Trump indicted: Espionage Act

[Superman]

This, right here, is why you are such an irritating kunt. Here is what you wrote:



You then follow that with your usual series of non-sequiturs. And no, no good came from the war in Afghanistan for the simple reason that wars are now an American industry, driven by profit motive and not for any defensible purpose. Therefore, 4200 Americans are dead and the Taliban are still in charge, but this time with several billion dollars of American military hardware in their possession.

The incredibly botched withdrawal was simply the cherry on top of that **** sandwich. The United States had no business being in Afghanistan after it routed the Taliban in 2005. The US had no endgame, no exit strategy, no plan for what to do once it deposed the existing government, and the usual money-grubbers kept political donations flowing to keep the war going and their income stream alive and well.

So your idiotic take is that the "good" from the war is that "terrorism is no longer dinner table conversation." Hey, that cost only 4200 American lives, 20,000 wounded, thousands who suffer PTSD, billions of dollars in military equipment turned over to the same people the war targeted. But hey, "dinner table conversations" can be expensive.

goddammit, man. stop being so short-sighted. you ALMOST hit the nail on the head, but went off on some wild tangent.

the war on Assghanistan was portant because of the 4,200 American lives that were lost. Betcha almost half of those voted Republican.

/Flog

 

[Iron95]

he's washing his whites

You mean his white with brown stripes?

 

[Steeltime]

I’ll be honest. I don’t know what anyone is fighting for anymore. Seems people are fighting just to fight. It’s dumb. It’s like whether you are R or D you have to take a certain side. There aren’t many free thinkers left in America.

This ^^^

I am 100% convinced that war is now just another industry, but since it is funded by the government, it is guaranteed profitable. If nobody made money off of war, I can all but guarantee that the United States would not have been involved in Iraq or Ukraine and our involvement in Afghanistan would have been for maybe 18 months, not 20 years.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Playing politics would be pretending that I opposed the war in Afghanistan. Who’s doing that?

There's no walking this one back. You're a complete POS.

 

[Troglodyte]

What "primary belief" was that?

"tHeY fiGhTeD fOR sLaVeRiEs!"

Actually no, that is simply not an accurate statement. The Southern states fought for a variety of reasons, certainly including the issue of slavery but also involving taxation and manufacturing and imports and exports. A small minority of Confederate troops owned slaves (between 2% and 20%, depending on who is arguing the point). Further, a series of laws passed by the northern-dominated Congress targeted Southern states. Only an idiot is unaware of that fact, so wear your dunce cap proudly, Floggy. One main culprit was the Morill Tariff of 1861, which imposed a significant tariff on goods imported into the United States. It was written by a Vermont steel mill owner, obviously to help his own finances, and was designed to punish the south, which imported vast amounts goods from England. The tariff increased prices significantly in Southern states while making money for the guy who wrote the bill - sort of a pre-Biden Biden bill.

I am of course not surprised that you have a pathetic knowledge of our nation's history. You are inherently lazy and stupid and believe whatever your betters tell you. The problem is that almost every person on earth qualifies as you’re better and the majority of what you believe simply is not true. Everything from masks to the vax to taxation to immigration to the supposed "benefits" of war to history and literature. You are a shining example of the morons produced by today's education, pompous ******** proclaiming their brilliance via some inane, ridiculous, unresearched statement that ignores any genuine effort at investigation.

I didn’t realize that the 13th amendment being ratified shorty after the Civil War was merely coincidental.

 

[Iron95]

I didn’t realize that the 13th amendment being ratified shorty after the Civil War was merely coincidental.

Trog never disappoints.

 

[Steeltime]

I didn’t realize that the 13th amendment being ratified shorty after the Civil War was merely coincidental.

Were you aware that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in Union states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware) or the District of Columbia?

Yeah, probably not.

Oh, and Floggy, I asked you some time back:

I lost a brother in the World Trade Tower so go **** yourself.

What the hell does that have to do with the war we fought and lost in Afghanistan? What?

So ... ??

Finally, this is the "Trump indicted" thread. Do you have any comment on the fact that recently-released text messages, e-mails and pictures PROVE that Dementia Joe was sitting next to his crackhead son when he threatened a CCP frontman for money? And that the FBI has had this information for almost four years and had the information - showing Dementia Joe and crackhead were demanding money from the CCP - a year prior to the 2020 election and kept it hidden?

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[Troglodyte]

Were you aware that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in Union states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware) or the District of Columbia?

Yeah, probably not.

And the fact that they had relatively low amounts of slaves compared to the confederate states is yet another mere coincidence? Right?

Finally, this is the "Trump indicted" thread. Do you have any comment on the fact that recently-released text messages, e-mails and pictures PROVE that Dementia Joe was sitting next to his crackhead son when he threatened a CCP frontman for money? And that the FBI has had this information for almost four years and had the information - showing Dementia Joe and crackhead were demanding money from the CCP - a year prior to the 2020 election and kept it hidden?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Suspensful!

 

[Iron95]

And the fact that they had relatively low amounts of slaves compared to the confederate states is yet another mere coincidence? Right?

Suspensful!

So........as long as you only have a few slaves its ok?

 

[Superman]

So........as long as you only have a few slaves its ok?

Flog always focuses his arguments on the minutia. makes ze's thinking easier.
mountain-molehill mentality.

 

[Iron95]

Flog always focuses his arguments on the minutia. makes ze's thinking easier.
mountain-molehill mentality.

Does he know that there are more slaves in this country now than in the 1800s?

 

[diver]

What "primary belief" was that?

"tHeY fiGhTeD fOR sLaVeRiEs!"

Actually no, that is simply not an accurate statement. The Southern states fought for a variety of reasons, certainly including the issue of slavery but also involving taxation and manufacturing and imports and exports. A small minority of Confederate troops owned slaves (between 2% and 20%, depending on who is arguing the point). Further, a series of laws passed by the northern-dominated Congress targeted Southern states. Only an idiot is unaware of that fact, so wear your dunce cap proudly, Floggy. One main culprit was the Morill Tariff of 1861, which imposed a significant tariff on goods imported into the United States. It was written by a Vermont steel mill owner, obviously to help his own finances, and was designed to punish the south, which imported vast amounts goods from England. The tariff increased prices significantly in Southern states while making money for the guy who wrote the bill - sort of a pre-Biden Biden bill.

I am of course not surprised that you have a pathetic knowledge of our nation's history. You are inherently lazy and stupid and believe whatever your betters tell you. The problem is that almost every person on earth qualifies as your better and the majority of what you believe simply is not true. Everything from masks to the vax to taxation to immigration to the supposed "benefits" of war to history and literature. You are a shining example of the morons produced by today's education, pompous ******** proclaiming their brilliance via some inane, ridiculous, unresearched statement that ignores any genuine effort at investigation.

Look, man, I am as conservative as they come, know that. But the reason that war was fought was due to slavery. In no way am I saying that the poor farm boy was fighting for slavery, but the damn fools who got him into that mess were having him fight for it. The damn fools had the power, he had none. One of the reasons for the success of this country is our ability over the years to find compromise. All the other issues most likely could have been worked out or adjusted. Our history suggests they could have been. The slavery issue just couldn't. That is an either/or proposition.

 

[Steeltime]

Look, man, I am as conservative as they come, know that. But the reason that war was fought was due to slavery. In no way am I saying that the poor farm boy was fighting for slavery, but the damn fools who got him into that mess were having him fight for it. The damn fools had the power, he had none. One of the reasons for the success of this country is our ability over the years to find compromise. All the other issues most likely could have been worked out or adjusted. Our history suggests they could have been. The slavery issue just couldn't. That is an either/or proposition.

But remember who started the war - the South. They had slavery, diver. Lincoln was not pushing to end slavery as of 1861. So why did South Carolina secede and bomb Fort Sumter?

For the reasons I noted - the increasing financial burden put on the South by a series of laws passed by a legislature dominated by the North. Yes, the conflict was about slavery as of 1862 or 1863 but in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

 

[Iron95]

But remember who started the war - the South. They had slavery, diver. Lincoln was not pushing to end slavery as of 1861. So why did South Carolina secede and bomb Fort Sumter?

For the reasons I noted - the increasing financial burden put on the South by a series of laws passed by a legislature dominated by the North. Yes, the conflict was about slavery as of 1862 or 1863 but in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Yep. All true. Lincoln didnt push the slavery issue until he couldnt get people to sign up.

 

[diver]

But remember who started the war - the South. They had slavery, diver. Lincoln was not pushing to end slavery as of 1861. So why did South Carolina secede and bomb Fort Sumter?

For the reasons I noted - the increasing financial burden put on the South by a series of laws passed by a legislature dominated by the North. Yes, the conflict was about slavery as of 1862 or 1863 but in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

I'm not saying those other things were not factors. But in 1858 during the Lincoln/Douglass debates Lincoln made some pretty strong statements against slavery, calling it evil and dehumanizing. The South remembered those things. By his inauguration he was just trying to avoid war. I think his push to get the 13th amendment passed in Jan. 1965 really goes to Lincoln's true feelings on slavery.

The South probably looked at Lincoln's statements in his first inaugural address like I look at Democrats when they make statements like "we don't want to take away people's guns." I know they are full of shiit. Lincoln's cause was noble, though.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

But remember who started the war - the South. They had slavery, diver. Lincoln was not pushing to end slavery as of 1861. So why did South Carolina secede and bomb Fort Sumter?

For the reasons I noted - the increasing financial burden put on the South by a series of laws passed by a legislature dominated by the North. Yes, the conflict was about slavery as of 1862 or 1863 but in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Yep, this. Now Lincoln wished that newly formed territories (states) in the western portion of the country resisted slavery, he very much would have let the south keep slavery if they agreed to reunite with the north.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

I’ll be honest. I don’t know what anyone is fighting for anymore. Seems people are fighting just to fight. It’s dumb. It’s like whether you are R or D you have to take a certain side. There aren’t many free thinkers left in America.

I think the saying follow the money pretty much covers it. 54 years ago, we fought to survive the day, the week, the month, the year hoping to get home.

 

[diver]

Yep, this. Now Lincoln wished that newly formed territories (states) in the western portion of the country resisted slavery, he very much would have let the south keep slavery if they agreed to reunite with the north.

At the time he would have, but I think he would have pushed to outlaw it. I think his push in Jan. 1865 proves that. He didn't have to do it then. He could have waited (well, HE couldn't have, but who was to know that) and the Congress coming in would have been easier to do it. remember, inaugurations and the like were in March in those days.

I am Scots-Irish, and like some of you have mentioned, I have family on both sides. More direct line North, obviously, but extended line South. Mountain people. The singular worst thing that happened to those Appalachian people was slavery. Free labor doesn't help wages, keeping those people dirt poor. It became generational. It is what I cannot understand about these open borders idiots. Masses of unskilled labor keep wages low, which hurts Americans. It's one of a number of things that we should have learned from the slavery issue. It's right there if you look.

 

[Steeltime]

I'm not saying those other things were not factors. But in 1858 during the Lincoln/Douglass debates Lincoln made some pretty strong statements against slavery, calling it evil and dehumanizing. The South remembered those things. By his inauguration he was just trying to avoid war. I think his push to get the 13th amendment passed in Jan. 1965 really goes to Lincoln's true feelings on slavery.

I read a great biography on Lincoln that was based in significant part on notes from his cabinet, reports from cabinet members and Union generals, explaining that Lincoln had one goal as of April 21, 1861 - to keep the Union together. He reached out to Jefferson Davis before the casualties began, offering amnesty to the seceding states and political officials if they rejoined the Union and underscoring that he did not wish to end slavery in those states. Keep in mind that the ONLY reason there remained a Union was that Kentucky, Missouri and particularly Maryland remained with the Union. (The latter remained a Union state in large part because Lincoln arrested members of the state legislature that was considering a motion to secede. Take a look at a map and tell me if there is a Union where Virginia and Maryland both secede.) If Lincoln said he planned on ending slavery, Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland leave the Union - no question about that.

It was only after the horrible cost of the war in human lives mounted that he believed something more was required. He told Stanton, his Secy of War, that he could no longer accept that the loss of tens of thousands of Union troops was simply to preserve the Union, and that God must have had something greater in mind. He concluded by the middle of 1862 that the war must be about ending slavery. He waited to make his Emancipation Proclamation until his army could get a big victory. He finally decided that Antietam was enough, even though it was not remotely a Union "victory," and made his announcement on September 22, 1862 - five days after Antietam. Once again, the proclamation freed slaves only in the seceding states - not in the four slave states that were part of the Union.

As an aside, I have read approximately 75 books on the Civil War, visited Gettysburg and Antietam, and have read a great amount as to why the war started, the motivation for both sides, the conflict in the border states, and the strong feelings of quite a few Maryland legislature that the state needed to secede.

The South probably looked at Lincoln's statements in his first inaugural address like I look at Democrats when they make statements like "we don't want to take away people's guns." I know they are full of shiit. Lincoln's cause was noble, though.

See above.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

But remember who started the war - the South. They had slavery, diver. Lincoln was not pushing to end slavery as of 1861. So why did South Carolina secede and bomb Fort Sumter?

For the reasons I noted - the increasing financial burden put on the South by a series of laws passed by a legislature dominated by the North. Yes, the conflict was about slavery as of 1862 or 1863 but in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln stated he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

I could be wrong, but my belief was always that the Civil War started over the southern states leaving the Union and only became about slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1963.

 

[Steeltime]

I could be wrong, but my belief was always that the Civil War started over the southern states leaving the Union and only became about slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1963.

"sEe! RaYciSS rEpUbLiCaNz wAnTeD sLaVeReEz unTiL 1963!!"
- Flogic

 

[IndySteel]

I’m not prejudice. I think EVERYONE should be allowed to own slaves.


That was tongue in cheek, for you commie libtards wno are offended by everything.

 

[DBS1970]

Like all wars the Civil War was larceny writ large. Yes slavery was an issue but the main cause was Mercantilists in the north pushing policy down the throats of the south cutting off outside markets. Rember if the Southern states had no right to self determination and secession from the union then neither did the 13 Colonies have a right to self determination and secession from England.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

"sEe! RaYciSS rEpUbLiCaNz wAnTeD sLaVeReEz unTiL 1963!!"
- Flogic

Sorry, typo. Not used to typing 1800's. My customers aren't that old any more.

 

[diver]

Like all wars the Civil War was larceny writ large. Yes slavery was an issue but the main cause was Mercantilists in the north pushing policy down the throats of the south cutting off outside markets. Rember if the Southern states had no right to self determination and secession from the union then neither did the 13 Colonies have a right to self determination and secession from England.

I just disagree with that. Southern apologetics. This has been going on for over a century, trying to make the South's position look more noble. It was about slavery. I think the South's cause was one of the worst ever. And look, I'm looking at it from the impact it had on the mountain people. My people. An overlooked thing about that was not only was it a disaster for the slaves, but it was a disaster for the mountain people. They were used, and their lot in life didn't get better. The sad truth is it wouldn't have gotten better if the South won, either. It makes me livid when people try to make that war about something else, because once again the impact slavery had on those people then gets lost in some bullshiit about tariffs or mercantilism or whatever.