TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

RE: Liberals Create Map of “Offensive” American Landmarks

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Yes I did. You refuse to see logic.

It's ok. I don't expect outsiders to actually know what they are talking about.

No, you didn't. You said 7 states seceded before Lincoln was elected--which is dead wrong. He was elected on Nov. 7, 1860. The FIRST state to secede was more than a month later, on Dec. 20, 1860.

Also, who do you think are "outsiders"??? People from the North were affected and had a lot at stake in the Civil War, as well. To imply it only affected those above the Mason Dixon line is further evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 07:31:37 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Ok. Took office.

He wasnt relevant to the situation at the time.

Point stands. It was economics that began the war. Slavery was the emotional catalist.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Go husker!

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
Actually, Lincoln was not inaugurated, i.e., take office, until March 1861, after SC seceded....
REally? I did not know that. Why the delay?

That's when they did inaugurations back then. Truman was the first president to be inaugurated in January.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Ok. Took office.

He wasnt relevant to the situation at the time.

Point stands. It was economics that began the war. Slavery was the emotional catalist.

BS. He was absolutely relevant. If the Breckinridge had won, they would not have seceded. He was a Southerner, and they would have at least given him a chance to see if slavery could have been preserved (or don't you know who Breckenridge was, either?).

Again, it's the economics of SLAVERY. The South stood to lose the wealth they had tied up in SLAVES.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 07:37:26 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
Actually, Lincoln was not inaugurated, i.e., take office, until March 1861, after SC seceded....
REally? I did not know that. Why the delay?
That's when they did inaugurations back then. Truman was the first president to be inaugurated in January.

The long delay for many years was because communications relied on Pony Express or other slower, less reliable message systems.

It took a long time to collect and count ballots, and send the information to Washington. So it took a LONG time to know who had won.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.

EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

You were wrong on dates.

You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.

You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.

You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Ok.

If you say so.

Ohfour · Hooker

You read it, we live it. Get over it.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yes I did. You refuse to see logic.

It's ok. I don't expect outsiders to actually know what they are talking about.
No, you didn't. You said 7 states seceded before Lincoln was elected--which is dead wrong. He was elected on Nov. 7, 1860. The FIRST state to secede was more than a month later, on Dec. 20, 1860.
Also, who do you think are "outsiders"??? People from the North were affected and had a lot at stake in the Civil War, as well. To imply it only affected those above the Mason Dixon line is further evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 07:31:37 PM

Sure Husker, once he was elected, the states started to secede. Is that a hard concept to understand?

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.
EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

You were wrong on dates.
You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.
You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.
You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.

Slavery is not an economic. Economics are supply/demand balance and profit margins to encourage a business to continue to be in business. Sure slavery was a factor in the profit margin. But economics drives the vote, then and now.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Next we'll hear Netflix is pulling those old shows... - FNW

____________________________

I don't know about Netflix, but Warner Brothers (who own the rights to "The Dukes of Hazard") pulled all the licensing from production of anything with The General Lee that had the flag visible on it or production of The General Lee itself.

Warner Bros. to stop "Dukes of Hazzard" General Lee toys with Confederate flag
www.cbsnews.com/news/warner-bros-to-stop-dukes-of-hazzard-general-lee-toys-with-confederate-flag/

chef · Guru

Sickening. So much history will be lost if those who support this get their way. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the PC world we live in.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:

EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

Have I?

I know I've been affected by the Holocaust, but ...

the Civil War?

burns07 · Guru

As to the "state's rights" nonsense--there were NO OTHER issues that the South was concerned with EXCEPT for slavery.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

dead wrong as usual

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

burns07 wrote:

As to the "state's rights" nonsense--there were NO OTHER issues that the South was concerned with EXCEPT for slavery.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

dead wrong as usual

IF the "state's rights" issue wasn't based on economics, what was it based on at that time?

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

Have I?
I know I've been affected by the Holocaust, but ...
the Civil War?

You were free to immigrate to a free country, consisting of 50 states. So yeah, you are affected, IMHO.

Would your family have immigrated to a slave country?

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Lexxy wrote:
HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!

The car commercials with the General Lee already have the flag removed.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lexxy wrote:
HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!

Yeah I know! It sucks!

I'm wondering how long till the General loses its name too.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

lilyofcourse wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!
Yeah I know! It sucks!
I'm wondering how long till the General loses its name too.

So sad it was such an iconic show back in the day. Everybody watched it. Even now short cut offs are referred to as Daisy Duke's. I wonder if today's generation even knows why they are called that.

Lexxy · My dog name is Sasha, too!

just Czech wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!
The car commercials with the General Lee already have the flag removed.

I'll have to watch for it. I FF through commercials usually.

burns07 · Guru

IF the "state's rights" issue wasn't based on economics, what was it based on at that time?

___________________________________________________________________________

to put it succinctly, home rule and local option

additionally, the north was concerned about the extensive international business ( and commensurate profits ) the south was turning

-- Edited by burns07 on Friday 26th of June 2015 02:13:26 PM

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lexxy wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!
Yeah I know! It sucks!
I'm wondering how long till the General loses its name too.

So sad it was such an iconic show back in the day. Everybody watched it. Even now short cut offs are referred to as Daisy Duke's. I wonder if today's generation even knows why they are called that.

And what all the PC screamers don't realize, THAT was and still is a great example of what the flag is about.

That lifestyle of helping your neighbors and doing the best you can and family.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lexxy wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Lexxy wrote:
HEY LILY - I just heard Warner Brothers has decided to take the flag off General Lee!!
The car commercials with the General Lee already have the flag removed.
I'll have to watch for it. I FF through commercials usually.

You talking about the one where they trade in the General for the viper?

It still upsets me they didn't trade up to a new charger.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.
EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

You were wrong on dates.
You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.
You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.
You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.
Slavery is not an economic. Economics are supply/demand balance and profit margins to encourage a business to continue to be in business. Sure slavery was a factor in the profit margin. But economics drives the vote, then and now.

LOL!!!! The southern econimy was dependent on slavery. Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves. Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war. What law of supply and demand caused the war? None.

huskerbb · Guru

burns07 wrote:
IF the "state's rights" issue wasn't based on economics, what was it based on at that time?
___________________________________________________________________________

to put it succinctly, home rule and local option

additionally, the north was concerned about the extensive international business ( and commensurate profits ) the south was turning

-- Edited by burns07 on Friday 26th of June 2015 02:13:26 PM

LOL! The ONLY issue in contention was whether or not a state would be slave or free.

huskerbb · Guru

burns07 wrote:

As to the "state's rights" nonsense--there were NO OTHER issues that the South was concerned with EXCEPT for slavery.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

dead wrong as usual

There were no other rights in contention that would have caused the war. You can't even say another one.

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

Have I?
I know I've been affected by the Holocaust, but ...
the Civil War?

.?????? The civil war greatly affected the U.S. It did expand the power of the federal government. It produced the 14th amendment which was just cited Ina Supreme Court decision (wrongly, but that's a debate for another thread).

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yes I did. You refuse to see logic.

It's ok. I don't expect outsiders to actually know what they are talking about.
No, you didn't. You said 7 states seceded before Lincoln was elected--which is dead wrong. He was elected on Nov. 7, 1860. The FIRST state to secede was more than a month later, on Dec. 20, 1860.
Also, who do you think are "outsiders"??? People from the North were affected and had a lot at stake in the Civil War, as well. To imply it only affected those above the Mason Dixon line is further evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 07:31:37 PM
Sure Husker, once he was elected, the states started to secede. Is that a hard concept to understand?

I know. Lily said they started to secede before he was elected.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I'm getting such a kick out of husker's updates.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

He thinks he's smarter than everyone else on this board. Many of us have studied the Civil War, but his delusions exceed all of our studies. He's not as smart as he would like us to believe, obviously...

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.
EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

You were wrong on dates.
You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.
You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.
You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.
Slavery is not an economic. Economics are supply/demand balance and profit margins to encourage a business to continue to be in business. Sure slavery was a factor in the profit margin. But economics drives the vote, then and now.
LOL!!!! The southern econimy was dependent on slavery. Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves. Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war. What law of supply and demand caused the war? None.

The wealth was not tied up in slaves, it was tied up in farming. Slavery was a tool used to expedite the produce and such to the market. But Husker, during the civil war, any slave that fought for a certain amount of time was given his freedom. Yeah, I don't agree with slavery, but it was the way of the world, and I mean world, hundreds of years ago. And you want to talk about the economics of slavery? Go talk to the African tribes that captured their rival tribesman and sold them into slavery to people all over the world.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
burns07 wrote:
IF the "state's rights" issue wasn't based on economics, what was it based on at that time?
___________________________________________________________________________

to put it succinctly, home rule and local option

additionally, the north was concerned about the extensive international business ( and commensurate profits ) the south was turning

-- Edited by burns07 on Friday 26th of June 2015 02:13:26 PM
LOL! The ONLY issue in contention was whether or not a state would be slave or free.

No husker, just like we are experiencing today, people are concerned with the Feds telling the States what they can and cannot do. Just because slavery is wrong on so many levels in today's society, doesn't mean it was way back when (it should have been, but you can't impose today's societal notions on a different time in history)

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yes I did. You refuse to see logic.

It's ok. I don't expect outsiders to actually know what they are talking about.
No, you didn't. You said 7 states seceded before Lincoln was elected--which is dead wrong. He was elected on Nov. 7, 1860. The FIRST state to secede was more than a month later, on Dec. 20, 1860.
Also, who do you think are "outsiders"??? People from the North were affected and had a lot at stake in the Civil War, as well. To imply it only affected those above the Mason Dixon line is further evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 07:31:37 PM
Sure Husker, once he was elected, the states started to secede. Is that a hard concept to understand?
I know. Lily said they started to secede before he was elected.

LOL, they started to secede under the threat of the election knowing what would happen if he was elected. When he was, the process was quickened. Too bad the states didn't do the same 3 years ago...

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

I have a strong urge to buy up all the confederate stuff from those stores and start my own online website for selling them. Although I am sure someone has beat me to the punch.

burns07 · Guru

LOL!!!! The southern econimy was dependent on slavery. Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves. Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war. What law of supply and demand caused the war? None.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

lord--couldn't fill the chasm of your ignorance with the pacific ocean--do you know nothing of the international trade that was going on ( essentially without any federal interference ) both direct and indirect, either through direct trade with europe or via a more circuitous route ( by 2nd or 3rd party provisioners, with spain, for example ) via mexico / central america / the cariribean ?

you spew all your revisionist history nonsense garnered from what you've READ--not who you know, who your family was, where you all have lived and owned land for generations--done business directly with england, with france, with spain, etc.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yes I did. You refuse to see logic.

It's ok. I don't expect outsiders to actually know what they are talking about.
No, you didn't. You said 7 states seceded before Lincoln was elected--which is dead wrong. He was elected on Nov. 7, 1860. The FIRST state to secede was more than a month later, on Dec. 20, 1860.
Also, who do you think are "outsiders"??? People from the North were affected and had a lot at stake in the Civil War, as well. To imply it only affected those above the Mason Dixon line is further evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Thursday 25th of June 2015 07:31:37 PM
Sure Husker, once he was elected, the states started to secede. Is that a hard concept to understand?
I know. Lily said they started to secede before he was elected.
LOL, they started to secede under the threat of the election knowing what would happen if he was elected. When he was, the process was quickened. Too bad the states didn't do the same 3 years ago...

No. You are dead wrong. they didn't secede until more than a month after the election. Look at the dates Of secession.

huskerbb · Guru

burns07 wrote:

LOL!!!! The southern econimy was dependent on slavery. Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves. Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war. What law of supply and demand caused the war? None.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

lord--couldn't fill the chasm of your ignorance with the pacific ocean--do you know nothing of the international trade that was going on ( essentially without any federal interference ) both direct and indirect, either through direct trade with europe or via a more circuitous route ( by 2nd or 3rd party provisioners, with spain, for example ) via mexico / central america / the cariribean ?

you spew all your revisionist history nonsense garnered from what you've READ--not who you know, who your family was, where you all have lived and owned land for generations--done business directly with england, with france, with spain, etc.

NONE of that would have caused the war. They seceded so they could keep their slave economy. If slavery hadnt existed, there would have been no secession. they didn't secede because of international trade. That is patently ludicrous. NO ONE who has ever studied the war has ever made that claim.

As as to that last bit of nonsense--you weren't alive in 1860, either.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
burns07 wrote:
IF the "state's rights" issue wasn't based on economics, what was it based on at that time?
___________________________________________________________________________

to put it succinctly, home rule and local option

additionally, the north was concerned about the extensive international business ( and commensurate profits ) the south was turning

-- Edited by burns07 on Friday 26th of June 2015 02:13:26 PM
LOL! The ONLY issue in contention was whether or not a state would be slave or free.
No husker, just like we are experiencing today, people are concerned with the Feds telling the States what they can and cannot do. Just because slavery is wrong on so many levels in today's society, doesn't mean it was way back when (it should have been, but you can't impose today's societal notions on a different time in history)

But the ONLy issue they were concerned with was slavery. Had slavery not existed, there would have been no secession.

burns07 · Guru

But the ONLy issue they were concerned with was slavery. Had slavery not existed, there would have been no secession.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

wrong again, as usual

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.
EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

You were wrong on dates.
You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.
You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.
You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.
Slavery is not an economic. Economics are supply/demand balance and profit margins to encourage a business to continue to be in business. Sure slavery was a factor in the profit margin. But economics drives the vote, then and now.
LOL!!!! The southern econimy was dependent on slavery. Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves. Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war. What law of supply and demand caused the war? None.
The wealth was not tied up in slaves, it was tied up in farming. Slavery was a tool used to expedite the produce and such to the market. But Husker, during the civil war, any slave that fought for a certain amount of time was given his freedom. Yeah, I don't agree with slavery, but it was the way of the world, and I mean world, hundreds of years ago. And you want to talk about the economics of slavery? Go talk to the African tribes that captured their rival tribesman and sold them into slavery to people all over the world.

You are dead wrong. Slaves held in the south were worth over 30 million dollars--and that is 1860 dollars. Plus having access to slave labor made their investment in land worth more.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Cotton. Growing, picking, combing, spinning and selling cotton.

That was the supply and demand.

Along with other agriculture related products.

And the fact that the southern states were done being told what they could and could not do on their land.

You see, because of the rewrites and not learning of our history, it beginning to be repeated.

huskerbb · Guru

burns07 wrote:

But the ONLy issue they were concerned with was slavery. Had slavery not existed, there would have been no secession.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

wrong again, as usual

no, I'm Correct. You haven't even posited another reason.

burns07 · Guru

You are dead wrong. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SHE is at least partially correct and, as usual, it is YOU who are dead wrong again

burns07 · Guru

You haven't even posited another reason.
__________________________________

sorry, am not inclined to argue with a fool, especially an ignorant one

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Cotton. Growing, picking, combing, spinning and selling cotton.

That was the supply and demand.

Along with other agriculture related products.

And the fact that the southern states were done being told what they could and could not do on their land.

You see, because of the rewrites and not learning of our history, it beginning to be repeated.

LOL!!!! They didn't secede because of supply and demand, and the ONLy thing that they were soon not going to be able to do with their land was use slaves to work it. What else, pray tell, were the southern states being told they could or could not do?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.
EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War.

You were wrong on dates.
You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.
You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.
You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.
Slavery is not an economic. Economics are supply/demand balance and profit margins to encourage a business to continue to be in business. Sure slavery was a factor in the profit margin. But economics drives the vote, then and now.
LOL!!!! The southern econimy was dependent on slavery. Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves. Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war. What law of supply and demand caused the war? None.
The wealth was not tied up in slaves, it was tied up in farming. Slavery was a tool used to expedite the produce and such to the market. But Husker, during the civil war, any slave that fought for a certain amount of time was given his freedom. Yeah, I don't agree with slavery, but it was the way of the world, and I mean world, hundreds of years ago. And you want to talk about the economics of slavery? Go talk to the African tribes that captured their rival tribesman and sold them into slavery to people all over the world.
You are dead wrong. Slaves held in the south were worth over 30 million dollars--and that is 1860 dollars. Plus having access to slave labor made their investment in land worth more.

You just gave the text book definition of economics.

The North didn't give 2 shakes about slaves. It was the wealth of the south that bothered them.

The North needed the South.