question of "sounding" like one.
Were Bonnie and Clyde "Nazis"?
Were the Maoist Red Guard "Nazis"?
Is ISIS "Nazi"?
TBF you could make the argument that ISIS is. But not just because they're violent.
:unsure:  They are rabid, fanatical, violent fighters for an ideology - like some Maoists, Pol-Pot-ists... but their ideology is fundamentalist Islam, not racist. So I'm not sure how the ISIS = Nazi argument would work. 
Not that it much matters.
There are plenty of violent non-Nazis and plenty of nonviolent Nazis.

I mean technically the Nazis weren't just racist. Unless you count Jews, gypsies and gays all as races and not just general undesirables under Nazi ideology.
You forgot intellectuals, communists and pretty much anyone who wasn't German.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1291
Dave on child sex with adults:
A single South African English teacher writes that a child bride is happy with their situation.
That situation - again - is nothing more than a prospective marriage. 

Again: we have no idea how that worked out, and no particular reason to assume it worked out any better than that of the other women whose testimony Hawkins is so eager to ignore.


So true.  We have seen again and again where if a single reference supports Dave's position then any position that refutes or completely contradict Dave's position is summarily dismissed. 

Dave continues to be unable to defend his child sex, slavery, or white supremacist positions, all while insisting that these positions are supported by his christian god.

Simply amazing.


Nope.  I support THAT marriage.  That one marriage because it was reported to be a happy one.  Other marriages with 15 year old brides are not so happy.  Someone should try to influence the tribe to change those situations.

This is a science forum.

Take your non-evidence based preaching somewhere else please.

Here's where the intellectual dishonesty creeps in.

Noone has any information to offer on that particular marriage. Not David, not our eponymous travel writer. Noone.

What has been presented is an impression of the wedding ceremony, by a guest, held in front of a large crowd many of whom are embedded in the culture and have varying degrees of dependence on the groom.

The details and particulars of the marriage itself remain unknown, though numerous others have commented on such things and David has been directed to links documenting such on a number of occasions.

It's all part of David's all/some/none deficiency.
She lived in the village and made friends there.  Jesus Christ.  She was qualified to give an opinion.
 Really ... take your non-evidence based preaching somewhere else.
An opinion is not evidence of anything other than the holder of that opinion holds that opinion.
Are we there yet?

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1292
Neither Hawkins nor Trump can bring themselves to call out the people* who marched with Nazis in Charlottesville because they were on the right team, and those protesting against them were on the wrong team.

* very fine people
you are lying about me here. It's a subtle lie where you use Spin and innuendo. I would never defend and never have defended Nazi ideology, but I will always defend people's right to speak their mind and to March and organize peacefully.

I absolutely denounce Nazi ideology, slavery, and violence such as driving the car into the crowd.

As for Trump's comment about very fine people I never accuse or defend a Man Without first hearing what he has to say for himself about the comment. And I have not read anything about what he was referring to, so I have to withhold judgement at this time.
He was referring to the events in Charlottesville, where one side killed a woman with a car, and paraded through the town with Tiki torches chanting "Blood and Soil". If you think anyone marching with them is a "fine person" then your definition and mine will never line up.
Here's the full text ... as I thought ... you people have twisted Trump's words to make him look like a racist. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662
Quote from: article
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.
So some neo-Nazis did not identify as such, some of them were fine people? Because they didn't admit to being neo-Nazis?
How is that not racist? What can you add from the article for additional context to change the meaning?
LEARN.

TO.

READ.

Quote
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group - excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down - excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It's fine, you're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people - and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally - but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats - you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

REPORTER: I just didn't understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call 'em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don't know if you know, but they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. Does anybody have a final - does anybody have a final question? You have an infrastructure question.

Also ...

LEARN NOT TO QUOTE MINE TO SUPPORT YOUR RADICAL LEFTIST NAZI AGENDA

It's dishonest.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1293
Basically, defending the south's position in the civil war cannot be divorced from the south's causes for engaging in the war which were explicitly given as the right to maintain slavery. Whatever, er, shithole the North might have been is entirely irrelevant since the explicit reasoning for secession and hence the war itself was the right to maintain the institution of chattel slavery. There is no argument that can give the south even a tiny bit of redemption since they fought explicitly to preserve their right to own human beings.
If you really believe what you are saying here, then you are automatically an advocate of World Government.  Which I think will be an even greater evil.  Read Orwell's book "1984"

Several things.

1) 1984 did not state there was a world government (and at most, implies that there may be a possibility of one, if I remember the conversation with O'Brien).

2) 1984 was certainly not about the dangers of a world government. If anything, the closest is that it warned about the dangers of an all-encompassing government - one which decided what was true, what was right, what was given, and what was taken. The closest we have these days probably is North Korea. Which is nowhere near a world government.

3) nothing in Testy's post has to do with a world government - or even an all-encompassing government. The idea that states are allowed to object to the treatment of members of other states in no way implies support for a world government.
You obviously have not read "1984" ... it describes an all encompassing government which controls and manipulates citizens lives.  And if you didn't tow the party line, you got re-educated by the Ministry of Love (i.e. tortured).  The United States was set up to be a loose federation of sovereign states, but would-be Big Brothers influenced things over time to give the central government more and more power so that by 1860, it was powerful enough to dictate to the South what they could and couldn't do.  Bad situation.  Never intended by our founders.  Similar situation to the government described in 1984.  Notice that N. Korea - in contrast to the antebellum South IS truly sovereign.  They can do whatever the hell they want to their citizens and no one invades them and takes over like the North did to the South.  Does this mean they are a good country?  Of course not.  But at least they are sovereign.  And it's more important in our world for countries to maintain their sovereignty than for them to be good.  Let that sink in.  Badness can be changed over time. And it can be changed through peaceful means.  Sovereignty on the other hand, once lost, is very hard to regain and what you end up with if you lose sovereignty is a super government which inevitably will go bad and be just like Big Brother described in 1984. 

And that I'm afraid ... is where we are headed in our world today ... regardless of who is POTUS.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1294
Dave, our point is that you don't get to be called "a very fine person" when you march with actual fucking Neo-Nazis and white supremacists who the night before were changing "Blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" and who then kill a peaceful protestor. You don't get to be a "very fine person" when members of your "side" charge at unarmed representatives of faith groups, and you do nothing to stop them.

You want to be a "fine person" and still want to keep Confederate statues (why? Most of them were put up in the Jim Crow and Segregation eras as deliberate messages to non-Whites about who was in charge) then as soon as you know Nazis and White Supremacists are turning up then you tell them to fuck off, and if necessary cancel the march. If you're not the ones planning the march then you do your due diligence and find out who is, and, if its the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, You. Don't. Go.
Why do I bother?

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1295
"Dave, our point is that you don't get to be called "a very fine person" when you march with actual fucking Neo-Nazis and white supremacists"

I'm not sure that these "very fine persons" actually marched with actual fucking Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Why don't you start acting like a real goddamned fucking scientist and start checking the facts before you spout your hatred?

All I know at this point - and you haven't convinced me that you know more - is that Trump said the some people were there to protest the statue removal and park renaming.  How the hell do you  know that these same people marched with Nazis?

  • Faid
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1296

[/quote]
Neither Hawkins nor Trump can bring themselves to call out the people* who marched with Nazis in Charlottesville because they were on the right team, and those protesting against them were on the wrong team.

* very fine people
you are lying about me here. It's a subtle lie where you use Spin and innuendo. I would never defend and never have defended Nazi ideology, but I will always defend people's right to speak their mind and to March and organize peacefully.

I absolutely denounce Nazi ideology, slavery, and violence such as driving the car into the crowd.

As for Trump's comment about very fine people I never accuse or defend a Man Without first hearing what he has to say for himself about the comment. And I have not read anything about what he was referring to, so I have to withhold judgement at this time.
He was referring to the events in Charlottesville, where one side killed a woman with a car, and paraded through the town with Tiki torches chanting "Blood and Soil". If you think anyone marching with them is a "fine person" then your definition and mine will never line up.
Here's the full text ... as I thought ... you people have twisted Trump's words to make him look like a racist. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662
Quote from: article
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.
So some neo-Nazis did not identify as such, some of them were fine people? Because they didn't admit to being neo-Nazis?
How is that not racist? What can you add from the article for additional context to change the meaning?
LEARN.

TO.

READ.

Quote
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group - excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down - excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It's fine, you're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people - and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally - but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats - you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

REPORTER: I just didn't understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call 'em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don't know if you know, but they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. Does anybody have a final - does anybody have a final question? You have an infrastructure question.

Also ...

LEARN NOT TO QUOTE MINE TO SUPPORT YOUR RADICAL LEFTIST NAZI AGENDA

It's dishonest.
Shut the fuck up with your ALL CAPS and show us where the meaning changes.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1297
"Dave, our point is that you don't get to be called "a very fine person" when you march with actual fucking Neo-Nazis and white supremacists"

I'm not sure that these "very fine persons" actually marched with actual fucking Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Why don't you start acting like a real goddamned fucking scientist and start checking the facts before you spout your hatred?

All I know at this point - and you haven't convinced me that you know more - is that Trump said the some people were there to protest the statue removal and park renaming.  How the hell do you  know that these same people marched with Nazis?
Because they DID, dave. Where there TWO rallies in Charlottesville?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1298
Because there were Nazis on the same fucking march you moronic fuck. They might have been at the back, or the front, or in the middle, and all the "very fine people" somehow didn't notice them or managed to avoid standing next to them, but they were fucking there. As all the news reports say. There were a bunch of them with Tiki Torches and change of "Blood and Soil" the night before. Do you think they all went home and didn't go on the march the next day? Because that's just bollocks. Everyone knows they were there. David fucking Duke was there and says he was there and was disappointed in Trump' "clarification". If you were there that day, marching in support of that cause you were marching with Neo-Nazis, and fascists, and White Supremacists.

You seem to be protesting a lot about this Dave. Why? Were you there? Would you have liked to have gone, but couldn't make it?
Why do I bother?

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #1299
I'm not taking your word for any fucking details.  I don't trust you as far as I could throw you.

Trump seems to believe that there were (a) people there peacefully protesting the removal of the statues and that they had honorable reasons - namely, they don't want history to be erased, and (b) there were Nazis that showed up the next day and engaged in a very offensive march - and he rightly condemned them.

So STFU until you can get your facts right.