Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by Hopesong:

Firstly, James, you told me to avoid this thread because someone bumped it and it should be ignored, so I ignored it. Now here you are in the thread arguing about a topic that OT argues about, what is going on I thought this thread was sapposed to be locked….

It looks as if SOMEONE let their mask slip a bit. lol
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by James146:
Originally posted by 404WindStalker:

james: Like I told someone on another site: troll shit makes excellent fertilizer when properly handled. If you oppose same-sex marriage, I sincerely hope you’re not asking to have this thread closed because your side has nothing to stand on while using the fact a troll started it as cover; that’s rather cowardly.

I don’t oppose same-sex marriage; in fact, I support it. But I do oppose arguing with trolls who don’t put much of an argument. Karma and vikaTae are the only ones putting up a good argument. Others are not and they don’t back their claims.

James, I appreciate the compliment.
please refer to and look for the greater meaning in the bold above.
Trolling can sometimes work in reverse ….. very well.

Often, those reading a thread aren’t only the ones writing in it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by issendorf:
Tradition in this case for marriage is being very similar to the tradition of owning slaves.

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Not all slaves were treated “Simon Legree” badly;
not all Gays have been bashed, killed, etc.
But, both have felt the sting of discrimination.
So, maybe not VERY similar so much; but, most definitely similar.
The CONSTITUTION isn’t something that is regularly shifted notions”.
IT doesn’t “operate like this”.

I’m getting the impression you haven’t even bothered to read Kennedy’s opinion. It’s pretty much entirely based in emotion, not the Constitution or past judicial precedent.

At this point, I don’t give much of a shit and two good farts what he did in his opinion. He could have read it while wearing a tutu, a feather duster stuck in his ass, a bone through his nose, and wearing a cheese-head hat.

“We” won.
I don’t care if the decision was scholarly pristine … a win is a win.
It shouldn’t have even gotten to the Supreme Court.
Society should have been more sane.

And, now YOU want to rag on what Kennedy said:
_ “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.”_

Yes, I know how the “lefties” have been trying to destroy “marriage” for some time now. Yet, I tend to align solidly w/ Kennedy there. I know a lot of ppl that have been married 50+ years. I also know those that probably should NEVER have been married …. much less had kids.

This link gives a decent critique of Kennedy’s position. But, in doing so, one point made tends to fail in its assessment of the “erosion” of the concept Kennedy lauds.

“But Kennedy’s lofty rhetoric, so widely cited by members of the social left, is also entirely contrary to what progressive culture has taught us to believe about marriage for the last several decades.”

“Marriage, they have argued, is an increasingly irrelevant institution and not the idyllic state described by the high court’s liberal majority. No-fault divorce was the first salvo aimed at eroding the bonds of which Kennedy so highly speaks.”

“Some marriage opponents have gone further, denouncing it as inherently oppressive, patriarchal and undemocratic.
These theories have gained traction, particularly with people of my generation and younger.”

After women got the vote and birth control became more reliable, the concept of marriage did indeed need an “overhaul” in how it was viewed … not in the basic spirit of what it entails (as Kennedy points out).

But, lefties, AND righties alike, took that “overhauling” to turn marriage into serial monogamy (HA … licensed cheating). They threw the baby out w/ the bathwater.

His opinion is as obvious proof as you could possibly need that interpretation of the Constitution shifts over time.
You and I obviously have a huge difference in understanding of what REGUALARLY and “over time” means.
Just because SCOTUS ruled against your PERSONAL tastes doesn’t mean those nine judges were wrong (well… 4 of ’em were).

Just as I don’t think you read Kennedy’s opinion, I’m also getting the sense you didn’t read what the dissenters had to say either. The dissenters raised legitimate questions that this case could provoke that the majority did almost nothing to address. Hell, the solicitor general conceded that exemptions for religious entities are already going to be jeopardized during oral arguments which is something conservatives warned would be on of the end results of national gay marriage.

As I said …. it might be messy.
But, it is a WIN.
Let the chips fall where they may … that majority opinion isn’t a Constitutional Amendment.
Any FURTHER issues raised can be dealt with as they are encountered.
That seems to be the way it works anyway.
Those assholes

Nothing says #LoveWins like calling those you disagree with “assholes.”

I’m calling those who are utterly disagreeable the assholes of society.
I’m not talking about someone who disagrees with me about what we should do about ISIS.
I’m talking about ppl who hate most anything America stands for that disagrees with them.
I’m talking about ppl who endeavor to actually do physical, emotional, and economic harm to innocents.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Most accidents occur in low-speed situations, like parking lots… where there are lots of pedestrians, obstacles, structures, narrow spaces, people backing up, and so on. People are typically doing 10 MPH or less.

Go figure.

I won’t contest the application of the term “accidents” to low-speed situations; but, I’ll go for a quantity vs. quality thing. I feel backing up is likely the most dangerous low-speed form of driving we do. Here in Wichita, it seems like we have a child killed on the average of one-a-year by being backed over in their own driveway.

Low-speed “accidents” can be expensive due to the high cost of car body repair (running over ppl can be a tad higher … lol).

For me, it is the “quality” of higher-speed accidents where human suffering (yeah, DEATH is the ultimate suffering) is much more likely to occur. “Totaling” a car—it doesn’t take much to do that for an older car—then becomes more expense, but much smaller than the medical costs for human injury and the payout for death.

This has good info & should be read by our “younger” drivers.
So does this one. It repeats a lot of the above; but, the difference is worthwhile.

Also, I am working w/ this lawmaker to see if we can’t mandate a different form of parking lot that won’t necessitate backing out of a parking stall.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Large arrows confusing

I agree, stupidity should be outlawed.
We need more laws.
All laws are good.
There are no stupid laws.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by wargamer1000:

:) You all make good points. I think I can’t maintain my argument. But…

That is what we call wisdom; or, at the very least, being open-minded enough to view a counterpoint in its context w/ your own position. Far too many, OBVIOIUSLY, aren’t able to do this in this area of equal rights.
What is even the purpose of marriage?
To ensure women didn’t get totally fucked over by her mate.
To establish progeny/estate/inheritance.
Is marriage something civil, holy or both?
It is BOTH.
And, that is where the problem arose.
When something is claimed by both the church & state, the “separation” of them is lost.
While the “forefathers” didn’t specifically have “Gay” marriage in mind, the very essence of it is what they had in mind when they wanted church to stay out of ppl’s LEGAL (civil) lives.

Those assholes that aren’t able to understand the “wall of separation” are the same that can’t understand how the Constitution is “alive” in that it established a Congress to make laws APPROPRIATE for EXPANSION of the principles set in the Constitution in order to clarify it for the myriad of “day-2-day” legal rules for conducting our society. The Supreme Court was established to ensure these laws were extensions of the Constitution rather than the spurious societal whims which you spoke of.

How difficult can it be for the assholes to understand that their idiotic yelping about "show me in the Constitution where it says ….. " has been pointed out to them (jhco) many times why it is stupid? Their problem is that they simply disagree with Congress’ and/or SCOTUS’ extension OF the Constitution …. those damn activist judges.

Yet, when Congress & SCOTUS gave huge-money corporations the right to INFLUENCE elections, these same idiots had orgasms …. not so much because they fully understood the negative-to-them ramifications of it; but, because they are so accustomed to being easily led around by their dicks via the cheerleaders-without-panties-doing-somersaults (Fox News, hired by those very corporations.

Ppl have been whining about how the Patriot Act has so compromised our “freedoms”. Giving corporations the power to BUY public offices is, IMHO, sooooooo fucking much more damnaging to our very basic freedoms …. the biggie being having our votes actually mean something.

Is a marriage moral in itself or independent of it?
This falls under that duality mentioned above.
It is immoral in the eyes of SOME factions of “the church” …. as should be their domain.

It is NOW, let’s call it amoral, in the eyes of law …. because, while based on a very broad & general base of morality, this shit of coming up w/ specific interpretations of that basic human morality is why our Forefathers hammered out the Constitution. It provides for a defense against assholes who would easily decide what is right and what is wrong … “morally” speaking. That defense being that amendments aren’t all that easy to get passed … or, “past” the spirit of the Constitution.

How do we define the genders (if at all), and would this segregate them from each other?
We “define” genders much the same as we do most anything.
The church has its ideals on the issues …. these are usually quite nebulous and should therefore not be taken seriously by civil law.

The state has its ideals on the issues …. these are intended to be explicit and therefore taken seriously so that equal justice under the law—as is established by the Constitution—is afford to all ppl.

Does legalization of marriage aim towards something?
I’m not sure what you are aiming for here?
As I point out above, the legalization has many benefits … something like 1300-some, as the proponents of Gay marriage has been pointing out.

If you are meaning: does legalization of marriage FOR GAYS aim towards something, then YES. It means that equal justice has finally been realized. It is just that simple.

Originally posted by Justinianus:

Honestly guys, you think do guys shoving their d***s into each other is normal and should be permitted?

I’m not sure of the context of your point here; but, I’ll answer your question this way:

It is “normal” for them.
Who decides “what” is normal is contextual. This “who” ranges from an individual; a group—such as a church, Boy Scouts, a business; or the state. The state isn’t so much concerned w/ what is normal as what is legal. Legal cannot be something that is subjective … i.e., capriciously subject to a very wide range of interpretations.

As far as your “should it be permitted?” …. I answer w/ a question: Why shouldn’t it? Who is going to stop it and WHY should they? Shouldn’t the church, the state, and homophobes stay out of ppl’s bedrooms?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by wargamer1000:

What power gave you the monopoly on defining “natural and normal?”

I could ask the same on the particular group of people begging for gay marriage.

I guess ya just don’t understand the term: MONOPOLY.

Discriminatory? Homosexuality is fine, but the license of their marriage likewise ‘discriminates’ others.

Well, now that we have a firm grasp on how give-&-take works …. we’ll proceed.
In the manner that it ignores their tradition which is just as discriminatory.
That “tradition” wasn’t “ignored”; it was merely deemed to be irrelevant and Unconstitutional to use it to make laws ofDISCRIMINATION.
Not for me though, instead I merely find it disgusting
Why do YOU so dwell on the issue that it can create such strong emotion for you?
How does that very minor aspect of someone else’s life so impact yours as to create “disgust”?

The truth of the matter is: There are no Gays, no lesbians, no trans, etc.
There is only ppl who do VERY MINOR things differently than the mainstream.
Ya know, like ppl who are in pro sports, top musical acts, movie stars, TV stars.

Do you know the main 3 actors for The Big Bang Theory show make $1,000,000 each for each episode they shoot …. typically 17 episodes in a season? How many ppl do YOU know that make that kind of money? Do you find those 3 actors to be “disgusting”?

Hell, I’m strongly betting that someone in YOUR life is sexually-oriented differently that you think …. yet, you unknowingly hold them in high regard. And, just as likely, you partake in many activities that, in some way or another, involve such ppl. But, not knowing about that very minor aspect of their lives enables YOU to continue.

However, it is this very CONCEPT of men playing w/ each other’s P-P’s that gets ya so riled.
Hmmmmmm….. do you know what is one of the more “common explanations” for this?

But HOW does same-sex marriage undermine social and natural order?

The relativism of morals. Needless to say that morals are the foundation of social and natural order.

Eerrrrr…. you can’t use your premise to proof itself.
While morals usually are the foundations of social and natural order, all three of those aspects are subjective concepts and shouldn’t be considered to be absolutes …. something YOU are taking upon yourself to do. I doubt you can see that …. but, it is what a whooole lot of ppl do, and it is what causes a lot of “moral” issues in our society.

So, because some dickweed sets them self up as a judge of what is and is not “natural & normal”, the Constitution of the United States becomes null & void … esp. in the area of equal justice (see, they CAN be combined) for a group of ppl that are being natural & normal for who they are?

If people (not dickweeds) regularly shift notions of what is ‘normal and natural’, then there is no strong sense of ‘normal and unnatural’. If constitutions operates like this, then it offers no definite ‘rights and freedoms’ and would as well license us to do anything. About ‘equal justice’: All justices are equal. Not all equalities are just.

Look, if YOU aren’t able to maintain rationality in this discussion …. then, just admit defeat and give up.

The CONSTITUTION isn’t something that is “regularly shifted notions”.
IT doesn’t “operate like this”.
But, even though shit-stupid laws aren’t passed overnight, they very easily can be used to “regularly shift notions”.

That is where/why the Constitution comes into play.
It is the fountain of decency upon which all laws are to flow from.
Just because SCOTUS ruled against your PERSONAL tastes doesn’t mean those nine judges were wrong (well… 4 of ’em were).

The Constitution doesn’t apply to YOUR being disgusted.
THAT is something YOU will have to deal with all by your self …. along w/ all the other hateful, intolerant, bigoted ppl.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

For the U.S., it was ONE car length per 10 MPH up until a couple of decades ago.
Now, we use a 2-second method for calculation.
Stay 2 seconds behind the car in front of you.
I allow 3 (or more) because, in this case, more IS more.

But, one disadvantage of leaving a greater space is that a “speeder” or lane-changer wanting to weave their way forward will take advantage of even the 2-second space … meaning that you will then have to back off some distance from this new obstacle. If that’s the case and it is happening frequently, change lanes to a slower moving one; or, just back waaaaay off and give the speeders a niche by which they can play leapfrog safely.

Tailgating is one of the higher causes of accidents … yet, I see a lot of it.
I suspect some of it is just ignorance of how reaction time will factor in.
But, I suspect it is more likely a method of intimidation to get the driver in front to either speed up or get the fuck outta the way … the former even if they are at the speed limit; the latter if they aren’t.

Either way, being an asshole tailgater in the city freeways (much shorter driving times) is just stupid as fuck because, for all that dangerous driving, the tailgater likely saves only a couple of minute were they to “go with the flow”. Remember, at 60 MPH, you are traveling a mile every minute … or, 5 minutes yields 5 miles. In city driving, 5 miles would likely be a huge portion of the trip.

How many SECONDS does one need to save by speeding for a 15 mile/minute trip …. only to fuck off those few seconds doing something absolutely not at all related to the time-sensitivity of their need for getting there sooner?

here is some thoughts on faster driving.

Most policing officers have a lot of discretion for deciding what would constitute reckless driving. If a driver is going at a speed that is deemed improper for “road & reason”, you can still get a ticket even if you are at/under the speed limit.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

So, because some dickweed sets them self up as a judge of what is and is not “natural & normal”, the Constitution of the United States becomes null & void … esp. in the area of equal justice (see, they CAN be combined) for a group of ppl that are being natural & normal for who they are?

Or: fags are queer; so they automatically & naturally should be denied something simply because it doesn’t jibe w/ a long held “tradition”. Tradition in this case for marriage is being very similar to the tradition of owning slaves.

wargamer, your POV is a lot of blathering that is only good for being held by individuals and NOT for a reasonable collective that abides by a set of laws that IS fair & just.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

So, on an 8-lane divided, limited acess city freeway ….. everyone is going to be driving in the egress-ingress lane—unless passing?

And, by passing, I mean pulling out to go around a car (or two?) and then get right back in that singular line …… IF they can find a spot to do so.

OR, just keep passing (by going FASTER?) cars until an opening does present OR you need to exit. Gee, let’s see ….. a long series of passing other vehicles does seem a lot like just the “regular ol’ kind” of driving where REASONABLE use of those other lanes tends to move traffic along quite well.

Maybe some roads have multiple lanes for use because they are need as such?
In rural areas where legalish speeds would necessitate passing another vehicle on the right …. that that slower car SHOULD be in the outer lane.

OOOOoooopps, you just missed your exit because you stupidly pulled out of the exit lane without having an (pardon the pun) exit strategy whereby you wouldn’t be blocked.

Heinlein wrote a good story about how the progressively increasing speeds should get as one moved to the inward lanes …. The Roads Must Roll. Basically step up to the higher speed; but lower incident ….. step back down to the lower speed “road” when more traffic is doing handling a lot of events.

Or, we could have a look at the Germ. Autobahn ….. NO speed limits (exceptions apply). But, if you see lights flashing in your mirror. Either get the fuck over …. OR, just maintain-the-lane because someone is about to pass by you extremely fast.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

ten_pro, could you be confusing the outside lane w/ that of the inside?

It is commonly understood that it is the inside lane where the faster—to the point of even going over the speed LIMIT—cars prefers to fly. Why would they want to deal w/ the ingress/egress traffic of the outside lanes?

Then we have the super-speeders. They don’t care what lane they have to use in order to maneuver around/through traffic in order to save a few minutes for their arrival.

But, your suggestion that we hog that outside lane only creates problems for those wanting to get on the freeway and for those wanting to get in that outside lane so they can exit. Drivers using the outside lane have a moral obligation to allow either direction of traffic easier access to that lane.

It is commonly viewed that holding back speeder by driving slowly, even at the speed limit, mostly serves to piss off the speeder and can lead to road rage. In fact, such driving can be viewed as impeding traffic and is against the law.

So, rather than urge this form of vehicular vigilantism to address the issue, I strongly advise you to appeal to the lawmakers to enact stiffer penalties for the speeders and insist better application of those laws by civil servants (the police,

I’m trying to get some traction with my lawmakers to make a law whereby a very unmarked patrol vehicle simply drives around where illegal speeding and dangerous lane changing is going on. This vehicle won’t pull over any of these drives; rather they will simply “tag” the constantly running onboard camera as to when they observe unlawful driving. This tag allows that officer to know where to look for the infractions s/he saw.

This is a lot more efficient use of patrol car and officer.
And, much safer than chasing down a speeder and getting them to pull over through traffic and be stopped along the side of the road.

Then, upon having the license plate number, a ticket is sent to the registered owner of that vehicle.
There are systems that are placed (usually) at the “speeding inside lane” that take a picture of speeders as they pass.
The best way to stop speeding and dangerous driving is to make doing such waaaaay too expensive—fines and loss of driver’s license.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by beauval:

So why don’t you tell us about America in its heyday? When was that, and what was so wonderful about it?

There were SOME parts of it that did have a lot of positives.
But, the parts stan mentions are SOME of the negatives …. negatives that I’ve yet to hear any of the GOPers who want to “take us back to those days” make a stand against.
Originally posted by stanwise:

I think he’s referring to when black people couldn’t vote, women were property, gay people were automatically criminals, there was lead in our gasoline, and, um …

Originally posted by jhco50:

That first paragraph was pretty good and pretty accurate, however the rest of it was just what you were told and was not really all that accurate. You left out a whole span of a few decades out of your summation. Oh Americans never did like McCarthyism.

NO, Kasic didn’t “leave out a whole span of a few decade”.
He said: “Things slipped downhill from there economically as income inequality widened, while on the social front progressives were winning the fight for equal rights. Eventually we ended up where we are today.”

He didn’t really even need to respond beyond your question: “Kasic, you really don’t have any idea of what America was in it’s heyday because of your age.”

Lest you forget, jhco …. I, too, lived in those times.
What I saw/experienced is pretty much what Kasic says.
And, yes … A LOT OF Americans “never did like McCarthyism”.
But, this didn’t prevent the disaster he brought to thousands of Americans and the long term negativity brought to our society.

And, can you PLEASE drop this penchant you have for the hyperbole.
Can you say: SOME/MOST/whatever?
Just don’t say: “Americans never did …. "
YOU don’t speak for ALL Americans …. though you certainly like to think that you do.
Delusion much?
vika, “technically speaking”, the Confederate patriots were loyal to the confederation of their “own states” …. a self-declared, independent country. I see this as nothing any different than what the American colonialist did when they declared our independence from England.

Few Americans know that there was a form of Civil War fought during the Revolutionary War. When England started focusing on the South (South Carolina) in order to give better support to its troops in the more well-know areas of New England, the American Patriots (mostly the North) were the ones fiercely fighting those Loyalists much more than they fought the British troops there.

“Up North”, the Loyalists had very little organized militant opposition. They did aid the British …. but, to the peril of extreme measures taken against them by their Patriotic neighbors.

So, in a lot of ways, the Civil War was brewing long before 1860.


Topic: Serious Discussion / What would Obama look like in a future U.S History Textbook?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would Obama look like in a future U.S History Textbook?

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

Look at his most flattering photo. Now look at his ugliest photo.

One of those will be used depending on who writes the book

You mean like how Fox News and the rest of the world that is sane do?
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Canada Vs. United States

Originally posted by James146:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I can’t tell if you are ignorant or a troll.

Take your pick ….. pretty much an “and/or” thing there. lol

But, what can one expect when the only information consumed comes from sources that INTENTIONALLY distort the truth and outright lie about it. I don’t have an issue with hearing a true, reasoned, rational, based on at least some facts kind of conservative input (issendorf for one); but, this shit of “the-sky-is-falling” is a lot of what is wrong w/ America today.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / which marriage will "progressives" "fight" for next?

Nutbag conspiracy theorists and cockroaches will be the only things that survive the total destruction of civilization and all higher animals. Talk about taking an inch and going a crazy-ass mile of lunacy with it. Well, bless me, I just invented ultra-conservative talk radio and Faux Snooze.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by Belisaurius11:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Belisaurius11:

I agree with what you say Kasic, but did you really have to quote all of that?

Why do YOU ask?
What is your problem (if any) with his doing so?
It saves going to the link; and, ya don’t have to look for the part he is referencing.
So, why the “question”?

It was just long.

You do realize that you have the OPTION to either read it or ignore it?
Do you have a problem choosing one over the other?
Do you think I’m making a big deal out of this?
My point is just that ….. YOU are making a big deal out of basically NOTHING.
Plus, ya didn’t even respond to my “reasoning” (which Kasic “validated”) about how posting it gave absolutely NO reason to have not read it …. other than being perusal challenged, or gravely disinterested, or the one influencing the other.

Of note (and, more on topic) is that the Stars & Bars was a battle flag and NEVER was an official flag of the Confederacy. So, that kinda puts a whole ’nother perspective on the validity of it representing the more “intellectual” aspects of the idea of independence from what the South saw as being an overbearing FEDERAL Govt.

Anyone can “rebel”; to have respect for doing so, it helps to have a good reason. It would appear (thanks Kasic) that the issue of SLAVERY really wasn’t all that good of one. But, please remember, owning a person wasn’t like collecting stamps, coins, cars, etc. Those slaves were economically responsible for the profits from King Cotton ….. a staple of the South’s (and American) economy.
“Cotton and the Civil War
By Eugene R. Dattel”

“If slavery was the corner stone of the Confederacy, cotton was its foundation. At home its social and economic institutions rested upon cotton; abroad its diplomacy centered around the well-known dependence of Europe…upon an uninterrupted supply of cotton from the southern states.
Frank L. Owsley Jr.”

“On the eve of the American Civil War in the mid-1800s cotton was America’s leading export, and raw cotton was essential for the economy of Europe. The cotton industry was one of the world’s largest industries, and most of the world supply of cotton came from the American South. This industry, fueled by the labor of slaves on plantations, generated huge sums of money for the United States and influenced the nation’s ability to borrow money in a global market. In many respects, cotton’s financial and political influence in the 19th century can be compared to that of the oil industry in the early 21st century.”

“Mississippi, the nation’s largest cotton-producing state, was economically and politically dependent on cotton, as was the entire South. Indeed, it was the South’s economic backbone. When the southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederate States of America in 1861, they used cotton to provide revenue for its government, arms for its military, and the economic power for a diplomatic strategy for the fledgling Confederate nation.”

I don’t think most of those IN the Confederacy were so interested in the specifics of “owning a human” as much as how it would impact them economically were they to not have that very cheap labor. Ya know, much like it is in America w/ all this shit talk about how raising the minimum wage to one of a living wage is going to kill our economy.

Plus, the “North” wanted the South’s cotton for its own textile mills AND wanted to put them dirt famers in their proper place. The North was industrial and the South was agricultural. As I recall, the North (and its huge Navy …. from its ship-building yards) was blockading ships w/ cotton going to England.

“The lure of cotton (from that same link):
Cotton also spawned a series of federal regulations during the war. The North needed cotton for its textile mills, and it wanted to deprive the South of its financing power. Therefore, federal permits issued by the Treasury Department were required to purchase cotton in the Confederate states. The system was rife with corruption, particularly in the Mississippi Valley. Confederate cotton that was subject to confiscation by the North could not be distinguished from legitimate cotton grown by planters loyal to the Union. Cotton could be purchased for as little as 12 to 20 cents a pound, transported to New York for 4 cents a pound, and sold for up to $1.89 a pound. One observer noted that the “mania for sudden fortunes in cotton” meant that “Every [Union] colonel, captain, or quartermaster is in secret partnership with some operator in cotton.” The lure of cotton wealth would entice white Northern civilians and Union soldiers south during and after the war.”

I suggest a good read of that link … and, any other similar ones on the history of the Civil War if one seriously wants to understand the many nuances of the Civil War. It might help to understand that the South thought—the mere token of making the obvious distinctions between it and the North a political fact—would mean the “war” would be over in less than a year. The more reasonable heads figured diplomacy would handle it …. not sabre, guns, and cannons.

Kasic is right in that, from the perspective of humanity, the War was about slavery.
But, from an economical & plutocracy perspective, the slavery issue figures in ONLY as how it was very cheap labor that helped maximize profits. Ya know, much like it currently is in America. Comparatively, a whole lot of Americans (maybe a close percentage) probably aren’t any better off than most slaves back then.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by Belisaurius11:

I agree with what you say Kasic, but did you really have to quote all of that?

Why do YOU ask?
What is your problem (if any) with his doing so?
It saves going to the link; and, ya don’t have to look for the part he is referencing.
So, why the “question”?
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would Obama look like in a future U.S History Textbook?

John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President…..
do we remember him for THAT?

James, how Obama is viewed in a “future U.S. History book” is going to depend on who writes it.
Ya do know there are many authors w/ an equal number of viewpoints?
There is no “official” history book …. esp. for textbooks in collage.
Even high school syllabi are a factor of State BOE selection process.

Let me put it this way, going in to the election, I thought Obama COULD BE such a great President that he might have a memorial near that of Lincoln. I had hoped Obama could have righted so many wrongs in our society.

Instead, he turned out to be more centrist and weak than I thought likely.
For me, he has been quite a “disappointment”.
But, at least he keep that fucking bitch Palin out of the picture.
That alone keeps him in my good graces. lol

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by issendorf:
and resurrected in the 1960’s as a symbol of opposing de-segregation.

This is actually still debated. It was originally raised to mark the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, but whether it was also raised to protest the civil rights act is not completely clear whether that was part of the original intent.

It’s purely a symbol of hate.

Perhaps to you it is a purely a symbol of hate, but no symbol is purely anything. Symbols are, by their very nature, different to different people. The Confederate flag is to many people, that symbol of slavery and represents the very worst of America. To others, it represents a treasonous insurrection against the American government. However, there are many people in the South who view it as a signal of Southern pride or as a symbol of states’ rights. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical that you actually know whether racism exists in every Southern person’s heart who views the Confederate flag in a positive light.

Now, you could make the argument that it’s impossible to separate the racist elements from the Confederate flag, and maybe that’s correct and probably a conversation worth having. But, it’s far too simplistic to go out and say that this symbol is purely hate. Just keep in mind the last time the issue was voted on, more than a quarter of blacks (if anyone should have sway in removing the flag, it’s them) wanted the flag to stay. It’s really easy for outsiders to go out and say it has no place and one singular meaning, but it does the debate surrounding the flag a great disjustice by ignoring the fact that it really isn’t clear cut.

That, and the more base association of the Stars & Bars w/ the ignorant “redneck” factions of the South. Ya know, the ones that don’t own lawnmowers because their lawns are covered with dead vehicles …. usually pickups w/ huge wheels & a gun rack. They heat their homes by burning non-winning lotto & scratch tickets. They have their “preacher” help them fill out their mail-in votes because they don’t know how to read.

So many stereotypes, so little time.

Hey …. just when I was clear-channeling Jeff Foxworthy so damn good. lol

I hope ya noticed that I signified BASE in that association.
That is because—GASP—I completely AGREE w/ everything you said above.
I’m married to a gal from West Virginia.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

From Wiki:

“The term sauwastika (or sauvastika12) is sometimes used to distinguish the left-facing from the right-facing swastika symbol, a meaning which developed in 19th century scholarship.3

The left-facing variant is favoured in Bön and Gurung Dharma; it is called yungdrung in Bon and Gurung Yantra in Gurung Dharma. Both the right-facing and left-facing variants are employed in Hinduism and Buddhism; however, the left-facing is more commonly used in Buddhism than Hinduism and the right-facing is more commonly used in Hinduism than Buddhism.4

In Buddhism the left-facing sauwastika imprinted on the chest, feet, palms of Buddha and also the first of the 65 auspicious symbols on the footprint of the Buddha.56 In Hinduism the left-facing sauwastika is associated with esoteric tantric practices and often stands for Goddess Kali.7"

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

Originally posted by stanwise:
Originally posted by petesahooligan:

What if people were to adapt and adopt Asimov’s 3 (or 4) Rules of Robotics? I’ve replaced “robot” with “person”, obviously.

1. A person may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Do you recall, then, the Asimov story wherein robots took the second half of this mandate to the extreme? They reasoned that if any human, anywhere, was in harm through their inactions, they were in violation. So, they basically took over society and removed everything remotely dangerous from it, keeping humans sort of as pets in padded cages where no harm could possible befall them.

I, Robot.

I think Isimov was using his luv of the future to demonstrate what we will have to be very careful about NOT bringing our past along with us.

For good or bad, I’m sure there is some extent/degree of “for their own good” in most power hungry rulers.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by Kasic:
Yet I don’t have the same degree of association to the American Flag. I think that’s ironic. Why would I have feelings for one symbol, (especially that they’re negative), yet not for another similar one?

Because the Confederate flag was created especially in the name of preserving slavery in America, and resurrected in the 1960’s as a symbol of opposing de-segregation. It’s purely a symbol of hate. The American flag is just a representation of the nation as a whole and how you feel towards the country itself is how you’d view the flag.

That, and the more base association of the Stars & Bars w/ the ignorant “redneck” factions of the South. Ya know, the ones that don’t own lawnmowers because their lawns are covered with dead vehicles …. usually pickups w/ huge wheels & a gun rack. They heat their homes by burning non-winning lotto & scratch tickets. They have their “preacher” help them fill out their mail-in votes because they don’t know how to read.

Kasic beat me to it on those other points;
and, I totally agree.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

Originally posted by PrincessLeia101:

I believe (nobody else has to agree) that God LETS the world be imperfect because we are all part of some great test. If you are a Chrisitan then I need not explain further.
The obstacles and challenges mankind face are necissary.
I have avoided stating this theory because, now watch how many people ask me what proof of God I have. Wait for it.
I do not have the patience to put up with it. I tried.

Look, you have been told by Stan that nobody is “picking” on you.
He said that if you bring something into the equation, you best be ready to accept a challenge to it.
You might choose to not defend it …. dumb idea.
BUT, even much dumber to whine that you are getting “picked on” for stating it.

It you modified it to be a case where YOU limited your actions to be based on YOUR beliefs, that would be one thing. The problem enters when YOU , like so many fucked up religious ppl, aren’t able to discern the difference between that and thinking YOUR beliefs should ALSO dictate the actions of others or are manifestly responsible for events.

Grow the fuck up and stop this martyrdom crap.
Or, better yet, JUST STOP bringing your religious beliefs into the discussions as if they are some kind of “proof” of something ….. THEN, run away wailing that you are gonna be “picked” on.

BTW, I’ve not really “crossed the religious line” there. But, I’ve suggested that YOU stop drawing it in the sand if you are so pissy about having it challenged. And, I pointed out a basic truism about religion … something that can’t be proven certainly can’t be used as proof about something.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Misrepresenting Race

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Dolezal was not raised with cultural likeness. She was raised as a white girl in a white family. Dolezal was not raised with shared experience. And, most significantly, she was not raised with the implicit assumptions about her due to her race. This is the most important aspect. She appropriated those things… and her ability to do that comes from the privilege of being white.

Wait a minute.
Weren’t 4 of her siblings BLACK?
Were they raised “White”?
That way, she then wasn’t “raised w/ shared experience” of what those Black siblings were?

Couldn’t a weeeebit of “Black” have rubbed off on her?
Would emulating things about your BLACK siblings actually be seen as “appropriating”?
Good grief.

“White privilege” … indeed.
Hang the woman for daring to care about the “Black experience”.
What was she thinking?