Advertisement
by USS Monitor » Mon May 30, 2016 7:21 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:Now although overall the CSA was quite conservative, in some respects it was also quite liberal. The idea of a confederacy was a relatively new concept of governance, and was staunchly opposed by many more conservative Unitarians.
by Republic of the Cristo » Mon May 30, 2016 7:29 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:Now although overall the CSA was quite conservative, in some respects it was also quite liberal. The idea of a confederacy was a relatively new concept of governance, and was staunchly opposed by many more conservative Unitarians.
No, the concept of a confederacy was reactionary. That was what the first US government was, before the Constitution.
by USS Monitor » Mon May 30, 2016 7:53 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
No, the concept of a confederacy was reactionary. That was what the first US government was, before the Constitution.
No, the articles of confederation were even less centralized than that of the CSA government. Although they were similar, there were notable differences - one being that there was a more powerful executive.
by Republic of the Cristo » Mon May 30, 2016 8:13 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:
No, the articles of confederation were even less centralized than that of the CSA government. Although they were similar, there were notable differences - one being that there was a more powerful executive.
That doesn't mean the idea of a confederacy was new. Taking a bunch of old ideas and implementing them in a slightly different way doesn't make you liberal.
by Not a Bang but a Whimper » Mon May 30, 2016 8:16 pm
The Grey Wolf wrote:we're not being "slaughtered in the streets."
The Grey Wolf wrote:and also, to include white, cisgender women in the category is laughable.
The Grey Wolf wrote:I also doubt that a large amount of people are defending rape and murder.
Meroivinge wrote:The very fact that you would have doubts about whether to join a forum full of goddless commie islamofascist homosexual welfare-recipients instead of a forum built to celebrate the Greatest Christian country in all of history deeply concerns me.
Kautharr wrote:Back when that was how the world was, there was no gay or transgender people.
by Conserative Morality » Mon May 30, 2016 8:18 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:Now although overall the CSA was quite conservative, in some respects it was also quite liberal. The idea of a confederacy was a relatively new concept of governance, and was staunchly opposed by many more conservative Unitarians.
by Republic of the Cristo » Mon May 30, 2016 8:21 pm
by Republic of the Cristo » Mon May 30, 2016 8:29 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:Now although overall the CSA was quite conservative, in some respects it was also quite liberal. The idea of a confederacy was a relatively new concept of governance, and was staunchly opposed by many more conservative Unitarians.
Yes, no one in the US had every heard of the Swiss Confederacy, or the Articles of Confederation, or Sweden-Norway, or the contemporary Argentine Confederation, or the Confederation of the Rhine etc etc.
by Wallenburg » Mon May 30, 2016 8:31 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:Just looking at a lot of these and I can tell you have not read them much. For your list of murders against gays, you listed not only hate crimes... but also random acts of violence, as well as crimes of passion. And for women being murdered, you listed several mass shootings, whose intentions were not to kill solely women.
You realize that most crimes are committed not out of hate, but out of desire or need - right?
by Conserative Morality » Mon May 30, 2016 8:32 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:The Swiss confederacy was extremely different from the CSA. The Swiss confederacy was a tributary to the Holy Roman Empire. Sweden-Norway was a union between two royal families - a little different from representative republics joining together. As I have said before, the CSA government took inspiration from the articles of confederation, but there were notable differences - the presence of a powerful executive being one. Confederation of the Rhine was a tributary to the French Empire.
The Argentine confederation is correct though, and it too was to be considered a politically liberal state in that regard.
I am beginning to think you are not arguing with me for the sake of historical accuracy, rather, you are doing so out of an ideological pursuit were in you refuse to acknowledge anything about the CSA was liberal. Please, don't. I am adamant in putting an ideological spin on history.
by Republic of the Cristo » Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:Just looking at a lot of these and I can tell you have not read them much. For your list of murders against gays, you listed not only hate crimes... but also random acts of violence, as well as crimes of passion. And for women being murdered, you listed several mass shootings, whose intentions were not to kill solely women.
You realize that most crimes are committed not out of hate, but out of desire or need - right?
The claim refuted was "we're not being 'slaughtered in the streets.'"
by The East Marches » Mon May 30, 2016 8:38 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:Just looking at a lot of these and I can tell you have not read them much. For your list of murders against gays, you listed not only hate crimes... but also random acts of violence, as well as crimes of passion. And for women being murdered, you listed several mass shootings, whose intentions were not to kill solely women.
You realize that most crimes are committed not out of hate, but out of desire or need - right?
The claim refuted was "we're not being 'slaughtered in the streets.'"
by The Two Jerseys » Mon May 30, 2016 8:39 pm
Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:
by Wallenburg » Mon May 30, 2016 8:40 pm
by Vashty » Mon May 30, 2016 8:42 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Not a Bang but a Whimper wrote:
So we can pretty much throw out all those cases of police officers returning fire at an armed suspect, police using non-lethal methods to subdue suspects but the suspects die anyway, police-involved traffic collisions, bystanders getting caught in the crossfire, and all the cases involving gays and transgender, because they do jack shit to prove that the government is actively slaughtering people in the streets.
by The East Marches » Mon May 30, 2016 8:42 pm
Wallenburg wrote:The East Marches wrote:
Clearly there are right death squads around that I wasn't made aware of.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Try again.
by USS Monitor » Mon May 30, 2016 8:42 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
That doesn't mean the idea of a confederacy was new. Taking a bunch of old ideas and implementing them in a slightly different way doesn't make you liberal.
Then I suppose communism by 1917 was reactionary as well? I mean, it had already been tried in Paris 40 years prior. I would then suppose that Republics during the 18th centaury were also reactionary - seeing as how the Romans had them over 2,000 years ago. Never mind that both systems were, despite similarities, different from their original source. I hope you catch the sarcasm.
by Vashty » Mon May 30, 2016 8:43 pm
The East Marches wrote:
"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.
by Republic of the Cristo » Mon May 30, 2016 8:44 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:The Swiss confederacy was extremely different from the CSA. The Swiss confederacy was a tributary to the Holy Roman Empire. Sweden-Norway was a union between two royal families - a little different from representative republics joining together. As I have said before, the CSA government took inspiration from the articles of confederation, but there were notable differences - the presence of a powerful executive being one. Confederation of the Rhine was a tributary to the French Empire.
And being a tributary state means one's form of government is lost to the annals of history and should not be considered when comparing contemporary or near-contemporary states?
Don't be ridiculous.The Argentine confederation is correct though, and it too was to be considered a politically liberal state in that regard.
I am beginning to think you are not arguing with me for the sake of historical accuracy, rather, you are doing so out of an ideological pursuit were in you refuse to acknowledge anything about the CSA was liberal. Please, don't. I am adamant in putting an ideological spin on history.
Yeah, I really can't think of anything about the CSA that was more liberal than the USA. "Change" is not necessarily "liberal", even if the changes are unheard of and brand-new (which they weren't).
You seem to be applying a modern conservative-liberal dichotomy that simply is not applicable in this situation.
by Wallenburg » Mon May 30, 2016 8:45 pm
The East Marches wrote:
"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.
by The East Marches » Mon May 30, 2016 8:46 pm
Vashty wrote:The East Marches wrote:
"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.
I think ISIS were hanging gay people from lampposts at one time, does that qualify?
by The Two Jerseys » Mon May 30, 2016 8:46 pm
Vashty wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote:So we can pretty much throw out all those cases of police officers returning fire at an armed suspect, police using non-lethal methods to subdue suspects but the suspects die anyway, police-involved traffic collisions, bystanders getting caught in the crossfire, and all the cases involving gays and transgender, because they do jack shit to prove that the government is actively slaughtering people in the streets.
Can I just say that the British police put everyone to shame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4
by The East Marches » Mon May 30, 2016 8:47 pm
Wallenburg wrote:The East Marches wrote:
"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.
In case you hadn't noticed, I never said any group was being slaughtered in the streets, and I wasn't the one who posted the articles. Don't complain to me about someone else's behavior. I'm just here to sit back and watch the inferno of politics blaze on.
by The Grey Wolf » Mon May 30, 2016 8:48 pm
Wallenburg wrote:The East Marches wrote:
"Slaughtered in the streets" implies the use of an organized killings squad(s) of some kind. Perhaps a spat of spontaneous pogroms. I'm not seeing that in the articles that were posted.
In case you hadn't noticed, I never said any group was being slaughtered in the streets, and I wasn't the one who posted the articles. Don't complain to me about someone else's behavior. I'm just here to sit back and watch the inferno of politics blaze on.
by Wallenburg » Mon May 30, 2016 8:49 pm
The East Marches wrote:Wallenburg wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, I never said any group was being slaughtered in the streets, and I wasn't the one who posted the articles. Don't complain to me about someone else's behavior. I'm just here to sit back and watch the inferno of politics blaze on.
Perhaps you can help me on my quest. Can we quantify a level of deaths per hundred thousand people that qualifies as persecution or people being slaughtered? I feel like this has to exist somewhere.
Users browsing this forum: Falafelandia, Great Britain eke Northern Ireland, Hurdergaryp, Ostroeuropa, Picairn, Port Caverton, The Archregimancy, The Notorious Mad Jack