• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: 21st Century Man on May 14, 2017, 05:40:52 PM
Wow, didn't know that.  Cool.  I knew some lived until the 1930's and 40's.  It is too bad that people aren't educated better about the Civil War.  It was not a simplistic good versus evil fight with the South being evil because of slavery and the North fighting for all that is right and good.  It was far more complex than that with shades of grey on both sides.

Well, elaborate on what you mean then.  ;)

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on May 14, 2017, 05:43:14 PM
Well, elaborate on what you mean then.  ;)

Don't have much time to get into it but you already hit the nail on the head regarding one factor, the 10th Amendment.  Economic factors also played into it with regards to tariffs.  Actually the tariff issue was one of the major factors in the breakout of the Civil War.


http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Up All Night

Quote from: 21st Century Man on May 14, 2017, 05:48:12 PM
Don't have much time to get into it but you already hit the nail on the head regarding one factor, the 10th Amendment.  Economic factors also played into it with regards to tariffs.  Actually the tariff issue was one of the major factors in the breakout of the Civil War.


http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

And as protective tariffs help drive the South to cessation, it was "The South", who, in their "New" Constitution for their Confederacy, specifically spelled out, that not only would slavery be allowed, which was allowed already in some other areas of the globe, but that, written into their Confederate constitution, was that the black race was subordinate to the white race, and that the white race would forever rule a slave class, of black people. Yeah, it's that specific. The South, was much more than simple "slavery". The Confederacy was about institutional racism, specifically to the black race.

And so, I think that's pretty evil.

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Stephens contended that advances and progress in the sciences proved the earlier 18th century view that "all men are created equal" was erroneous, and that all men were not created equal. He stated that advances in science proved that enslavement of African Americans by white men was justified, and that it coincided with the Bible's teachings. He also stated that the Confederacy was the first country in the world founded on the principle of racial supremacy:

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

Quote from: Up All Night on May 14, 2017, 06:12:19 PM
And as protective tariffs help drive the South to cessation, it was "The South", who, in their "New" Constitution for their Confederacy, specifically spelled out, that not only would slavery be allowed, which was allowed already in some other areas of the globe, but that, written into their Confederate constitution, was that the black race was subordinate to the white race, and that the white race would forever rule a slave class, of black people. Yeah, it's that specific. The South, was much more than simple "slavery". The Confederacy was about institutional racism, specifically to the black race.

And so, I think that's pretty evil.

The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Delivered extemporaneously a few weeks before the Confederacy would start the American Civil War by firing on the U.S. Army at Fort Sumter, Stephens' speech explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies and beliefs, laid out the Confederacy's causes for declaring secession, and defended the enslavement of Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Stephens contended that advances and progress in the sciences proved the earlier 18th century view that "all men are created equal" was erroneous, and that all men were not created equal. He stated that advances in science proved that enslavement of African Americans by white men was justified, and that it coincided with the Bible's teachings. He also stated that the Confederacy was the first country in the world founded on the principle of racial supremacy:

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.


We could go round and round.  Sure there were many on the Southern side who seeked to preserve slavery of that there can be no doubt but you have to remember in 1861, we did not have the internet. The grunts in the backwoods didn't have access to the speeches made. That there was language in the Confederate Constitution to preserve slavery, I would agree with but there were many who fought on the Southern side who couldn't give a shit about slavery.  That was not the motivating factor of many.  However, they did care that the North was giving the South the shaft over tariffs.  Money as it usually is was the primary motivating factor.  Are you able to get into the head of Robert E. Lee and say that preserving slavery was the reason he joined the Confederacy?  If you can then you are a better man than me.


Kidnostad3

Quote from: Spy on May 14, 2017, 03:18:18 PM
Alright, let's try this. Jefferson, a flawed man and a product of his time, drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and played a major part in creating the USA.  Good.  He didn't think the phrase "all men are created equal" applied to everyone.  Not so good.

Robert E. Lee graduated 2nd in his class at West Point.  Had a distinguished military career in the US Army.  Good.  In 1862 he assumed command of the Army of Northern Virginia and did his best to preserve slavery by ripping the hell out of the nation created by Jefferson 86 years earlier.  Really not so good (in my Jesuitical* opinion).

Jesuitical: practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.


You left out "dissembling"  which is closest to my intended meaning. 

Spy

Footage of Civil War Veterans at 50 year Anniversary in 1913 & 75 year Anniversary in 1938.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjD2DaB4bY

Meister_000

Tip per TL (made my day! thnx)
Michelle Obama to Trump & Co.:
"What's wrong with you!"

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/863801859793854464

I don't know if you know this, or even have the capacity to understand it, but no one voted for the wife of a president, she isn't a dictator, and doesn't make policy.  In fact the federal government has no Constitutional role in education. 

Decisions on lunches should be made by the parents and the local school board.  Frankly, I'm not sure what the hypocritical former First Fat-ass has been eating, but it sure isn't the cardboard she was forcing on our kids.



Somehow the garbage Michelle had our kids eating never made it to the Fake News Media, but here are some tweeted pix:

https://www.google.com/search?q=thanks+michelle+obama+lunch&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2naOnkvHTAhUFj1QKHf9rBqMQ_AUIBigB&biw=1518&bih=691 


Meister_000




WOTR

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on May 14, 2017, 11:16:50 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure what the hypocritical former First Fat-ass has been eating, but it sure isn't the cardboard she was forcing on our kids.





Wow. That is impressive.  she can touch her knees without even bending over.  I wish that my forearms were three feet long.  ;)

Somebody at worldnewsbureau should have spent a few more minutes with photoshop before publishing the image.  I assume that is a (not fake) news site that despises Obama with a holy passion?

Lt.Uhura

Quote from: WOTR on May 15, 2017, 12:28:54 AM
Wow. That is impressive.  she can touch her knees without even bending over.  I wish that my forearms were three feet long.  ;)

Somebody at worldnewsbureau should have spent a few more minutes with photoshop before publishing the image.  I assume that is a (not fake) news site that despises Obama with a holy passion?

Good eye WOTR.

Kids--regardless of their political party:^)--are notoriously picky eaters. My son ate only about 3-4 foods till he was about 8 yrs old, but they were healthy foods. I never once took him to McDonalds or KFC, nor would I ever eat that stuff myself. These foods are associated with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and many other health disasters, including "Fat-ass", which PB finds so frightening.



pate

Quote from: Spy on May 14, 2017, 06:36:41 AM
...The Confederate states had a population of about nine million, four million of whom were slaves.  Four million human beings kept in slavery to do the bidding of the other five million....

Huh, so five ninths?

Suck language, can anon in the class define the 5/9 clause?

Yes, Santa you may speak!

Quote from: Meister_000 on May 14, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
True Colors...

M/mme Santa Meister, your testimony is invalid, back to the ORIGINAL question, can any of y'all Southron Demo-types esplain theese pictures beelow?

Are they from your parleel compartmentalized hence a hunnert and plus form nuef-dix siecle orange an bit of banannas.  I posit it would have been the hunnert yawns ago that you so vigorously 'bate to'

It was indeed about slavery and not state's rights, kudos to you, but what of state's rights?  Is the 'Murica a mafia?  Cannot Kalifornic-nation just be rid of the fly-over rubes and git to N'awrk Cyty?  Mmm, fookin' Russian Coomies.

I have said too much, behold:



Jackstar


Jackstar

Quote from: Lt.Uhura on May 15, 2017, 01:01:40 AM
My son ate only about 3-4 foods till he was about 8 yrs old


I'm guessing two of them were fluoride.

Jackstar

Quote from: 21st Century Man on May 14, 2017, 06:37:20 PM
Sure there were many on the Southern side who seeked to preserve slavery


1) What can you tell us about the formation of Myrtle Beach?

2) It's "sought."



3) Gas.     




Quote from: Lt.Uhura on May 15, 2017, 01:01:40 AM
... health disasters, including "Fat-ass", which PB finds so frightening.

Perhaps Moochelle should have been overseeing the Sidwell Friends lunches, instead of everyone else's.


Quote from: WOTR on May 15, 2017, 12:28:54 AM
Wow. That is impressive.  she can touch her knees without even bending over.  I wish that my forearms were three feet long.  ;)

Somebody at worldnewsbureau should have spent a few more minutes with photoshop before publishing the image.  I assume that is a (not fake) news site that despises Obama with a holy passion?

Yeah, that was pretty funny and I couldn't resist.  The real one isn't much better.  She has some nerve lecturing the rest of us.



''Honey, does this dog make me look fat?''

Yorkshire pud

Memo to self: Try to move on from just cropping, colour balance, masks and panoramic effects in Photoshop.

This is scary realistic.  :o

albrecht

At least the Podesta "art" wasn't his own kids, even if underage or close to it. But this is weird, even though she is an adult and obviously consented to pose for the photograph why would a dad send it out? And then get into flame wars over it with the public's response to the creepy factor? The guy is a lawyer, presumably he would think before tweeting randomly and sending our pictures of his scantily-clad daughter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/15/trump-attorney-michael-cohen-tweets-photo-of-his-college-aged-daughter-in-lingerie/
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-lawyer-posts-sexy-lingerie-pic-of-his-daughter-and-twitter-responded-as-youd-expect/

GravitySucks

Quote from: albrecht on May 15, 2017, 11:54:48 AM
At least the Podesta "art" wasn't his own kids, even if underage or close to it. But this is weird, even though she is an adult and obviously consented to pose for the photograph why would a dad send it out? And then get into flame wars over it with the public's response to the creepy factor? The guy is a lawyer, presumably he would think before tweeting randomly and sending our pictures of his scantily-clad daughter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/15/trump-attorney-michael-cohen-tweets-photo-of-his-college-aged-daughter-in-lingerie/
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-lawyer-posts-sexy-lingerie-pic-of-his-daughter-and-twitter-responded-as-youd-expect/

Pretty strange, and I wouldn't tweet pictures of my daughter - even though I think she is beautiful and brainy.

- But -

I can only imagine the reaction if it had been a liberal lawyer - let's say Webster Hubbell posting pictures of Chelsea. It would be "bold". "Daring" "cutting edge" "artistic " "liberating " "empowering" "<insert SJW term here >"

Of course, just because he is Trump's lawyer doesn't mean he is not a liberal. But now he has been branded and banished from the fold...


smccomas69

Quote from: albrecht on May 15, 2017, 11:54:48 AM
At least the Podesta "art" wasn't his own kids, even if underage or close to it. But this is weird, even though she is an adult and obviously consented to pose for the photograph why would a dad send it out? And then get into flame wars over it with the public's response to the creepy factor? The guy is a lawyer, presumably he would think before tweeting randomly and sending our pictures of his scantily-clad daughter?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/15/trump-attorney-michael-cohen-tweets-photo-of-his-college-aged-daughter-in-lingerie/
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-lawyer-posts-sexy-lingerie-pic-of-his-daughter-and-twitter-responded-as-youd-expect/


WTF serious

ItsOver

Quote from: GravitySucks on May 15, 2017, 12:25:47 PM
Pretty strange, and I wouldn't tweet pictures of my daughter - even though I think she is beautiful and brainy.

- But -

I can only imagine the reaction if it had been a liberal lawyer - let's say Webster Hubbell posting pictures of Chelsea. It would be "bold". "Daring" "cutting edge" "artistic " "liberating " "empowering" "<insert SJW term here >"...
Ha!  Yes, and any critics would have been labeled as sexually repressed Victorians who need to get with it and join the progressive in-crowd.




Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod