so how do you cool kids like this (single, Europe)

Crowe · 06-11-2006, 12:55 PM

Tut. Ok, let's pick this apart.

Quote:

Let me say this. The Emancipation Proclamation never gave african americans freedom. Please tell me where it says that and then we'll question my education.

I never said that it did grant "african americans" freedom. However, your education was already questioned and found faulty. You were wrong in your original statement that the Emancipation Proclamation gave the right for people of color to bear arms. A subject that is not even present in the EP. Also when you say "we'll question" you are not a necessary reagent in the questioning of your education. I can do it on my own successfully, as proven.
The EP did, however, grant freedom to SLAVES which would include africans and african americans. (However, when Lincoln announced it, it was only for states that had seceded from the union. The states that were still in the union - commonly known as border states - were not effected by the EP, but rather through their own governments followed suit).

Got it? Ok, that's one down.

Quote:

And I'm not really a proud American citizen. That was just sarcasm.
During WWII, the president declared neutrality but was a hypocrite and decided to sell weapons to just Britain. That's why Japan attacked America. Because the president of the United States didn't understand the meaning of the word neutral. Or because he was being a hypocrite.

Proud, not proud, your choice. Your sarcasm only now adds to your weak statements. Neutrality on that level is not as black and white as a dictionary's definition would make it out to be. To think that you believe you understand the political process and international impact of every action during wartime and questioning one of the greatest American president's motives only make you seem even more ridiculous. I do not, nor have I ever pretended to know the motives of something that is far above me.

Quote:

Judging by some of the other stuff you said it's safe to infer that you were somehow effected by WWII. (And whether you were effected or not doesn't matter to me because I don't care. So just go with it.) Well I'll tell you two things:
1) nowhere in my previous post did I say that all the millions of people that died in Europe deserved what happened to them. I only said that the US deserved to be attack. Get it straight
2) Try not to waste my time with posts like this if you don't have evidence to support what you are saying.

I have not been immediately effected by WWII in the way you are suggesting. But by saying the US deserved to be attacked by terrorist/ will continue to "deserve" being attacked is a blanket statement that encompasses a slew of other applications of your words. Once again, if you think that a black and white generalization will be satisfactory for an intelligent conversation, you are wrong. You should prepare yourself to be in a position to defend your statements. In this case, you have made the aforementioned blanket statement and now you may be realizing the rather enormous load that is in tow of that statement.

Waste your time? If you think your time is being wasted, don't dedicate time to coming to a forums where opinions and discussions are held. Besides, not only did I give evidence to my statements (see: my explanation of armed people of color), provided a satirical situation using your apparent logic, and gave reasons to my own logic. All of these things are a whole in forming my conclusions and judgement... which is evidence.

Quote:

And before I leave, the very last sentence of your post, in real life, if you said that to my face, and someone was recording this, there'd be nothing left of you to be aired on CNN. Are we clear? I hope so.

Did you just threaten me online? Grow up. Go take that shiny new driver's license for a spin, little boy.

Quote:

I just thought youw ere a person with an opinion without the ability to read between the lines.

You are a person without the ability to create defined lines to begin with. You have made ignorant statements, own up to them.

TheBig3 · 06-11-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowe

PS: Are people ignoring Big3's posts? Why do you think corruption, and national problems are a unique trait of America? Should we really go through the histories of other countries and bring out the little skeletons in the national closet? Psh.

No one argues with me because it was soundly written and people can't get on a soap box against me easily.

~~bungalow~~ · 06-10-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raine

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery, it gave people of color the right to bear arms (weapons).

Would you have rather Germany won WWII?

Peace

Is there really the need to tell me what "arms" are. I think I understand.
Unlike you, who seems to be totally oblivious and undereducated.

Quote:

PS: Are people ignoring Big3's posts? Why do you think corruption, and national problems are a unique trait of America? Should we really go through the histories of other countries and bring out the little skeletons in the national closet? Psh.[/

I am aware that other nations have their "skeletons", but as an American, our skeletons facinate me most.

Crowe · 06-10-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungalowbill357

I am aware that other nations have their "skeletons", but as an American, our skeletons facinate me most.

Touche, salesman.

jr. · 06-10-2006, 11:12 AM

Well, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't put into effect until 1863, a full two years into the Civil War, and even then, the only reason it came about was because Lincoln was afforded certain powers that a president only has durng war time, per the U.S. Constitution. I must admit, I'm a little rusty on exactly what 'extra powers' they might be, it's been a while since I was in school.

Even so, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't law, merely a proclamation. It declared the freedom of slaves in Conferderate states, but those slaves only gained their freedom when the Northern armies came in and took control. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't 'take care' of anything. The Union armies were the ones who actually enabled slaves to walk away free people. The only slaves who were immediately and magically 'free' when the proclamation came about, were the ones who were already runaway slaves being held as war contraband in Union camps.

As far as the Cold, Korean, and Vietnam Wars, as well as the Berlin Wall, Well, I suppose we could go back to the 1940's and just hit 'reset', and let Hitler have his way. Then we could cross off "Jewish people" completely, I suppose.

jr. · 06-10-2006, 11:50 AM

Ghandi was a world figure, known by millions.

Strummer521 · 06-10-2006, 09:09 PM

TDOC, this isn't an essay, it's a rant. And a barely coherent one at that. You need to learn some grammer skills and sentence structure (use periods for God's sake!). Also the fact that you condemn your friend's use of racial slurs and then make a generalized condemnation of censorship in the next sentence. If you're fully against censorship, then you have to allow people to say whatever they want when they want. Otherwise be more specific about your concern. Say you feel censorship should be scaled back, but not completely abolished. Are you just venting...or is there a point to this juevenalia? If you want to make a statment that people will take seriously...spelling is important. So is factual evidence to support your claims and a little more substance to your argument.

tdoc210 · 06-10-2006, 09:35 PM

^ gramamr is uncalled for on an internet forum psst..yes theres a point..censorship is annoying, but racial slurs should not exist thats not censorship, thats just common sense

Strummer521 · 06-10-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the death of capitilism

^ gramamr is uncalled for on an internet forum psst..yes theres a point..censorship is annoying, but racial slurs should not exist thats not censorship, thats just common sense

From MSN Encarta: censorship - suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

And sure, you don't need to use grammar or even spell correctly on a forum. But if you are trying to make a point and be taken seriously (and it seems like you do) it's easier if you don't make yourself look like an idiot who doesn't know about his own languange, nevermind sociopolitical matters (which you haven't proved you know anything about either).

tdoc210 · 06-10-2006, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

From MSN Encarta: censorship - suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

And sure, you don't need to use grammar or even spell correctly on a forum. But if you are trying to make a point and be taken seriously (and it seems like you do) it's easier if you don't make yourself look like an idiot who doesn't know about his own languange, nevermind sociopolitical matters (which you haven't proved you know anything about either).

i used to like you, if i wanted to type correctly i could but using to fingers..weel writing a ranty thing..doesn not always end up in the most coherent sentences..now censorship on th other thing is stupid..but couldnt you just agree thet saying a racial slur is wrong?

06-10-2006, 11:12 AM	#5 (permalink)
jr. Seeker of Peace Join Date: May 2005 Location: Newark, De. Posts: 340	Well, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't put into effect until 1863, a full two years into the Civil War, and even then, the only reason it came about was because Lincoln was afforded certain powers that a president only has durng war time, per the U.S. Constitution. I must admit, I'm a little rusty on exactly what 'extra powers' they might be, it's been a while since I was in school. Even so, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't law, merely a proclamation. It declared the freedom of slaves in Conferderate states, but those slaves only gained their freedom when the Northern armies came in and took control. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't 'take care' of anything. The Union armies were the ones who actually enabled slaves to walk away free people. The only slaves who were immediately and magically 'free' when the proclamation came about, were the ones who were already runaway slaves being held as war contraband in Union camps. As far as the Cold, Korean, and Vietnam Wars, as well as the Berlin Wall, Well, I suppose we could go back to the 1940's and just hit 'reset', and let Hitler have his way. Then we could cross off "Jewish people" completely, I suppose. __________________ Be strong then, and enter into your own body; there you have a solid place for your feet. ~ Kabir

06-10-2006, 11:50 AM	#6 (permalink)
jr. Seeker of Peace Join Date: May 2005 Location: Newark, De. Posts: 340	Ghandi was a world figure, known by millions. __________________ Be strong then, and enter into your own body; there you have a solid place for your feet. ~ Kabir

06-10-2006, 09:35 PM	#8 (permalink)
tdoc210 ashes against the grain Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: new hampsha Posts: 2,608	^ gramamr is uncalled for on an internet forum psst..yes theres a point..censorship is annoying, but racial slurs should not exist thats not censorship, thats just common sense __________________ We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that.

06-10-2006, 09:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
Strummer521 Pepper Emergency! Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 489	TDOC, this isn't an essay, it's a rant. And a barely coherent one at that. You need to learn some grammer skills and sentence structure (use periods for God's sake!). Also the fact that you condemn your friend's use of racial slurs and then make a generalized condemnation of censorship in the next sentence. If you're fully against censorship, then you have to allow people to say whatever they want when they want. Otherwise be more specific about your concern. Say you feel censorship should be scaled back, but not completely abolished. Are you just venting...or is there a point to this juevenalia? If you want to make a statment that people will take seriously...spelling is important. So is factual evidence to support your claims and a little more substance to your argument.