Posted on 08/16/2010 7:21:14 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Perhaps you can begin by explaining this statement?
You: “Again, show me in my quote where I said that the slavery issue here had to do with the South's slavery?”
Certainly. You used this statement:“...the South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...””
Why don’t you use the quote in context along with all of my other quotes. You keep going back to that quote and I keep putting it in context and you ignore. Do you have any evidence or point to make? Until you do, you have done nothing but make a fool of yourself.
:“...the South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
I did.
"...answered ad nasuem
No, you did not.
Here is what you said:
“But today, it seems to me that the only people who defend the South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery are southerners...” I'm not running from anything. I stand by that statement.
You say that you "stand by it", but you don't.
Do you truly think you can look brilliant by changing the meaning of the premise and then expect no one to really notice your sleight of hand canard?
Remember that your quote was: “...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
Where's the explanation?
Next you said: “Again, show me in my quote where I said that the slavery issue here had to do with the South's slavery? (You expect anyone to take that with a straight face?)Take this quote in conjunction with everything else I wrote and you will clearly see that the slavery I was talking about was the extension of slavery to the new territories and states.
So, again you don't explain, but instead change the premise while claiming others fail to understand you.
A debate tactic that is too obvious to adopt....shouldn't you be above that?
You know, you are an idiot and repetitive. I believe the old axiom the only thing that happens when you argue with idiots is you lower yourself to their level.
Since I have repudiated all of your idiotic statements, the only thing you have left to do is distort what I said. Since you cannot comprehend simple english, this is not worth going on. Do you actually have some intelligent thought to express here? I would say new intelligent thought, but you haven’t had one yet so it’s one intelligent thought.
Explain your comment: “...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
Explain your comment: “...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
Same old, same old. Just because you don’t like the explanation and it doesn’t fit into your paradigm, does not mean I didn’t answer it. You are boring and have no thoughtful analysis or perspective. Other than to twist what I have said.
Twist?
Just simply xplain: “...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
re-read posts 32 and 47. Asked and answered ad nasuem, next question pea brain...
as said previously
re-read posts 32 and 47.
I did.
“...answered ad nasuem
No, you did not.
Here is what you said:
“But today, it seems to me that the only people who defend the South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery are southerners...” I’m not running from anything. I stand by that statement.
You say that you “stand by it”, but you don’t.
Do you truly think you can look brilliant by changing the meaning of the premise and then expect no one to really notice your sleight of hand canard?
Remember that your quote was: “...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
Where’s the explanation?
You continually go back to things I already answered because you have no argument and no intelligent thought on the matter.
‘Cuz, whatever its other faults (slavery, etc.), the battle for State’s Rights was a righteous fight.
Forget, Hell!
“...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”
Where’s the explanation?
Where is your explanation to be found...“...South’s position vis a vis the Civil War and by extension slavery...”?
I am talking rational discussion of fact, not opinion.
Posts 32 and 47 do not lay out a factual case. You can run back to 9 or 20.
Nothing but your opinion, biased as it is.
Nothing but your opinion, biased as it is.
You still do not understand secession, who brought war, and for what specific reasons.
But you can still stick with, “From my reading of events...” because that seems to be your only curiosity.
Have you considered that you really don’t know what you think you know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.