maybe if those retards hadn't hired and actual retarded person for their security, they wouldn't have been hacked. i mean, the dude used coding methods that a toddler would know not to use. truly top minds at work there.
sorry, i thought i was on a trump rally website, not a site about the ruling family of the country that we beat down for our independence. what the fuck is this faggot shit. nobody here gives a shit about this dumb bitch. this site has fallen so far from its glory days. it's so sad.
just to clear up some misconceptions here, the books were not banned. the copyright holders decided to stop publishing them. nobody told them to do that. still stupid as hell that they did that, but just trying to prevent the spread of fake news because it makes us look bad.
as a stats geek i want to know more about this poll. the methodology, the bias, etc. because i call bs on these numbers. unless the sample size is tiny, and has a very narrow population, there is no way you get these kinds of results in the wild. in addition to that, the way they choose to display the results is highly unusual too. if you don't carefully look at the labels, you end up with a total of just under 200, which is terrible data visualization.
agreed. lets leave the religious bullshit out of politics. the feeble minded have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want, but they shouldn't be using it to dictate how people outside of their brainwashing live their lives.
PART 2 CONTINUED:
"Why insert a gotcha statement when referring to the secession documents? Is it surprising that the seceding states would refer to slavery in their secession documents; it was a practice that had been lawful since the adoption of the constitution. The South had an economy that was based on a lawful slave workforce and the benefits were being enjoyed by the North and the South."
no gotcha statement intended, simply pointing out facts, and that your argument holds no water.
"Slavery was lawful in the united states until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. Months after the war for Southern Independence. Slavery was not the cause of the War Between the States. The current obsession with slavery as the “cause” of the war rests not on evidence but on ideological considerations of the present day."
already discussed, but it was only lawful in certain states.
"The invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln and his party (a minority of the American people) was due to an agenda of economic domination and not to some benevolent concern for slaves."
already debunked. the north had economic dominance that only got stronger, they did not need the south. furthermore, it's not an invasion when it's rightfully yours. and the North had 21 million people in 23 states, while the South had 9 million (3.5 million of which were slaves) in 11 states. the South was truly in the minority.
"Even when Lincoln issued his "Emancipation Proclamation," he freed few if any slaves. The North, which still had some slaves, kept it's slaves under the Proclamation. The Proclamation had two purposes and neither one was the freeing of slaves. Lincoln hoped that it would 1. instigate a slave rebellion in the South with the murder of many women and children, 2 causing the Confederate soldiers to quit fighting and return home to protect their families. This did not happen, due to the generally good relations between the blacks and whites in the South."
on the contrary, thousands upon thousands of slaves were freed. ("News from South Carolina: Negro Jubilee at Hilton Head", New York Herald, January 7, 1863, p. 5), ( "Interesting from Port Royal". The New York Times. p. 2., January 9, 1863), ( Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, pp 107-8, by Allen C Guelzo (2006)). and Lincoln's intentions had nothing to do with uprisings or rebellions. he wanted to shift international opinion in favor of the north, forever dashing the hopes of the traitors to be recognized as a legitimate country.
also i legitimately lol'd at "generally good relations between the blacks and whites in the South". you call racism and slavery generally good relations? i shudder to think of what bad relations means to you.
"The history taught in schools is a bunch of lies spewed forth by the enemies of the Constitutional government that was in effect before Lincoln's war against the South and the Constitution. Lincoln's Republican war was a successful rebellion against the Constitution and the principles upon which this land was founded"
and now you veer off into crazy town. i'm guessing you are from a southern state (or have ancestors from a southern state)solely based on this statement, and ardent support of the rebellion. to be clear, i am not saying you are racist or anything like that, but it is ok to admit that the South was wrong. what they did has no bearing on you as a person.
"The North did not go to war to free the slaves, or end slavery. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a sham. The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and as I said above a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth: cotton.
The United States government made war against the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America. Their reasons were entirely financial, based on the desire to institute protectionist tariffs to protect northern manufacturing interests."
The only reason the north went to war was because the South started it. like i said before, Lincoln was ok with letting the southern states have their little temper tantrum. but once they attacked fort sumter, a federal property, they were the ones that declared war. everything after that is the fault of the south, and the south only. as mentioned earlier, the emancipation proclamation was not a sham. thousands of slaves were immediately freed, and it was used as the basis for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. i have already discussed the false statements about economics and tariffs, at this point it is beating a dead horse.
I would also like to point out and expand on the contemporary reasons for the war, as mentioned in documents from the time:
In December 1860 president-elect Abraham Lincoln wrote to Alexander Stephens (future VP of the rebellion) "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us" (http://www.civilwarcauses.org/aleck.htm)
In March 1861, Alexander Stephens gave what became to be known the Cornerstone Speech, here are some excerpts:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ...[Thomas Jefferson's] ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition."
sounds pretty racist to me.
In 1863 Charles Sumner, the Republican senator, gave a speech during the discussions to admit Kansas as a state. in it he said "There are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is declared to be the "corner-stone" of the new edifice." (The Barbarism of Slavery (1860) by Charles Sumner)
in August 1862, Lincoln explained the nationalist goal as the preservation of the Union, one month prior to the Emancipation Proclamation: "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." (letter to Horace Greeley, found at http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm)
he literally just wanted to preserve the US, regardless of his personal views. Lincoln's war goals were reactions to the war, as opposed to causes. He was a true patriot.
In his 2nd Inaugural Address he stated "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it." (Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address).
So yeah, i'm pretty confident in saying Slavery was a major cause of the civil war.
i encourage you to do more research, spend time at the library or online, look for the original source documents, and to read a variety of interpretative texts. even if it conflicts with your current worldview. in this day and age, you can access a wide variety of information and dig really deep. you will get a clearer picture of how and why your statements are wrong. the civil war is among the most well documented and discussed parts of our history. understanding the reasons behind it will serve you well.
not sure how you can disagree with facts, but here we go (with citations):
"The North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery. The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth: cotton. The North's economy was based mostly on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton around the world. Cotton alone was 60% of U.S. exports in 1860." (https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm)
The north was not facing economic annihilation at all. "By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South."
this is a deeply unpopular theory put forth by the Beard, and was debunked by the 1950s. the fact remains the north and south had economies that were complementary, as you describe. there was no reason to break that up. as summed up in "The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War" - "Most historians ... now see no compelling reason why the divergent economies of the North and South should have led to disunion and civil war; rather, they find stronger practical reasons why the sections, whose economies neatly complemented one another, should have found it advantageous to remain united."
"When the South seceded, the Northern economy began a dramatic collapse, and by war time, there were hundreds of thousands of hungry, unemployed Northerners in the street --- and the "tocsin of war" sounded."
In fact, the Union's industrial economy actually strengthened during the war, as all war-time economies tend to do. The north had advantages in factories, railroads, and manpower. (https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm) The south was highly dependent on a single product, which is a terrible idea, as an intro to econ course will teach you.
"Economically ignorant Northern leaders then passed the astronomical Morrill Tariff that threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry by rerouting trade away from the high-tariff North and into the low-tariff South. The Morrill Tariff was like pumping gasoline into an already raging fire."
again, as i stated before, the Morrill Tariff was passed after states had already begun to secede; secession itself allowed for the passage of the bill. it had no effect on a secession already in motion (The Great Civil War Lie by Marc-William Palen). had they remained, the tariff would not have passed. the tariff had nothing to do with the domestic economy, it was aimed at imports, which, admittedly the south was highly dependent on (again, the idiocy of relying on one major economic specialization). the tariff was aimed at how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it raised rates (which were the lowest in the world).
"Abraham Lincoln was the first sectional president in American history. He was president of the North, and the North was clamoring for war. He saw an opportunity to start it without appearing to be the aggressor, so he took it. Thus, he started a war that killed 800,000 men and wounded a million."
Lincoln did not want war at all. in fact he was willing to let the south throw their little temper tantrum, as long as they did not try to take any federal property. In his view, they had not seceded, because they could not under the Constitution.
"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?" (first inaugural address of abraham lincoln, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp)
"The idea that the good North was so outraged over slavery that they marched armies into the South to free the slaves is an absurdity of biblical proportions. the economic annihilation of the North was what drove Lincoln to start the war."
while that may not have been among the initial reasons to fight, it was ultimately the cause they ended up fighting for. it's impossible to know what individual soldiers chose to fight for, but that is ultimately what the battle became about.
'The War" was Lincoln's war and after the secession the economy of the North was crumbling because of approximately 78% lost revenue from tariffs paid by the South."
already debunked above, (https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm)
"The North invaded the legitimately formed Confederate States of America. One excellent point showing that the War was not about slavery was the fact that there were "slaves States" fighting for the Union and "free States" fighting for the Confederacy."
again, they were not legitimate in the eyes of anyone but themselves. not one nation recognized them. furthermore, they were a part of the United States of Anmerica. they were nothing but rebels and traitors. in fact, in Texas v White (1869) the US Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
as far as slave states fighting for the north: Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky were slave states that were opposed to both secession and coercing the South. West Virginia then joined them as an additional border state after it separated from Virginia and became a state in 1863. Maryland voted to stay in union, but also rejected hostilities, and voted to close its rail lines to prevent use of them for war. in a controversial decision, lincoln declared martial law, suspened habeus corpus and sent in the militia, which quickly took control. this was an unfortunate necessity, since maryland surrounded DC, and we couldn't afford any traitorous actions by them. So, really, Maryland had no say. Kentucky declared itself neutral until the rebels invaded, at which point parts of kentucky "seceded", but really it was only the parts of kentucky under control of the traitors. Missouri voted decisivel to stay in the union as well, and only a tiny part of missouri 'seceded'. Delaware was much the same - voted to stay, but opposed war, however they saw the necessity of putting down an insurrection and sent troops. West Virginia broke off from Virginia as a result of the secession, and became a state because they opposed the actions of the south.
"Horace Greeley believed in secession until he realized that secession meant an economic catastrophe for the North."
again, economic argument was debunked (https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm) furthermore, In the days leading up to Lincoln's inauguration, greely's newspaper, the new york tribune, wrote editorials titled "No compromise!/No concession to traitors!/The Constitution as it is!"(Horace Greeley, printer, editor, crusader by Henry Luther Stoddard) In fact, When the rebels attacked Fort Sumter, the Tribune regretted the loss of the fort, but applauded the fact that war to subdue the rebels, who formed the Confederate States of America, would now take place. The paper criticized Lincoln for not being quick to use force.(Horace Greeley, printer, editor, crusader by Henry Luther Stoddard)
"The federal government did dare to test the withdrawal of the states from the compact after the war. This is the reason Jefferson Davis was in confinement for two years, never taken before a court and then released. The federal government chose not to test their illegal invasion against the lawfulness of secession."
in fact it did, as mentioned earlier, in Texas v White (1869), and it went to the Supreme Court, which ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional. The reason he as never taken before a court was that the north did not have treason trials at all because they felt it would interfere with reconciliation. in fact they weren't quite sure what to do. the cabinet did not want a trial, but the house of representatives did. (United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869, Roy Franklin Nichols, published in The American Historical Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jan 1926))
"The outcome may have undermined the basis and Lincoln myth for the destructive illegal invasion of the Southern states. For slavery at the time of this invasion was lawful according to the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court."
not an illegal invasion, when the secession itself is illegal, as already discussed. slavery was not lawful under the constiution. in fact 10 states had already banned it prior to the signing of the consitution. a compromise was made at the time of signing so that the southerners would get on board. the big one that everyone knows is the 3/5ths compromise. but a lesser known one is the fact that Congress would have the power to ban the slave trade, but not until 1800. The convention voted to extend the date to 1808. but slavery was not made explicitly legal, it was one of those grey areas legal scholars love.
CONTINUED IN THE REPLY TO THIS BECAUSE I RAN OUT OF ROOM:
i mean, california already passed a $15 minimum wage, but not immediately. last two years it was $12, and this year it is $13 if there are 25 or less employees and $14 if there are 26 or more. i think next year is when it kicks up to $15.
many states all have simiilar situations too, where $15 was already passed and they are just gradually increasing it over a period of 2-3 years.
in fact the effective average national minimum wage in the US is right around $12-13 an hour already (and has been for several years now) and we don't see a lot of adverse effects. making it federal would only really serve to standardize it across the nation.
minimum wage is definitely not the hill to die on.
they had to engage in violence to gain independence because of the oppressive and tyrannical rule of Great Britain. in fact, originally, they just wanted to have a say in how they were governed. had british leadership simply allowed the colonies to have some representation in parliament, the world would look very differently now.
the current situation is a far cry from that, and you can't really compare the two. we are represented in politics and we still have rights, two major things that the colonists did not have. just because we aren't happy with the current leadership is no reason for violence. you will also find that there is very little support for violence anyway, outside of fringe groups and some of the louder minority here.
myself and most conservatives i know would never participate. i'm pretty happy with things as they are, for the most part my life is not affected at all by politics. my taxes might go up for a couple years, or they might go down, but really in the long run i can't point to any single president and say, yeah my life was worse off under this president as a direct result of his policies. and you will find that most people are like that. this site is an echo chamber of a loud minority. most people don't care, that is why we don't gain much traction with the big bombshells we see here, and why it seems so frustrating that nothing ever happens.
nope. you are wrong. the decision to secede was mainly because of their racist views on slavery, and only financial insofar as that eliminating slavery would mean they would actually have to pay people to work for them instead of forcing them to. they mainly seceded because they feared becoming the minority in politics due to lincoln's election, the ever growing abolitionist movement, and a changing worldview among the citizens of the US.
the first 7 states seceded prior to the morrill tariff even being enacted. they seceded between nov 1860 and jan 1861, mainly because of the slavery issue.
the tariff passed at the end of february and went into effect a month later. only georgia and south carolina specifically mention the tariff in their convention for secession. texas, alabama, and virginia specifically mention slavery in their secession declarations. south carolina, mississippi, georgia, and texas specifically blame the abolitionist movement that movement's influence on the political landscape. they believed that they had a constitutional right to own slaves (lol!), which to me is pretty racist and far from what the founding fathers intended.
in fact, the only reason the tariff even passed is because of the secession of several states who would have voted it down (it was a really close vote to get it passed, and it only passed because the representatives who would vote against had left when they seceded). the tariff only applied to goods from outside of the US, once those states seceded they were outside the US, thus they had to pay the tariff. the tariff was designed to protect and foster domestic industry (again, sounds really similar to what we advocate for), and there was no tariff for goods within the US, only on imports. lincoln even said in his inaugural address that the tariff would only be collected at US ports. he had no plans to invade the south. he was going to let them have their little tantrum. his only line in the sand was not letting them hold any federal property. which is how the war started, when the patriotic forces tried to take back fort sumter from the traitors.
you have to understand, prior to the civil war the slavery issue was the cause of a lot of conflict. you had the racist southerners who saw black people as property and only good as slaves. and then you had the rest of the nation who realized the practice is wrong, and as a result there was a lot of rapid change coming, thanks in part to abolitionists, who wanted to ban slavery everywhere. combined with our westward expansion, the slave owners felt threatened because a lot of the new territories were being declared the slavery free zones. this resulted in the missouri compromise which basically split the country into 2. everything south of the southern border of missouri was where slavery was legal. everywhere else it was outlawed. thus the underground railroad - if a slave made it to the north, they were free.
lincoln promised to outlaw slavery everywhere, and it is what got him elected. the southerners wanted to keep their racist practices, so they threw a tantrum and left the union, which under the constitutional interpretations at the time was a rebellious and traitorous act. when the north crushed the south, they were within their rights to execute every single southerner who had participated. BUT, Lincoln (and then Johnson after Lincoln's assasination) saw that this would do no good, so in the spirit of unity decided to be lenient. as part of the conclusion of the war each state had to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments outlawing slavery and giving former slaves citizenship and voting rights.
the civil war happened because they wanted to stay racist and own black people. the north originally didn't care, they were fighting to preserve the union (in fact some states that supported the north still had slavery). however as the war dragged on, it became clear the central motivating factor for both sides was slavery. however as a result of the south's traitorous rebellion, slavery became outlawed everywhere. they were also responsible for their own economic collapse (confederate soldiers basically took all the war goods they needed since almost nobody outside the us supported them) and is a big reason why the south to this day has a stererotype of being backwards, racist, and poor.
a lot of my neighbors in my apartment building work minimum wage jobs, and they support the minimum wage increase and i don't blame them. the problem is, from the few conversations i have had with them, they vote with their wallet and they don't really care about anything in politics outside of what the politicians can do for them. i would not be surprised if a lot of minimum wage workers feel the same. if dems manage to pass a $15 min wage, they will get a lot of voters who would have otherwise voted republican because of the tax cuts, simply because an increase in minimum wage is money directly in their pockets.
i reported the thread because it breaks one of the sitewide rules, and it is a KNOWN fact that this site is monitored, so i am just doing my part to clean up the trash.
you act like everyone on the left thinks the same, but i bet you're also the person that criticizes statements like "all trump supporters are racist". you literally say "they just make shit up and label us as terrorists anyway when we don't do anything to deserve it." two sentences after lumping them all together as "The same people who rioted and burned with total impunity". you are the worst kind of hypocrite. people are diverse and have a wide variety of opinions, we can't just lump everyone together. that's a tribal mentality that will lead to more harm than good.
in reality it is a loud minority on BOTH sides who are fucking things up. most of the people i meet in day to day life, whether they be conservative or liberal, just want what is best for the nation and simply disagree on what that entails. but they aren't frothing at the mouth for violence like you because we live in a civilized society and they can actually control their emotions and think critically and we don't let clickbait headlines decide how we act. we do our own research using a variety of sources from both sides of the aisle and come to our own conclusions.
furthermore, nobody is putting anybody in camps. quit hyperbolizing and acting like it's the end of the world. nothing has changed other than which side is in control in DC. you act like everything changed overnight, when in reality, nothing much has changed. some years we pay more taxes, some years less. some years the economy is great, some years it isn't. everything in life is cyclical.
we have to just reassess our strategy, and start voting where it matters, like local elections, school boards, city councils, etc. those are the elections that matter, because a lot of politicians use those as springboards to get into state and then national politics. we maga on a small level and it pays dividends in the future. our side has a terrible turnout when it comes to that, and the reason liberals are able to steer the nation at all levels.so just calm down, take a deep breath, step away from politics for a little bit. go outside or something. the world is not ending. everything will be ok.
thanks fren. i'm a big history buff, so i've probably done more reading and research into topics like this than what you would get out of the average history class. and i agree with you that the most outspoken and hate-filled people on our side and the left are leading this country down a dangerous path, but for the most part i am an idealist and believe that most of the right and left are actually moderates who simply disagree on what is best for the nation. history is filled with examples like this, where the loud minority hijack the platform and get the majority into trouble. it is even worse in the present day due to the amplification effect of mass media, social networks, and the internet having all these little echo chambers where there is no dissent (and let's be honest, as great as this site is, it IS an echo chamber...go against the grain in the slightest way, and you immediately get called a shill, or worse), so everyone thinks they are right, because nobody is disagreeing with them, when in reality it is because dissent has been silenced.
dude are you seriously going to argue that it wasn't a politically motivated decision based on feelings and not at all in the legalities? the whole case started because of a law congress passed (missouri compromise) that allowed for slavery in certain parts of the country and then the chief justice deciding that because black people came to the country as slaves, they had no rights at all so the law was moot. the matter was far from settled, and in fact, upon lincoln's victory in 1860, 7 states already declared they are seceding. as far as the tariff, it was put in place because our nation was broke, and we wanted to encourage domestic production and manufacturing (hmmm sounds like something we advocate for). america at the time had the lowest import tariffs in the world, encouraging everyone to just dump their shit on us, stifling our economy. the war started a month after his inauguration in april, when southern forces attacked fort sumter, a FEDERAL fort. how you're going to sit there and argue that those actions are not traitorous is beyond me. not to mention that the confederacy was never recognized as a legitimate country by any nation in existence at the time, further solidifying the fact that it was simply a bunch of racist traitors who rebelled because they didn't like the fact that society was progressing past their worldview.
identifying with the confederacy does our movement waaaay more harm than good. in fact, outside of our political bubble and internet echo chambers, there are places where people on both sides of the aisle can agree on things, but even in those places its universally held that the confederacy was a mistake and dark stain on our great nation's history.
indeed. they were a bunch of racist traitors who tried to breakaway and failed miserably. and yet for some reason to this day people still worship the flag of failed uprising like its the shroud of turin itself. they were basically american nazis and i laugh everytime someone tries to act like they were anything but.
i've already reported this thread. one of the rules of this specific site is no violence. your post title literally calls for violence. just because it isn't directed at a specific individual, or for a time or place, doesn't mean it still doesn't advocate violence. this is the kind of shit that gives providers an excuse to shut us down. the kind of shit that the left will point to when they say "see they are domestic terrorists after all" i don't want to be called a domestic terrorist because some LARPer has the emotional capacity of a toddler. there never will be violence. and if there is, it won't be because some faggot on a message board got his panties in a wad.
nope, because those people aren't patriots. i don't want to be called a domestic terrorist because some retards can't control their emotions. last i checked we still have our rights. we just need more people involved in politics who work for us. that's where the left beats us. they vote in every single election, even the local neighborhood ones. this site has really taken a turn for the worse. it's 50% conspiracy theories and 50% attacking others for having a different view point, or for advocating a different approach. man i wish we could have the old T_D back but without all the reddit drama.
you are actually the dumbest motherfucker on this site, aren't you. doesn't matter what the white house does, it is not a violation of the first amendment, because you are using a private platform. they can disable the comments if they want and it doesn't violate 1a, because you aren't in a public forum. now if they were doing this on the whitehouse.gov site, maybe you'd have a case, but not on youtube. jesus, how do you walk and breathe at the same time? fucking smooth brain potato.