Does MB, BMW, etc put auto plants in the CSA?Remember in the 80s when people drove plenty of Benzs, Beemers, Saabs, Audis, VWs ? Then Lexus, Acura, Infiniti wiped them out. Now you have to search to find a Kraut car on the road.
Does MB, BMW, etc put auto plants in the CSA?Remember in the 80s when people drove plenty of Benzs, Beemers, Saabs, Audis, VWs ? Then Lexus, Acura, Infiniti wiped them out. Now you have to search to find a Kraut car on the road.
In the Northern state we are greater intelligence + better schooling.
.T.L. the stallion wrote:
Wow There wrote:Who attacked Fort Sumter?
someone sits on your lawn and doesn't leave, you're not going to go get a shotgun and give them 10 seconds to get off?
You are? You need to immediately move to Texas if you do not already live there. Civilized America does not want you
luv2run wrote:
Another oddity: everyone today seems to think it was great that the US had a war of independence with GB because of serious and legitimate political issues of how to rule oneself as a land. However, when the southern states invoked a similar idea (that they should be allowed to set their own laws), everyone thinks that was a bad idea.
I think you're creating a false dichotomy.
Most people in the current US think that the revolutionary war was a good idea; I'm not sure that the British share that point of view, although they are of course not actively opposed to us at this point.
Similarly, many people in the south at the time of the civil war also thought it was a good idea, while many in the north did not.
Had the South been successful, in the current time the inhabitants of the CSA would probably think it was a good idea.
Had the US not been successful in the revolution against the British, we might view that failed attempt the way we view the civil war now.
The way we look at history is, to some extent, based on the outcomes of events just as much as it is based on the causes of said events.
I would like to thank the north for whipping the south in the Civil War in four years, when it should have only taken six months. The south was out populated two to one and all the railroads plus manufacturing plants were located in the union provinces.
Due to the north doing us a big favor by winning the war, they are continuing to screw the rest of the country by electing far left liberal radical politicians. Case in point, Obama. This fella won the north, midwest, rocky mountain region, and far west overwhelmingly and strolled into white house with CHANGE. You know the northern way or yankee state of doing things, health care bill, homosexuality in armed forces, stimulus spending, etc. All hail the North! Good ole change, which everyone unless you are a far left liberal radical despises.
All hail the goober pea eating Yanks for their wonderful contributions to and for the south then and the rest of the country now.
Yanks vs red sox? You decide.
An Engineer wrote:
Had the South been successful, in the current time the inhabitants of the CSA would probably think it was a good idea.
Not sure if you've ever actually been to the south but there are a lot of people down here who still think it was a good idea.
Of course many of those same people insist it had very little to do with slavery.
Not sure why you folks would want to lose SC. That state has some of the nicest beaches in the nation. Sure, the rest of the state is a wasteland, but damn if everything south of Myrtle Beach isn't just pretty as a peach. Well, except Georgetown, that place smells like a gaping ass.
Actually, I used to hate that sulfur smell of the paper factories, but I have grown to love it. It reminds me of my childhood in Charleston.
I think we can all agree that we are LIKELY better off as a result of the North winning the Civil War. You never know though, many of the Southern States are about as bad as it gets. MS, AK, AL and others are pretty much in the shitter. Maybe they would be better off, who knows.
As for the people who think the South will rise again, they are no different than your Jersey Shore guidos. Every area has their pocks, those happen to be the South's.
luv2run wrote:
Another oddity: everyone today seems to think it was great that the US had a war of independence with GB because of serious and legitimate political issues of how to rule oneself as a land. However, when the southern states invoked a similar idea (that they should be allowed to set their own laws), everyone thinks that was a bad idea.
Slavery was stupid not just from a human rights standpoint (slavery had been going on for pretty much the entire history of mankind) but from an economic standpoint. At some point, the southerners would have realized that paying people to work is far more productive than having to buy and keep slaves. Eventually the practice would have died out on moral grounds as well (as it had in Britain).
Sorry for the rambling.
Yeah, you did ramble alright.
I just looove the nonsense US history (and everything else) reflections of right wingers today. It goes a little something like this:
- Lincoln was a tyrant responsible for the deaths of 10000's of patriots. One of the worst presidents ever
- The South were just like our original founding fathers who broke away from the tyrannical king of Britain. All they wanted was independence from tyranny
- Apparently (see luv2bedumb's comments above) the southern states were also just like the Soviet Union states that wanted independence from Big Bad Russia, and the north and Lincoln were like Big Bad Russia, evil socialist dictators
- Slavery really had little to do with the war. AND.... Lincoln should have never tried to get the whole country to abandon it. He should have just allowed nature to take its course, and EVENTUALLY, the dumb southerners would have figured out that it was wrong morally and economically. Maybe this might have taken another generation or two, but hey black people, you can't rush history! (we probably should have let the Germans continue the Holocaust and their little taking over the world program too. Because, you know, EVENTUALLY they would have figured out that genocide was wrong, and that there is no feasible way to govern the whole world)
I agree with you on THIS: I do sort of wish the south had remained a separate nation. They are damn anchor on the US. Then the north could have built a big wall (since the South seems to like the idea of border walls) to keep all the inbred rednecks from coming over the border. We'd let the Mexicans in via the southwest. We'd let them in over the southerners ANY day.
I'd say that this nonsense history is a reflection of idiots from the south (who happen to be right-wingers), rather than right wingers (who happen to be from the south). Acting like Conservatives as a whole believe this crap is ridiculous. Redneck racists from the south (who claim to be conservatives but really are not) believe this stuff.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Yeah, you did ramble alright.
I just looove the nonsense US history (and everything else) reflections of right wingers today. It goes a little something like this:
- Lincoln was a tyrant responsible for the deaths of 10000's of patriots. One of the worst presidents ever
- The South were just like our original founding fathers who broke away from the tyrannical king of Britain. All they wanted was independence from tyranny
- Apparently (see luv2bedumb's comments above) the southern states were also just like the Soviet Union states that wanted independence from Big Bad Russia, and the north and Lincoln were like Big Bad Russia, evil socialist dictators
- Slavery really had little to do with the war. AND.... Lincoln should have never tried to get the whole country to abandon it. He should have just allowed nature to take its course, and EVENTUALLY, the dumb southerners would have figured out that it was wrong morally and economically. Maybe this might have taken another generation or two, but hey black people, you can't rush history! (we probably should have let the Germans continue the Holocaust and their little taking over the world program too. Because, you know, EVENTUALLY they would have figured out that genocide was wrong, and that there is no feasible way to govern the whole world)
I agree with you on THIS: I do sort of wish the south had remained a separate nation. They are damn anchor on the US. Then the north could have built a big wall (since the South seems to like the idea of border walls) to keep all the inbred rednecks from coming over the border. We'd let the Mexicans in via the southwest. We'd let them in over the southerners ANY day.
An Engineer wrote:
I'd say that this nonsense history is a reflection of idiots from the south (who happen to be right-wingers), rather than right wingers (who happen to be from the south). Acting like Conservatives as a whole believe this crap is ridiculous. Redneck racists from the south (who claim to be conservatives but really are not) believe this stuff.
True. In addition, it is naive and ignorant to act like the North was a big morality machine coming down to make things right for the slaves. That is a bunch of bullshit. It was politically advantageous for them to oppose slavery. otherwise, it wouldn't have been as big of an issue.
You know good and well that the civil war was not a war to free the slaves.
I am not even Conservative, and your attitude still bothers me. You are a closed minded bigot.
Bubba Slye wrote:
True. In addition, it is naive and ignorant to act like the North was a big morality machine coming down to make things right for the slaves. That is a bunch of bullshit. It was politically advantageous for them to oppose slavery. otherwise, it wouldn't have been as big of an issue.
You know good and well that the civil war was not a war to free the slaves.
I am not even Conservative, and your attitude still bothers me. You are a closed minded bigot.
Everything after the word "true" is directed at Sir-Lance-a-Lot. not AnEngineer.
"Wish this board had an edit function."
That's what the angry commenters are for! Otherwise they would have to go running.
It's interesting that at the same time South Carolina continues to want to "celebrate" its confederate heritage, which WAS about slavery, Rhode Island has removed "Plantations" from the state's official name. Guess which state is on the right track.
I love your sandwiches.
Sloetry in Motion wrote:
I love your sandwiches.
They were a hell of a lot better when I lived on Beaufain.
Amiright?
King Lincoln wrote:
Wow There wrote:Who attacked Fort Sumter?
Lincoln did, he had no right occupying a part of a sovereign state that had left the Union. Moreover, nobody died in the "attack" on Fort Sumter, and yet Lincoln killed over 5% of the population of the entire country, maimed more, burdened the country with debt for generations, and improved only the de jure status of blacks, not de facto.
Get your history straight. South Carolina seceeded and then set about seizing property that didn't belong to them. If the Federal Government seized property in this fashion you idiots would go apoplectic. There was no war until South Carolina fired on a pieve of Federal property off the coast. The didn't offer to buy Sumter, they attacked it.
The question of the "legality" of the South's secession is moot - since when do revolutionaries care about legality? The only point in question is slavery being the cause of secession and it was. I care no more about the South's legal right to seceed than I care about Nat Turner's legal right to hack up his master (strangely, the tea party idiots who are so scared of tyranny don't deify slave rebels like Nat Turner or people like John Brown who were quite literally fighting actual, not metaphorical, tyranny).
The Answer My Friend wrote:
It's interesting that at the same time South Carolina continues to want to "celebrate" its confederate heritage, which WAS about slavery, Rhode Island has removed "Plantations" from the state's official name. Guess which state is on the right track.
Neither?
That is stupid of Rhode Island. That is akin to banning the word "camp" b/c of Hitler's concentration camps.
Sneaky political trickery is all it is. Trying to take advantage of the situation to gain favor. RI should be embarrassed.
I highly recommend Doris Kearns Goodwin's work "Team of Rivals" about the Lincoln administration for those of you who are genuinely interested in this subject and have yet to read it. It is a fascinating book, and Goodwin masterfully details how Lincoln had to hold together a very fragile coalition, of which only one part was adamantly anti-slavery, in order to defeat the Confederacy.