about with a person that was for slavery
You Sir, are an idiot.
Posted on 11/30/2008 4:21:44 AM PST by Nick Thimmesch
He is also half white.
Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.
We call him that -- he calls himself that -- because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There's no in-between.
That was my reaction when I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: "Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You Sir, are an idiot.
“How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk and it becomes a delicious drink. That’s the chocolate I’m talking about.” Backpeddlin’ Ray Nagin, Democrat bigot.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if he is green. It makes no difference what his skin color is.
He is 100% racist, socialist and marxist.
He is racist because he was a member of the Trinity “church”. Flip that around, and that white candidate would probably never even have got elected to the senate.
He is socialist because of the policies he proposes.
He is Marxist because he is a devotee of class warfare.
Watch. The left is going to make EVERY issue into a race issue. Someone disagrees with him? Racist. Someone says something bad about him? Racist. They have already done so.
During the campaign, Obama tried to play the “I’m down with the struggle” card by claiming that “his family” was descended from slaves (by way of his wife and through him, his wife’s children).
He was not descended from American slaves, he grew up in Indonesia where he didn’t even experience “racism” from American “imperialism”. He eventually got tired of moving around with “wandering mama” and moved to Hawaii to live with his grandmother who worked as the VP of a bank.
But don’t question his authority.
You said — “Who ended slavery? The North. Nothing ignorant about that fact. Obviously your from the South so no use arguing about with a person that was for slavery. Over and out.”
Well, the war started because of secession of states from the Union (which, actually and technically, should have been allowed, although it would have definitely destroyed the U.S. as we know it now). These states left the Union as a result of “state’s rights” issues, and not primarily because of slavery.
There are still state’s rights issues today and some think that the Federal Government has encroached way too much on states rights issues. Some have been affirmed for the states (against the Federal Government) by the Supreme Court, but it’s still a viable issue, even today. There are state’s rights issue with the Federal Government encroaching way too much upon the sovereignty of the individual states of the United States. The Federal Government (thanks to the “liberals” have enforced their agendas by means of taking away “state’s rights issues” from the states and transferring them over to the Federal Government where they can control things *centrally*.
So, in the Civil War, slavery was a secondary issue, and the South was going to end slavery anyway, but it wasn’t on the same timetable as some others wanted. Slavery would have ended soon, too, with automation and mechanization, since the economy would have shifted to machines instead of slavery for much of their work. And there were also people in the South who wanted to end slavery. Everyone knew that its time was limited and would be over soon.
As far as the Civil War being primarily for ending slavery, that’s very far from the truth. The war that Lincoln launched had nothing to do with that. His *primary purpose* was to preserve the Union and not allow those states to leave (although, as I said, they did have the right to do so...). Lincoln took a *military position* to force those states to stay in the Union, even though they had the right to leave.
Now, I’m not saying that we aren’t better off — in regards to the “Union” with everyone staying as part of the Union, but our “states rights issues” suffered as a result of Lincoln, even though he preserved the Union.
However, the North (the people of the North) did not want a prolonged war and they would have given up on Lincoln’s idea, soon — and he knew it. In order to shift gears, somewhat and as a matter of military strategy, Lincoln decided to give slaves freedom, as the Emancipation Proclamation declares. It’s looked upon as a fine and noble document — but at the same time, one must realize that it was *an instrument of war* and had a military objective, which was to gain support by a certain segment of people in the South and also to disrupt the economy of the South as much as possible.
I would say that a significant part of the North did not care if the South left and if they took all their slaves with them. Their attitude would be “let them leave and let them have their slaves...”
BUT, it was Lincoln’s war and it was something that he struggled to maintain, *primarily* for the purpose of *maintaining the Union* and not so much because of slavery. The slavery issue became a means to an end (the “end” being “winning the war”).
So, neither side really held a good “high ground” on the issue, from each side’s behavior and reasoning.
In fact, today, I see that the (so-called) “North” is probably more prejudiced against blacks and them being integrated fully into society than is true in the “South”. I’ve seen this for a long time. Many in the South do quite well living together with blacks, fully integrated and functioning in the South, while in the North, people seem to “spout off platitudes” about inequality of blacks, until blacks come into *their* neighborhoods... LOL... (it’s very true..., in the North). People in the North also seem to be afraid of blacks, more so than people in the South are. It’s a curious thing.
I did ride on those segregated busses (in the South) and grew up “knowing” where I was supposed to sit — and wondered about it. I laugh at a time when I was a kid and decided I was going to sit in the back of the bus (because I thought it was weird that we each sat in different parts of the bus). Well..., when I went back there, I sure got a lot of dirty looks from the blacks, back there..., like “what are you doing back here? The blacks definitely did not want me in “their territory”.
And likewise, the blacks didn’t sit in the front of the bus, either, getting equally dirty looks from whites and the bus driver telling them to go to the back of the bus...
However, into the future, when that changed, it was no problem. I didn’t have a problem and a lot of others didn’t have a problem. There were people that did have a problem with it, just like we have others that don’t abide by the right thing to do, today, either.
So, regardless of what you think the Civil War was about, it wasn’t about slavery — but rather — it was about *preserving the Union*. The slavery issue because a means to an end for winning the war, a simple “tool of war” — more or less..., just like the U.S. uses the Shia population of Iraq against the Sunni population, in order to further progress the U.S. aims and goals in the war.
It’s only in “retrospect” that we (of today) make the slavery issue to be more of a romantic ideal for the Civil War, which it wasn’t.
"Tonto can you believe what this guy just said?"
"No kemosobi, can you find out if he is goofy, or just idiot?"
Your an idiot. Got back to the 3d grade and start again.
“Obviously your from the South so no use arguuing about with a person that was for slavery”.
What an incoherent statement. When did Humblegunner state that he was “for slavery”? He merely stated that you were ignorant of the facts concerning the War of Northern Aggresion which is true. You are.
Do you think that Southerners went to Africa and chased Natives through the Jungle to capture Slaves? No. They were bought from New England Slave Traders who did go to Africa and bought them from other Native African Slave Trading Tribes and brought them to the U.S.in ships flying the American Flag.
You said to the other poster — “You Sir, are an idiot.”
He’s definitely showing his ignorance of the Civil War and has a “romanticized idea” (typical of liberals of today) of what the Civil War was about (like it was about slavery... LOL..).
He doesn’t know that the slavery issue is about as related to the Civil War, as us going to war with Iraq because we believe in Shias over Sunnis... LOL...
We had our own reasons for going to war there, and he had a name of Saddam Hussein...
Some people don’t know about “states rights” issue and don’t even realize that the liberals take away states rights issues (away from the sovereign states of the United States) in order to *consolidate control* in Washington DC, where they figure it’s easier to do (and to control everyone, through the Federal Government).
This is a person who is severely ignorant about what went on before and what is going on today....
LINCOLN DID NOT START THE WAR TO END SLAVERY. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He would have kept slavery if it would have preserved the Union. Both R.E. Lee and Jefferson Davis both thought slavery would simply die out on its own in time. Lee fought for the south because he fought for Virginia. He fought for the rights of his state. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. Try reading some of the books on this. I was looking at one in the book store just the other day and it was covering this subject in detail. Lincoln did not want the USA to break up into two countries, maybe three if the western US did something even different.
When Barack, or Barry plays the audience, he does it well.
Leaving his wandering mama (a very apt description by the way) and moving to Hawaii with a well off Grandma shows that he went with intelligence over emotion.
Odd his followers usually go the exact opposite direction.
There once was a term used that distinguished the offspring of a black and white marriage - a mullato (sp?).
Now Africa is a continent, and someone from that continent can, I suppose, call themselves, "African". But "African" is NOT a "race". Would not a "Caucasian" farmer from South Africa (now THERE's a dying species) who migrates -- legally, hopefully -- to the United States not be able to call themselves, "African-American" with a straight face?
The big O is in no sense an "african-American"! He is a Kenyon through his father who was a muslim Arab. The name tells all. As to being an American, that remains to be seen - maybe (I hope) the USSC will straighten out that fact.
You said — “LINCOLN DID NOT START THE WAR TO END SLAVERY.”
Well, I’ve pretty much said that in my posts. You should have told “napscoordinator” — not me... LOL...
Yeah, what you’re saying is right — it was a “state’s rights” issue — fundamentally and primarily. Too many people today have “romanticized” the Civil War into something that it never was.
I’ve got mixed feelings about the *real issue* behind the Civil War, because you’re right, they did have a right to remove themselves from the Union. And today we’ve lost a lot of state’s rights issues because of that (and we should try to get them back again, as “sovereign states” of the United States).
The mixed feelings comes about, because I think everyone would want to preserve the Union — but — it came at a price — the price of war and the price of losing state’s rights. And so, the mixed feelings...
The Indians had a term for it.
He who speaks with forked tongue.
Barack is articulate. What exactly did that mean?
I think it means he speaks WHITEY, and JIVE.
Listen to his speeches given at ‘BLACK’ events.
Listen to him in the debates.
It’s good that he can appeal and communicate well with both venues, but it’s not the way he says things, it’s what he said.
I think Barry(Barack) will be a ‘do good’ President.
He will do whatever will ‘do’ the most ‘good’ for himself.
“U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President”
2000 Bush narrowly elected with 51%
2008 Obama decisively wins with 52%
“Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.”
He’s not Black.
He’s not white.
HE IS ALSO NOT THE PRESIDENT ELECT.
We will not have a President Elect until the electors meet Dec. 15 and elect one.
Right now he is the presumed President Elect.
Let’s pray that the truth about his birth place and citizenship surface before then.
Either way, the country deserves to know the truth before the electors vote.
WTF? Being from the south makes you for slavery?
Ignorance, thy name is napscoordinator.
Well, I would agree with that title. You’re trying to “slant it” to be something that it’s not (i.e., “indecisive”). I posted the following in another thread...
I call 52.8-45.8% a blowout [68,465,974-59,417,826]. My comparison is what happened with Bush and what happened with Clinton. Obama did far more than either of those guys...
Take a look yourself —
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/states_map/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
Obama’s election (2008) — 52.8-45.8% [[68,465,974-59,417,826]
Bush’s last election (2004) — 50.7-48.3% [62,040,610-59,028,444]
Bush’s first election (2000) — 47.9-48.4% [50,456,002-50,999,897] - Bush lost the popular vote; won electoral college
Clinton’s re-election (1996) — 49.2-40.7% [47,402,357-39,198,755]
Clinton’s election (1992) — 43.0-37.7% [44,909,806-39,104,500] - another, third candidate in election
Compared to what has gone on before, Obama was elected by far greater majorities than any of these Presidents in the last five elections (including the present one)...
So Obama *was elected decisively*... indeed... (no matter whether you or I agree with him being elected).
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.