Posted on 10/20/2004 7:41:27 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
dixieping
free the southland NOW,sw
I think I can frame your argument based on "Sweet Home Alabama" and the passion one has to preserve that versus "Wall Street and Corporate Criminals" and the lust one has for money, power and control. To put it simply, the "good natured, passionate, fun-loving southerners" vr. the "icy cold, hard and calculating northerners". I tend to agree a bit, but I think one has to examine the cause-effect relationship that occurred AFTER the civil war and that’s way too difficult. So, a better argument would be to accurately portray the lives of African Slaves in the North vr. South BEFORE the Civil War. And hey, it was just determined that Wall Street was initially built by African Slaves. Based on the latest information, the "powers that were" decided to "work them to death (usually around 40) and buy more”, as opposed to letting them reproduce and having to pay for that expense. This gives you a good start!
A better way of responding based on the South's perspective. I think?
1) Slavery was practiced and accepted around the world before America was formed.
2) The Northern US praticed Slavery as did the South, as did the world (as some African countries still do today).
3) Leading up to the American Revolution, the Northern US had much closer ties to England, and were uncertain who to back during the revolution. The Southern rebel passion predominated and the rest we know.
4) Due to its close ties to England, the North stayed close to England’s governance and the South prospered due to it’s fertile soil, slavery, and world markets for it products.
5) Civil War. Your article claims the purpose for the war was based on the affluence of the South vrs. the greed, corruption, world governance model, elitist controlling nature of the North, lead by Lincoln, a wealthy Northerner.
6) The affect of 140 years of casting the South as the “inhumane” player in slavery and casting the North as the “good” moral guys. Predictably, the Southerners feel a bit betrayed, manipulated, misunderstood, bitter and rebellious.
With all of the movies, books, propaganda, and distortion of history, one may find that the life of the slave was better in the South (vrs. the North and the World) and that would add credence to your article.
Bump!
Outstanding post . . . bttt!
Many thanks! Glad you dropped by w_over_w
This article (including links) merely states the motives of Lincoln and his constituency versus the South and its right of self-governance. Moreover, in retrospect, the North fought based on a more “Colonial Power” rationale and the South, as we know, were Rebels. Why is this important?
Three Decisions of a “Colonial Power” in the 20th Century:
1. The establishment of Middle Eastern country boarders based on exploitation and to ensure internal conflict.
2. The establishment of Kashmir based on exploitation and to ensure external conflict.
3. Quite simply Diamonds, DeBeers, Destruction and Africa.
Where are the Rebels?
Specifically to your point, with the changes and all, the new Republican Party has a big tent. Part of which, are people who have old, rightful, justifiable passions that will never die.
This is a conservative forum, not a Republican forum. If you can't tell the difference, you ought to stop posting and read more.
Democrats used to be conservative, Republicans used to be more radical. The parties have flip-flopped positions on the political spectrum, but southern conservatism has remained a constant.
The uneducated posters could begin with the Constitution, Elliot's Debates and the Federalist/Anti-federalist Papers.
Sorry, but the document from which that quote comes was written in 1867 long before the popularization of an explicitly anti-semitic connotation to that phrase. If you were not an ignorant dolt you would have taken the time to look up the context of that quote and found that it appears in an article deriding those northern financial interests who promoted the war as a device to (a) hedge their investments upon and (b) boost the sale of their industrial wares to the union army and federal government.
It's a curious disconnect
The only disconnect around here, snicker boy, is on your end. It appears to be of a triadic nature in which you erroniously connect two similar but distinct terms, "conservative" and "Republican," to an identical referent, which they are not.
As usual you are simply full of it. The earliest english reference to "blood money" I could locate appears to be from the early 1500's referring simply to money that is paid to a killer or facilitator of killing in return for his crime. It derives as a modern english conceptual translation from the saxon/nordic term "wergeld" or "weregild" or "wehrgeld," geld/gild referring to money, meaning a price paid upon another's head, which dates back in common, recorded, and legal use to at least the reign of Ethelstan, who ruled Saxon england in the 900's. As late as Blackstone the term was still being referenced as simple homicide money with nothing even remotely to suggest that an inherent anti-semitic connotation existed.
Wow...such fancy grammatical footwork to make such a factually threadbare point (what kind of adjective is "erroniously," BTW? I've never run into that in vernacular English...snicker...).
I see you've revealed your profession: typo policeman, which is really to say unemployed loser who tries in vain to feel better about himself by trolling the internet in search of other people's typos and spelling errors while remaining seemingly oblivious to his own (In american english it's anti-semite with a hyphen and oscitation alone and oscitation, the noun, with no "ary," the addition of which would create an invention that is not even a word, BTW).
But I understand the impulse: I was once an immature college freshman
So what'd they boot ya for? Academic fraud, ineptness, or simply being unable to compete in an academic environment?
and went around trying to impress and awe everyone with such highbrow semantics, too.
Did they give you "oscitationary" reactions or were they still waiting for you to invent that word? As an aside, I find it relevant to note that you have repeated your previous triadic error, this time falsely associating the term "semantic" (dealing of or with word arrangements) with what is in fact a semiotic (dealing of or with the role of words as a sign) observation. Not that I would expect anything less from an illogical half educated twit as yourself...
Now, if you would like a genuine textbook example of contrived pseudo-intellectual verbosity (defined as the awkward insertion of a complex or pseudo-complex wording, of which the author's grasp is tenuous at best, when a simpler one would more than suffice), I direct your attention to the following passage. The highlights are free of charge:
But I moved on, grew up, matured, whatever you want to call it--and realized that the only person I was "impressing" with such galimatias was myself. In any event, your compound sentence is basically grammatical gibberish--as any high school sophomore in an English class could easily discern--but the kernel of sense that can be gleaned from it is laughable. I don't know how they teach Logic 101 in the academic groves you cut your intellectual teeth in (..snicker..), but, if I were you, I'd demand a tuition refund. Your "point," such as it is, seems to be that a syllogism cannot be made between Premise A. (Republicans tend to be conservative) and Premise B. (Conservatives, to the extent that they align themselves ideologically with a political party, are almost uniformly members of the GOP). This is a peculiar way to divide the particular from the specific, while ignoring the general, but it comes as no surprise: special pleaders nearly always indulge in such intellectual legerdemain to highlight a small point that, in some slight manner or interpretation, appears supportive of their position when seen by itself (*prima facie*), while ignoring the larger body of connected facts, conditions, and evidence to which it is but a subset. In plain terms, pilgrim, it's wordy crap you've stirred around and then thrown against a wall with the hopes that it'll stick. It doesn't, at least with anyone who's ever genuinely read Plato's "Republic," as opposed to just excerpting cute "money quotes" from it. "Conservative" and "Republican" have become nearly interchangeable as descriptive terms both ideologically and culturally in this era--and you either well know it or as dense as your posts make you appear. Or if, as you seem to prefer, you want that in academic-speak: it is the irrefutable and undeniable ontology of this social epoch...(snicker)... Ahhh...my oscitationary reflexes are starting to manifest themselves, so I must close...(snicker)... But in closing, and as a public service announcement, I'd urge you to drop the Ivory-Tower-pretensions act, and speak plainly to your points in the future. You make no one look ridiculous with such playacting at being a wise intellectual who can bandy about fancy language but yourself. Just a little free advice, that you may do with what you will...Ironically, the very subject of our example offender's rant seems to be a denunciation and projection of the very same offense he commits. Returning to your illogical ramblings though...
Your "point," such as it is, seems to be that a syllogism cannot be made between Premise A. (Republicans tend to be conservative) and Premise B. (Conservatives, to the extent that they align themselves ideologically with a political party, are almost uniformly members of the GOP).
In which case you would be in error, though whether it is intentional or not remains to be seen. My point was nothing more than to highlight the error of your equation of the purpose of this forum with the Republican Party - an error that, as I noted previously, is triadic in nature for it falsely mistakes the referent of two similar but distinct terms. That you stubbornly persist in this error and now weave fanciful projections onto others as your primary means of escaping responsibility for it also suggests, perhaps, that instead of "snicker boy," as derived from your abnormally excessive exercise of spontaneous whim, the phrase "dyad boy" would better apply, so as to connote your twice-demonstated difficulty in matters that exceed the dyadic barrier.
LG - check this new guy out if you want a laugh. He seems to think that he's Protagoras, though Ignatius Reilly would probably be more accurate in describing his psychological condition.
*Ironically, the very subject of our example offender's rant seems to be a denunciation and projection of the very same offense he commits. Returning to your illogical ramblings though...*
It's called mockery. Your posts lend themselves so readily to it, after all. As usual, you've got that "AV projector" (snicker) turned on and going full throttle...
As to the rest, it's all twiddledee-la-la, blather, bubble, boil and snooker. It's a meaningless pile of words; keyboard cotton candy for the self-impressed. It's a parody of what a real scholar might say if such a specimen was present and accounted for. As has been shown, one isn't. Get back to me when you have something serious to say, or when East Popcorn State Community College finally comes through with that correspondence course degree...either/or.
Ah...why am I not surprised? The great scholar and intellect can't manage by his poor lonesome...has to call in "reinforcements"...(snicker)...
Indeed it is. Sadly you have yet to realize that you are its object.
Your posts lend themselves so readily to it, after all. As usual, you've got that "AV projector" (snicker) turned on and going full throttle...
Using stolen projectors to project about projecting. You're twisting yourself into an ever more convoluted web of idiocy with every post!
As to the rest, it's all twiddledee-la-la, blather, bubble, boil and snooker.
Are those the cousins of your frequently referred friend "snicker" or just a fit of denial from an obnoxious little twit who cannot come to terms with the fact that, yet again, he's been bested? Or perhaps a product of both, eh Ignatius? As I've remarked at a prior time, you're little more than a bag of illogical ironies. No, wait. Make that a gasbag.
Get back to me when you have something serious to say, or when East Popcorn State Community College finally comes through with that correspondence course degree.
Did they kick ya out as well? Boy, you're batting 0 for 2! Don't worry though - I hear that there are a few "colleges" out there looking for failed obnoxious twits not unlike yourself to fill their alumnist pools. Perhaps you could become ordained as a "bishop" from Southeastern Pensacola Internet Bible College. Or if that fails, hike on over to Claremont and get the Abratollah Jaffa to make you one of his imams
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.