Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: Outliving frenemy sites since 2008.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DaveGodfrey

26
Dave, as everyone has said, it was a "Unite The Right" rally. Not a "please don't move our nice statues" rally. Was it? Was. It. Dave.?
27
Hey Dave. Since you didn't watch the videoes from Crash Course, here's another couple for you to ignore.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ipRaLa4Jw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JBYqV2sK918

28
Dave, did you read, or just Hawkins Trump's statement? Look again, particularly at the sentence immediately after the part you bolded. He explicitly says you had neo-nazis and white nationalists in that group, along with "many other people". What is that supposed to mean other than these supposed "very fine people" were marching with the fucking Nazis?
29
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?
30
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.
31
Politics and Current Events / Re: Comic relief thread
Bright sunshine is a pain in the neck for shadows they end up being really hard with no gradation between light and dark. A nice cloud just in front of the sun is what you want to diffuse the light. Or a reflector to bounce light back up.
32
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.
33
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
In continuing news on the Trump visit cancellation, Madame Tussauds are trolling him.

As is J. K. Rowling.


This is what we do when nothing's happening. Can you imagine what would have happened if he'd actually turned up?
34
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
It's an excuse because he didn't want crowds throwing eggs, rotten fruit, bricks, that sort of thing at him. Plus he's antagonised the elected mayor of the relevant city, and there was a yuge petition against him coming on a state visit, loads of MPs demanded he didn't come, etc. And that was before the PM gently suggested retweeting videos from Britain First was a bad idea, and he shouted via twitter at her.

Basically he'd have got the traditional Cable Street Welcome we give to fascists.
35
EMBARRASSMENT

is an awesome and powerful tool ...

As is ...

EXPOSURE

James Damore is using these tools right now against Google ... https://www.wired.com/story/james-damores-lawsuit-is-designed-to-embarrass-google/
And there were quite a few people using those tools against the South.

Didn't work.

Presumably Churchill should have tried to EMBARRASS the Nazis into giving up Poland.

Uh ... no.  He rightly went to war.  And the North would have rightly went to war if the South had invaded some northern state and taken it over.
Interesting. So now the concept of states is important to you. How is that not "wanting to look good on the world stage"?

Dave, do you understand that the South (or the southern states, or the slaveowners) was attacking someone every time they whipped a slave? Every time they separated a family? Every time they chased a runaway? Every time they raped?

Why is violence "allowed" by you when another state is attacked, but not another person?
Churchill wasn't trying to look good on the world stage by not letting some territories go independent.
Tell that to the Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis Dave. They have a much less rosy view of Churchill.
36
Links or it didn't happen Clastie.

I provided the link to the celebration above.
To your book on Amazon you utter fuckwit. And to anything indicating you'll be signing anything there. And no, ranting in the corner with your underpants on your head and waving your book around doesn't count.
37
Lol ... the flailing is awesome... please keep it up
Poor dave. Can anyone help dave with this?
May I raise the possibility of going to his novel and repeatedly beating him with a cricket bat?
39
The only one flailing here is you Dave. People can love their kith and kin, and pets, and still do abhorrent things to people they don't think of as being people. Those apologists for, and proponents of slavery that you keep citing, for example. 
40

4) There are better ways to fight abuses like slavery besides starting a war that claims 750,000 lives

Please, oh please do explain more.
Are you kidding me? You really don't know? And yet you guys chastise me for not knowing history? WTF?

Slavery was abolished peacefully throughout the whole British Empire in 1833.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
Not entirely. For one thing there were a bunch of revolts by slaves that helped chivvy the white folks along.

More importantly the British Empire wasn't composed of a bunch of states who could elect their own parliaments, and they didn't send representatives to the British Parliament either (didn't you fight a war over that?). The whole "States' Rights" thing (again, "A State's Right to what, sir?") didn't exist in the same way at all. So if the UK Parliament made a rule banning slavery and said it applied to all their colonies then the colonies had to accept it. And you can guarantee if any of them tried to secede the government wouldn't have had any of it, regardless of their reasoning.
41
I seem to recall portions of the Steele Dossier have been verified. If someone comes to the FBI with a bunch of information some of which corroborates stuff you already know, you're going to say "hey, maybe this other stuff is also true? After all, it fits with data we have obtained independently". So why woudn't you investigate other parts to see if they're true?
42
Links or it didn't happen Clastie.
43
Dave Godfrey for MP!
I faithfully promise, if elected, to go and find Mr Dave Hawkins, and repeatedly smack him round the head with a 2x4.

I am glad I have your support.
44
Foner's a pretty well-respected ACW/Lincoln/Mid-to-late-1800's historian, I think.

foner is a fucking god in the field of US history, especially the civil war and reconstruction.

very few historians have their own college textbook that they wrote themselves and which uses their expertise and prestige as a kind of brand for selling it. like i am pretty sure he's the only one.
Crash Course, which I've linked to before, and Dave clearly didn't pay attention to, cite him pretty heavily.
45
Speaking of secession... Here's a question... Should the UK be allowed to leave the European Union?

the EU constitution (?) has an article explicitly defining the right to leave and the implications of that.
Article 50 to be precise. Its been invoked. It was a fucking stupid idea invoking it, and holding the referendum, and so on, but yep, there's a procedure for 
Well the EU is making it hard to leave.
No, the fact that the UK sent people who couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag, nobody on the UK side has any fucking idea what they actually want (other then Blue Passports1!1!!one!) and didn't give any thought to how this would impact Ireland, where a hard border between North and South would be a fucking disaster, and yet the Unionists won't allow any kind of border or difference in regulation across the Irish Sea either. So we leave the EU, but have to abide by all the EU regulations on freedom of movement, goods, etc, across that bit. But not at the Channel Tunnel, where's it'll be all "papers please"?

And of course the EU are going to make it difficult. It would fall apart completely if you could pick and choose which of the Four Freedoms you wanted to have.
46
Why do you say "man up"?  Are you a mysoginist?  Implying that men are mentally tougher than women or something?  Why not say "woman up"?
Why do you say "all men are created equal". Are you a misogynist [sic] ?
Now answer the question.
I will ... but "men" in that context means "humans" ... what - exactly - does YOUR use of the word "man" mean ... note that you are using the word as a verb ...
AFDave's Eighth Law:
Any thread where I'm getting my ass handed to me on the original topic can be prolonged indefinitely by the introduction of tangential diversions or an abnormal focus on meaningless minutiae.


Here. I'll rephrase:  "show - or at least fake for a moment - the courage of an adult human"
Hi Dave ... :wave:
okay great. I guess you are not a misogynist after all.

Anyway, to answer your question about was Lincoln the worst president of all... I guess it kind of depends on how you rate good and bad. I think it's clear that he did preside over the most costly war in US history in terms of human lives lost. And if your yard stick for good and bad is number of lives lost in a war, then yes he was the worst. But if your yard stick is how well did he preserve the Union and lay the foundation for the most powerful Nation on Earth, then of course he did very well.
I feel like maybe the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment should be mentioned here as well.
And that more human lives were lost in WWI and WWII. Now while I'm sure Dave had a minor brainfart and meant to say US lives, I'd like to raise the possibility that that's exactly the sort of mistake a racist would make.
47
Dave, Constantine became Emperor because he won a civil war. Do you even know the legend about how he won the battle?
48
Interestingly, Dave's pro-slavery arguments echo those from back in the day, which actually hold some merit, if one places quality of life over freedom as a chief priority.

The arguments went something like this:

A slave owner has invested significant financial resources into his capital investment (slaves) and so has a vested interest in keeping that capital resource operating at peak efficiency. He does not wanting it dying from malnutrition, running away, or getting sick and consuming resources without being productive. Whips and runaway squads are only partially effective, and the better long-term solution is to actually feed, clothe, and house your slaves adequately, treat them somewhat decently so they remain productive and provide the optimal return on the investment.

Factory owners in the north, however, had no such limitations. All they needed to do was pay their workers just enough to keep them coming back week after week. If there's a large enough pool of poor unemployed, there is no requirement to provide adequate living wage, housing, food or medical treatment. If someone is too sick to work one day, too bad, there's plenty more to fill that spot.

Theoretically, therefore, the slaves in the south were indeed better off in general than a typical factory worker in the north.

Except, of course, that is not what happened, if you go back to vivisectus' original historic perspective. By the time cotton began climbing as the economic engine of the South, indeed, of the entire USA, the practice was to work slaves as hard and as long as possible, for as little input costs as possible, to the point that few cotton plantation slaves lived past fifty, having been worked to death, and slaves sold from other areas to the cotton fields sometimes committed suicide rather than be forced into that hell on earth.

Well, To put that into perspective:  "In 2015, life expectancy for Nigeria was 53 years. Life expectancy of Nigeria increased from 39.4 years in 1966 to 53 years in 2015 growing at an average annual rate of 0.61 %"

Why did I choose Nigeria for the comparison? Calabar, a seaport in Southern Nigeria, was a major port in the transportation of African slaves. By the 18th century, most slave ships that transported slaves from Calabar were English, with around 85% of these ships being owned by Bristol and Liverpool merchants.

I was unable to find the life expectancy in Nigeria in 1860, but it is reasonable to think it was even lower than the 39.4 years in 1966.
Seen in that light, living to fifty as a slave in the Old South is not, in and of itself such a damning statistic for slavery. However, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, quality of life and expected life span is not the principle considerations in condemning and abolishing slavery.
Is that life expectancy at birth though? Because I'd expect there to be very high rates of mortality among infants and pregnant women in Nigeria. I'd also want to compare the life expectancy of people living in Nigeria with the slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean, which is where the majority of the Africans who were captured and sold ended up. Only about 5% ended up in the States. Working in cotton plantations wasn't quite so utterly lethal as working in sugar plantations, so slaves actually lived long enough to form families and have children. So they should probably have their life expectancy compared to that of poor whites, as many of them would have been born in the USA, rather than modern day Nigeria.
49
Compared to, say, Brazil, the US brought in relatively few slaves from the Transatlantic Slave trade. Mostly iirc, because slaves had a long enough life expectancy working in cotton fields, etc, compared to those working on sugar plantations in Brazil and the West Indies, that they survived long enough to have families and children (who could, of course then be sold). This didn't happen in Brazil, which kept importing slaves until slavery was eventually banned there in the 1880s.

So for some slaveholders quality of life clearly wasn't much of a consideration. If your slave died or was maimed in an industrial accident you just bought a new one.
50
I am voracious reader ... probably read more than most people here ...
That's not how you spell "vacuous" Dave.