Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 17:46:16 GMT -5
You are literally arguing a point nobody made. So what was the point then, captain jizz face? Valetudo is asking if the war was fought over slavery...like, what's the fucking point of that question? What direction was dude trying to go with that question? I don't know, why doesn't someone tell me.... You are definitely going to win people to your side by insulting everyone that doesn't fully agree with your narrative... 1) You claimed my party created the KKK and segregation. Nobody was talking about either point, we were talking about the civil war and slavery, you went off into left field with it. 2) My party? Exactly who is my party? Just because I don't sound like I came straight from StormFront doesn't mean I am a democrat. 3) Nobody said the war was fought over some grand principal of right or wrong. It is completely and totally dishonest to say slavery was not a driver behind the war. Slavery lead to secession, secession was unlawful to Lincoln, secession led to war. You can do all the mental gymnastics and semantic games you want but the civil war did happen in due part to slavery. 4) My point was during slavery/Jim Crow etc that a good chunk of both Democrats and Republicans were racist so trying to say "your party created the KKK" is stupid and disingenuous. Any other brain busters? |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 25, 2017 17:59:25 GMT -5
Non-extradition between states lead to secession since slavery was legal even at they time they presented their declarations of secession. Slavery wasn't made illegal until AFTER the civil war, with the exception of states that were open-rebellion against the Federal Government who then were made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation. So in other words, for a period AFTER the civil war, you could still hold slaves in the North, but nowhere in the South.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2017 18:52:04 GMT -5
Non-extradition between states lead to secession since slavery was legal even at they time they presented their declarations of secession. Slavery wasn't made illegal until AFTER the civil war, with the exception of states that were open-rebellion against the Federal Government who then were made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation. So in other words, for a period AFTER the civil war, you could still hold slaves in the North, but nowhere in the South. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Just a random "fact" that you Wiki'd to make you feel educated but in reality the fact that you can try to boil down this much nuance into one issue makes you seem really fucking uneducated and borderline retarded. I know I just replied to Matt about insulting others but it's fucking Jackel. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 9:26:10 GMT -5
And I would agree with Sean Penn if he can tell me what the Civil War was actually fought about. I would bet that his answer would put slavery at the top of the list of reasons that the Civil War was fought. And as usual, he'd be wrong. the greatest role that man ever played was that of Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Not sure why anyone thinks they should listen to anything he says with regards to politics. One good thing about all of this retarded hoopla occurring within our society is that it has lead me to go back and brush up on my history. More people who are outraged should do the same thing. Penn Jillet, not Sean Penn. From a libertarian point of view, there is absolutely no reason for a state sponsored statue-ever. It's a waste of money. If the Yankees want to build a statue of Babe Ruth with Yankees money, they can build as many as they want. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 9:53:17 GMT -5
You are literally arguing a point nobody made. So what was the point then, captain jizz face? Valetudo is asking if the war was fought over slavery...like, what's the fucking point of that question? What direction was dude trying to go with that question? I don't know, why doesn't someone tell me.... There may have been a question mark at the end of my sentence, but I wasn't asking a question. I was in a bit of confusion reading some of the posts on here. Seems like people are trying to play like that war was fought over anything but slavery. Which to me is funny, bexause slavery had everything to do with the war. I don't know where or why you went full bore with the "dems R bad". I stop reading when we get into biased territory. Can't do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 13:31:43 GMT -5
Non-extradition between states lead to secession since slavery was legal even at they time they presented their declarations of secession. Slavery wasn't made illegal until AFTER the civil war, with the exception of states that were open-rebellion against the Federal Government who then were made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation. So in other words, for a period AFTER the civil war, you could still hold slaves in the North, but nowhere in the South. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Just a random "fact" that you Wiki'd to make you feel educated but in reality the fact that you can try to boil down this much nuance into one issue makes you seem really fucking uneducated and borderline retarded. I know I just replied to Matt about insulting others but it's fucking Jackel. Forum rules, grandfathered in from the old forum, specifically allow insults directed at Angelo/Jackel. Justification lies within the rules governing obnoxious trolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 26, 2017 13:57:36 GMT -5
So what was the point then, captain jizz face? Valetudo is asking if the war was fought over slavery...like, what's the fucking point of that question? What direction was dude trying to go with that question? I don't know, why doesn't someone tell me.... There may have been a question mark at the end of my sentence, but I wasn't asking a question. I was in a bit of confusion reading some of the posts on here. Seems like people are trying to play like that war was fought over anything but slavery. Which to me is funny, bexause slavery had everything to do with the war. I don't know where or why you went full bore with the "dems R bad". I stop reading when we get into biased territory. Can't do it. Your vague questions reeked of white knightery....and since your question didn't have any real direction(besides the white knightery) , i decided to post some random facts pointing out that yes, slavery was an issue however no, the war wasn't fought for the self righteous reason of " freeing the slaves" that the democrats like to portray it was. So when discussing an issue that has two specific sides, you don't like when someone refers to one particular side by their given name? Like if I was discussing apples, you wouldn't want me to actually use the word "apple" when speaking about that particular fruit that is reminiscent to a pear?! And i didn't use words like "good" or "bad" when discussing the north/union/democrats and the confederate/south/republicans...i don't use terms like that, that's subjective...I posted facts. Maybe its "facts" that turn you off from the conversations...maybe you can't continue reading when you hear facts that you don't like? Feel free to fact check anything i posted and correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 14:50:16 GMT -5
There may have been a question mark at the end of my sentence, but I wasn't asking a question. I was in a bit of confusion reading some of the posts on here. Seems like people are trying to play like that war was fought over anything but slavery. Which to me is funny, bexause slavery had everything to do with the war. I don't know where or why you went full bore with the "dems R bad". I stop reading when we get into biased territory. Can't do it. Your vague questions reeked of white knightery....and since your question didn't have any real direction(besides the white knightery) , i decided to post some random facts pointing out that yes, slavery was an issue however no, the war wasn't fought for the self righteous reason of " freeing the slaves" that the democrats like to portray it was. So when discussing an issue that has two specific sides, you don't like when someone refers to one particular side by their given name? Like if I was discussing apples, you wouldn't want me to actually use the word "apple" when speaking about that particular fruit that is reminiscent to a pear?! And i didn't use words like "good" or "bad" when discussing the north/union/democrats and the confederate/south/republicans...i don't use terms like that, that's subjective...I posted facts. Maybe its "facts" that turn you off from the conversations...maybe you can't continue reading when you hear facts that you don't like? Feel free to fact check anything i posted and correct me if I'm wrong. No, it's continually harping on some bias that you have towards dems that turn me off to the conversation. As far as facts I don't like, I don't have enough care for either party to have any "like" or "dislike" for any fact or opinion towards or against either of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 26, 2017 17:28:17 GMT -5
Non-extradition between states lead to secession since slavery was legal even at they time they presented their declarations of secession. Slavery wasn't made illegal until AFTER the civil war, with the exception of states that were open-rebellion against the Federal Government who then were made illegal by the Emancipation Proclamation. So in other words, for a period AFTER the civil war, you could still hold slaves in the North, but nowhere in the South. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Just a random "fact" that you Wiki'd to make you feel educated but in reality the fact that you can try to boil down this much nuance into one issue makes you seem really fucking uneducated and borderline retarded. I know I just replied to Matt about insulting others but it's fucking Jackel. It has to do with the fact that you said "It is completely and totally dishonest to say slavery was not a driver behind the war. Slavery lead to secession, secession was unlawful to Lincoln, secession led to war"Slavery was tertiary at best to causes of the civil war, and was not the cause of secession or the civil war. If it was, then why was slavery only legal in the North? If it was, why were all the declarations of secession only mentioning slavery only as an example of things that would be hurt by the refusal of extradition and respect of states rights (something that specifically affected some of the North more so ironically enough). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 19:38:15 GMT -5
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Just a random "fact" that you Wiki'd to make you feel educated but in reality the fact that you can try to boil down this much nuance into one issue makes you seem really fucking uneducated and borderline retarded. I know I just replied to Matt about insulting others but it's fucking Jackel. It has to do with the fact that you said "It is completely and totally dishonest to say slavery was not a driver behind the war. Slavery lead to secession, secession was unlawful to Lincoln, secession led to war"Slavery was tertiary at best to causes of the civil war, and was not the cause of secession or the civil war. If it was, then why was slavery only legal in the North? If it was, why were all the declarations of secession only mentioning slavery only as an example of things that would be hurt by the refusal of extradition and respect of states rights (something that specifically affected some of the North more so ironically enough). You're a fucking idiot. I would explain to you why you are full of shit but you would just ignore it and make some other lame ass argument in a week that will just make me call your bullshit again. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 26, 2017 20:04:17 GMT -5
It has to do with the fact that you said "It is completely and totally dishonest to say slavery was not a driver behind the war. Slavery lead to secession, secession was unlawful to Lincoln, secession led to war"Slavery was tertiary at best to causes of the civil war, and was not the cause of secession or the civil war. If it was, then why was slavery only legal in the North? If it was, why were all the declarations of secession only mentioning slavery only as an example of things that would be hurt by the refusal of extradition and respect of states rights (something that specifically affected some of the North more so ironically enough). You're a fucking idiot. I would explain to you why you are full of shit but you would just ignore it and make some other lame ass argument in a week that will just make me call your bullshit again. Please explain. Where the fuck are you getting that slavery lead to secession? 1. All the revisionist history in the world still hasn't destroyed the declarations of secession documents the states filed. Go read them, none of them mention slavery as a reason. The only mentions of slavery is used in the examples given for various municipalities not respecting extradition laws. Notice that since the Union won, we still to this day have a government that doesn't require states to extradite criminals to other states. 2. Slavery was not made illegal until AFTER the Civil War, which happened after the attempted secessions. 3. Slavery was only made illegal after the war because the Confederate states technically had no slaves while the Union states had about 1.6 million slaves, and that lead to things being economically unbalanced. In the aftermath of the war it was easier, faster, cheaper to make slavery illegal rather than to try and recoup the Confederate losses from lack of slaves. edit: So you get why I said tertiary. The reason for secession (and civil war therefore) 1. Feds not upholding state laws that are in line with Federal laws. 2. Specific example given, extradition of criminals in one state who fled to another state. 3. Specific example of said behavior, not handing back bounties and slaves who fled the jurisdiction of the state. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 27, 2017 0:59:46 GMT -5
There's a whole lotta snooty boxing analysts who are going to have to explain themselves on Monday.
McGregor won't land a single punch.
McGregor won't win a single round.
This is a farce. A side-show. Beneath us.
We're going into round 7 and I've got it 3-3 with a very debatable 4th round and Floyd looking absolutely lost at times, backwards, literally backwards, confused, tentative, and old.
McGregor looking a lot like Diaz now. Pitter patter, busy, long reach, angles, just active, kind of stifling, and some really remarkable footwork, stance switching, and range keeping. Hard to believe we're watching a 0-0 guy fight a 49-0 guy right now.
Obviously Maywether is kind of rope-a-doping and keeping his powder dry, but nobody intentionally takes shots and loses multiple rounds. McGregor is giving Floyd some legitimate problems and we're deep enough into this that it's not a fluke round or two anymore. This is a thing.
Now McGregor looking like McGregor in McGregor v. Diaz. Deep waters. Heavy arms. Stellar footwork and angles have slowed a great deal. Floyd starting to push forward and close the distance.
Yep, 12 rounds is a LOT. There's a deep conditioning component here that takes years to acclimate to at a championship level and you can clearly see Floyd is prepared to go all damn night and McGregor is good for about 7-8 rounds max.
Just saw the scorecard from Guida, judging at ringside, scorecard #1, had the fight 8 rounds to 1 for Floyd going into the 10th round. What in the FOOK was that guy watching? Jesus christ. Actually, none of the official scorecards had the fight even relatively close. How you don't at a minimum give the first 3 to McGregor is perplexing and a bit shady, which is precisely the type of shit that has ruined boxing over the past decade.
The judges all had Floyd up by a landslide, 6-3, 7-2, and 8-1 going into the 10th where a heavily fatigued McGregor got stopped after taking a few nice shots, in a really early stoppage for a title fight, no knockdown, very likely did not change the eventual outcome, but man, between the stoppage and the scorecards, you see what kind of a world you're stepping into. Justice ain't blind in the WBF, folks. You ain't gonna waltz in here and fuck up this 50-0 thing and undermine the aristocracy of an entire sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 27, 2017 1:05:57 GMT -5
There's a whole lotts snooty boxing analysts who are going to have to explain themselves on Monday. McGregor won't land a single punch. McGregor won't win a single round. This is a farce. A side-show. Beneath us. We're going into round 7 and I've got it 3-3 with a very debatable 4th round and Floyd looking absolutely lost at times, backwards, literally backwards, confused, tentative, and old. McGregor looking a lot like Diaz now. Pitter patter, busy, long reach, angles, just active, kind of stifling. Obviously Maywether is kind of rope-a-doping and keeping his powder dry, but nobody intentionally takes shots and loses multiple rounds. McGregor is giving Floyd some legitimate problems and we're deep enough into this that it's not a fluke round or two anymore. This is a thing. Everyone here (including one who was the one into boxing instead of MMA) had the first 5 for Connor, but the final score card for first 9 had Mayweather overwhelming winning?? Based on announcing and reffing, the one guy was pissed saying they were disrespecting the sport hanging so heavy on Mayweather. |
|
|
|
Post by HumanAgent on Aug 27, 2017 3:13:44 GMT -5
Mayweather had control from the first round. Who goes to the corner losing the fight and is winking and smiling at the camera? People giving Conor to much credit for landing so much, more than Manny landed.... But it was obvious Mayweather had no respect for Conor.
A 40 year old, retired for two years, didn't even really spar and still put on a clinic. The fact that he stopped Conor goes to show how easy of a fight it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Aug 27, 2017 3:22:04 GMT -5
Mayweather had control from the first round. Who goes to the corner losing the fight and is winking and smiling at the camera? People giving Conor to much credit for landing so much, more than Manny landed.... But it was obvious Mayweather had no respect for Conor. A 40 year old, retired for two years, didn't even really spar and still put on a clinic. The fact that he stopped Conor goes to show how easy of a fight it was. One of the few rare fights that Floyd was walking down his opponent. Floyd wouldn't have done that to Maidana, Pacquiao, Canelo, etc. The argument that Conor landed more isn't a testament to his skills, Floyd just doesn't respect him and didn't found the need play his own style when he can just spam rights and brawl with an mma fighter. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 27, 2017 9:44:01 GMT -5
You guys sound like you could be ringside judges.
*throws four punches a round, eats uppercuts and jabs, has trouble with angles*
- He's in total control
The bent over backward-facing turtle guy is in total control? Of what?
This was a 0-0 fighter vs a 49-0 fighter and the analysis is completely missing that small little detail. The mental gymnastics justifying this surprising outcome is amusing.
He wasn't in control of jack shit until McGregor gassed out 30 min into the fight. You don't spend 6 rounds of a 12 round fight losing or even because you think it's fun to look old and get punched in the face in front of the whole world. Even the announcers were saying Floyd has lost a step, not looking as quick, surprised how well McGregor's doing, and that nobody's won this many rounds against Floyd, ever. Of course your strategy is to drag him into deep waters, but nobody's strategy is to take shots, look bad, turn your back to the aggressor repeatedly, and give up 4-5 rounds on purpose. I guess people see what they want to see. It's pretty easy to look good when the other guy gets lead feet 8-9 rounds in. It's interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by HumanAgent on Aug 27, 2017 10:27:57 GMT -5
He did that cause he knew it would frustrate Conor cause there is nothing he could do. Not the first time Floyd covers up like that. Conor was already breathing heavy in the 4th what around talking about after 30 minutes. He won three rounds. Floyd didn't take the fight that serious. He didn't care if Conor hit him, he had no respect for him at all. His plan was to drag him into deep waters.
He didn't even spar at 100%. While Conor was changing the way boxers would train with his underwater treadmill. Everyone with a mind knew this was going to be the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 27, 2017 10:54:03 GMT -5
You sound like a nut flea. He didn't try very hard? He didn't mind getting hit? Jesus. Ok Look, I was so sure Floyd would win that I spent $400 to make $100, but this rose colored glasses analysis if fucking ridiculous. Nobody looks old and slow and surprisingly evenly matched for 1/2 a fight on purpose, only becoming effective once your opponent is fatigued in the 2nd half of the contest. That's not a good look for a guy that wasn't supposed to take a single shot, lose a single round, the greatest technical boxer of all time vs. a 0-0 circus fight. McGregor's size, footwork, stance switching, reach, and angles bothered Floyd a LOT more than anyone expected, and deep conditioning from decades of fighting to boring 12 round decisions is the primary reason Floyd did what he did last night. McGregor has 15% better conditioning and that thing goes 12 and we're having some REALLY interesting discussion about some score cards today. Two judges had it 9 rounds to 1 for Floyd going into the 10th.  |
|
|
|
Post by HumanAgent on Aug 27, 2017 11:14:01 GMT -5
Floyd had no respect for Conor or his punching power. None! After losing the first three rounds Floyd was smiling and winking at the camera. He knew at that point the fight was his. This isn't MMA, boxers like Floyd can afford to give a few rounds. Floyd never said all the things the "experts" said. He said "I'm going to stop him" and the fans said, "he hasn't stopped anyone in years"
Where was that lethal left? Not one single punch phased Floyd. Not one!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 11:20:32 GMT -5
Floyd may have had the plan to tire conor out, but he sure had a bit of a rough patch there trying to get him there. Floyd realized somewhere along the line that he couldn't just hang out on the outside without taking shots. He couldn't play the ropes. He had to resort to walking him down. It worked, but let's not play here like that was some flawless perdormancy by Floyd.
|
|
|
|
Post by daywork on Aug 27, 2017 11:53:53 GMT -5
You sound like a nut flea. He didn't try very hard? He didn't mind getting hit? Jesus. Ok Look, I was so sure Floyd would win that I spent $400 to make $100, but this rose colored glasses analysis if fucking ridiculous. Nobody looks old and slow and surprisingly evenly matched for 1/2 a fight on purpose, only becoming effective once your opponent is fatigued in the 2nd half of the contest. That's not a good look for a guy that wasn't supposed to take a single shot, lose a single round, the greatest technical boxer of all time vs. a 0-0 circus fight. McGregor's size, footwork, stance switching, reach, and angles bothered Floyd a LOT more than anyone expected, and deep conditioning from decades of fighting to boring 12 round decisions is the primary reason Floyd did what he did last night. McGregor has 15% better conditioning and that thing goes 12 and we're having some REALLY interesting discussion about some score cards today. Two judges had it 9 rounds to 1 for Floyd going into the 10th. How did Burt and Guido only give Conor the 1st round?
Oh well, its only boxing anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Aug 27, 2017 15:10:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 27, 2017 15:54:50 GMT -5
Is that the same Stephen A that tried to make the pop interest in McGregor and the general boredom with Maywether into a race issue?
Fook duh Meywetters
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 27, 2017 17:13:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 27, 2017 19:00:56 GMT -5
Why libertarians are better than democrats:  |
|
|
|
Post by daywork on Aug 27, 2017 19:14:32 GMT -5
There isn't any real proof. So if this is true, its goes no where. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 27, 2017 19:23:36 GMT -5
There isn't any real proof. So if this is true, its goes no where.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2017 19:59:28 GMT -5
Do you fact check anything you post? Was this fact checked? Where is your proof besides hearsay? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 27, 2017 21:41:50 GMT -5
Do you fact check anything you post? Was this fact checked? Where is your proof besides hearsay? Why do I always have to do your homework for you? And we've gone through this before, me and you...remember? You accused me of not reading, while you yourself refused to read a valid link I posted... you refused to read it because the material I posted contained...'facts' that pointed out how dumb your global warming fairly tales are. Hence, you don't like the facts, you don't bother reading the material and then you continue white knighting for the globalist's agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 27, 2017 21:48:32 GMT -5
And i won't bother pointing out the irony of the liberal media going nuts over "white supremacy" while blm morans tear down the country because white supremacists elected a Nazi kkk white nationalist president(no proof he's racist)...all the while, the candidate they wanted openly calls people niggers and no one gives a shit. dailypostfeed.com/katie-couric-speaks-out-on-canceling-clinton-interview-it-was-over-when-she-called-him-the-n-word/Edit....and yes, I did multiple searches to find info on this story...however, when the bad guys own the entire fucking media...soemtimes you gotta run with what you can find. Besides, even if I'm wrong...im always right. |
|
