Romanticization of the Civil War
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 09:53
VIEWED: 15839
PAGE 10 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can we just declare them a separate country and bomb them? It worked once...
Sure , soon as you finish with your bake-sale and fund the bombers...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwicko, yes, let's enslave them! good call.
But I don't really have any use for a slave. I could, however, always use money, so I propose that we 1) enslave them and 2) sell them to the gypsies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Can we just declare them a separate country and bomb them? It worked once...
Sure , soon as you finish with your bake-sale and fund the bombers...
What century are you living in? Americans don't need to "fund" wars anymore. Just dive in, start bombing, and freedom will ensue!
If we really need to "fund" a war, maybe we can sell the South into slavery to the Chinese. Hey, it's the South that claims that slavery wasn't that bad! :)
As to that whole notion "Hero" has of the South rising again, like I said, we'll be happy to on kicking their backwoods, backwards redneck asses all day long. Oh, and we happen to have the nuclear launch codes. :)
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Kwicko, yes, let's enslave them! good call.
But I don't really have any use for a slave. I could, however, always use money, so I propose that we 1) enslave them and 2) sell them to the gypsies.
Sell 'em to the Chinese. They need cheap labor, and we know they have the cash in hand to pay up! :)
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Er- Kwicko? I imagine you're just joking and also trying to nudge the southern pride people into some entertaining tirades, but you know Frem's thing? About government being forced down on people with guns (and here, nuclear threats)?
I don't condone that kind of crap from Israel towards the Palestinians, let alone my own government towards, well, ANY of us... >_>
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kwicko, you joking? i'm not joking. i don't joke.
Men, through a necessary law of their nature, rule wherever they can. See generally Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War. We, and by we I mean California, can rule the South and everything in it.
This is not a question of right or wrong. Right and wrong only matter between equals in power. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Id. Only the weak would beg to differ.
for the aforementioned reasons, kwicko's suggestion is both rad, and inevitable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's awfully convenient. Why those two examples, and not every single war in the history of mankind? Or the other 50% of the time when 51% of the population gets along relatively peacefully?
It's the old axiom, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's smart. Even complete apathy statistically is more self-serving and self-benefiting than fighting or war, being that there's a chance of death or disfigurement with the later. Assuming, of course, you don't consider death to be a more preferable state for yourself than life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In consideration of your point, I amend my earlier claim to the following:
Men, through a necessary law of their nature, PWN whoever they can. See generally All of Human History .
This is not a question of right or wrong. Right and wrong only matter between equals in power. The strong PWN who they can and the weak suffer what they must. See generally human nature . Only the weak would beg to differ.
A man who can do something, will, sooner or later, do it. A mans morals are essentially his options.
Therefore, I would enlist in Kwicko's army.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also known as the general human dumbassedness clause.
Well, at least you're closer to reality now. I note, however, that human nature is a weak argument. If some humans are strong, in general, as you claim, then some humans must have the strength to act in violation of the theoretical basic inclinations you've proposed here, otherwise all humans would be weak willed, and therefore all humans would be weak. Correct?
I mean, you like Nietzsche, right? This is the basis of his Ubermensch argument we've just derived.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nietzsche is nearly neato as a literay critic; as a philosopher, i'm not so sure. granted, i despise all philsophy but that of Popeye.
also, maybe all humans are weak, in the face of human nature. strength is a matter of one human pwning another, in accordance with their revolting animal natures. whenever i do something ghastly, i simply point out that it is the way god/nature made me. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME