- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri doesn't belong in the SEC
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:10 pm to RummelTiger
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:10 pm to RummelTiger
Beside why would black kids want to play for a clearly pro-racist pseudo-confederacy right? 
1
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:11 pm to Duzz
quote:
Beside why would black kids want to play for a clearly pro-racist pseudo-confederacy right?
Exactly.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:13 pm to fiercey
quote:
I took "good guys" to mean the North.
You mean Sherman and his "good guys" that raped, pillaged and burned. cCommitted war on women and old men and children. I have never thought of them as "good guys", I think war criminals suits them better than "good guys".
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:13 pm to fiercey
quote:
Does anyone in this day and age really equate the racist slave owners as the "good guys". Not only were they the "bad guys", but they lost... and quite resoundingly.
The SEC and the South no longer have anything whatsoever to do with the racist pipe dream that was the slavist Confederacy.
Paul Finebaum, Hank JR, and Pauls callers disagree with you. Infact I wondered if it was all part of keeping Mizzou out. I mean wearing a Bama hat and talking about oBAMA and Hitler is over the top.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:19 pm to AU86
quote:
You mean Sherman and his "good guys" that raped, pillaged and burned. cCommitted war on women and old men and children. I have never thought of them as "good guys", I think war criminals suits them better than "good guys".
Time to derail this thread. yes they were the good guy. That is the BEST way to wage war and break a people's spirit. Especially if they are fighting you. That is what we should have done in Afgan and Iraq.
BOOM
Thread Derailed and will probably be sunk now.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:20 pm to AU86
I think it's fair to say that during war "good" can be very murky. However, 1 small group of people shouldn't color your thinking about a much larger group.
With that said, however, I'd equate the Union with "good" far before I'd equate the Confederacy with that term. Although I don't think the Civil War can be labeled as simply as "good" v "evil."
With that said, however, I'd equate the Union with "good" far before I'd equate the Confederacy with that term. Although I don't think the Civil War can be labeled as simply as "good" v "evil."
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:31 pm to jturn17
Thanks to what good ole did he polarize the war and make it easier to understand. Confederacy ? want to keep slaves. Union? Want's to free slave? Which side are you on? No middle ground!
Kind of like Pro-choice and Pro -life. If you are Pro-choice you are anti- life. So if you were with the Confederacy , you were pro-slavery. Doesn't matter that there are a lot more different issues to begin with but it all boils down to those two choice. Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery. That was all that matters.
Kind of like Pro-choice and Pro -life. If you are Pro-choice you are anti- life. So if you were with the Confederacy , you were pro-slavery. Doesn't matter that there are a lot more different issues to begin with but it all boils down to those two choice. Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery. That was all that matters.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:34 pm to Duzz
this thread is hilarious
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:34 pm to jturn17
quote:
With that said, however, I'd equate the Union with "good" far before I'd equate the Confederacy with that term.
How's that?
Many of you people have no clue as to what brought about the war.
Slavery was NOT the main issue. Did it play into the rationale, sure. But to say the war was about slavery is incorrect.
This war, like just about EVERY war EVER, was mostly about money. And anyone that says differently is a fricking bleeding heart, misinformed, liberal.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:40 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
And anyone that says differently is a fricking bleeding heart, misinformed, liberal.
Who won the war..Just saying. They win, they write the history books.
So you are pro-slavery? 
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:43 pm to Duzz
quote:
Who won the war..Just saying. They win, they write the history books.
That's exactly true.
quote:
So you are pro-slavery?
WTF are you asking me? In what way did I say anything about being pro-slavery?
But, no, to answer your question.
Slavery was accepted in most of the free world back then. It wasn't right, but it's the way it was.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:49 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
But, no, to answer your question.
You love the Confederacy so that could only mean you are pro-slavery.
Just like if you are pro-choice you hate life and want babies to die.
Point is, point out the fact that Mizzou is not "south" enough is ludicrous. Saying they don't belong in the SEC because they fought for the union is retarded.
It's a conference now, while we embodies the values of the south, who say we can't spread SOUTHERN culture northwestward? Why do we have to insulate ourselves against the rest of the country?
Do you think Lee and Davis would have just kept to their borders had the Confederacy won? Frak no! They would have spread into as much of America as they can, the SEC should do the same. Make us the effen household brand name.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:51 pm to RummelTiger
For one thing, get off your high horse... Don't lump me in with whomever you're pissed off at.
This isn't the point of the thread but I'm going to answer your bullshite anyway.
Was the war about money? Sure.. The North had moved on to manufacturing and urbanized, while the South was almost entirely an agricultural society. As such, they needed a lot of labor. The cheapest form of labor is slavery. So to say the war was completely about money and only slightly about slavery is a tough argument to make. The two go hand in hand.
Why would you be so dense to say that the War was about money over slavery, even though the way they were making money was off slavery?
This isn't the point of the thread but I'm going to answer your bullshite anyway.
Was the war about money? Sure.. The North had moved on to manufacturing and urbanized, while the South was almost entirely an agricultural society. As such, they needed a lot of labor. The cheapest form of labor is slavery. So to say the war was completely about money and only slightly about slavery is a tough argument to make. The two go hand in hand.
Why would you be so dense to say that the War was about money over slavery, even though the way they were making money was off slavery?
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:52 pm to Duzz
quote:
You love the Confederacy so that could only mean you are pro-slavery.
Wow. You must be young, or not very smart.
quote:
Just like if you are pro-choice you hate life and want babies to die.
Wow...er.
quote:
Point is, point out the fact that Mizzou is not "south" enough is ludicrous. Saying they don't belong in the SEC because they fought for the union is retarded.
Er, I never did that.
quote:
It's a conference now, while we embodies the values of the south, who say we can't spread SOUTHERN culture northwestward? Why do we have to insulate ourselves against the rest of the country?
Yeah, I agree.
quote:
Do you think Lee and Davis would have just kept to their borders had the Confederacy won? Frak no! They would have spread into as much of America as they can, the SEC should do the same. Make us the effen household brand name.
You haven't been paying much attention if you think the SEC isn't a household brand already.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:56 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Posted by H-Town Tiger
Wars over chief, Genral Lee surrendered.
General Lee will never surrender ... except maybe to Jordan Jefferson ...
Posted on 10/6/11 at 8:57 pm to jturn17
quote:
For one thing, get off your high horse...
I'm not on any size of horse.
quote:
Don't lump me in with whomever you're pissed off at.
I'm not pissed at anyone.
You seem a little angry, though...
quote:
As such, they needed a lot of labor. The cheapest form of labor is slavery. So to say the war was completely about money and only slightly about slavery is a tough argument to make. The two go hand in hand.
I never said it was COMPLETELY about money.
quote:
Why would you be so dense to say that the War was about money over slavery, even though the way they were making money was off slavery?
Who's on the horse now?
It was about money over slavery because money was much more important than slavery to the North, hence they had more reasons to fight the war due to loss of revenue, than for the slaves themselves.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:12 pm to RummelTiger
Oh I completely agree the Union wasn't as anti-slavery as made out to be. (I think many in the Union were absolishionists, obviously, but Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery until the South seceded). The Union needed the South's cotton. There's no mistake about that. So much so that NYC's mayor even tried to secede from the Union and form it's own country in part so they could continue getting their cotton from the South, bc it was cheaper than importing (again because of the cheap slavery labor).
However, from the South's side, even the State's expressed slavery as the #1 issue for their secession from the Union. So I think it's completely fair to say the Civil War when boiled down to it was about Slavery. Is it that simple if we're taking a Civil War History test? No, but slavery was the most important issue as it was the #1 reason the South seceded in the first place.
You seem to be saying it's about money because the North didn't really care about Slavery, and were only concerned about the South leaving bc of loss of revenue. I'm not sure. I'm not a Scholar of the time, but I think that's a tough argument to make to be honest.
My recollection is the South left because many Northern states started being really pissy about ending Slavery in new territories/states. This would have eventually ended Slavery overall as more and more Congressman came in from non-Slave states. Thus, the South had to leave if they wanted to keep slavery. Now you could say here that the Union only fought the Confederacy bc of money and the need for raw materials that were gained from the Southern states. But if the South doesn't leave initially bc of slavery, then there's no need for the Union to fight them.
That's long, but that's the way I interpret the situation.
However, from the South's side, even the State's expressed slavery as the #1 issue for their secession from the Union. So I think it's completely fair to say the Civil War when boiled down to it was about Slavery. Is it that simple if we're taking a Civil War History test? No, but slavery was the most important issue as it was the #1 reason the South seceded in the first place.
You seem to be saying it's about money because the North didn't really care about Slavery, and were only concerned about the South leaving bc of loss of revenue. I'm not sure. I'm not a Scholar of the time, but I think that's a tough argument to make to be honest.
My recollection is the South left because many Northern states started being really pissy about ending Slavery in new territories/states. This would have eventually ended Slavery overall as more and more Congressman came in from non-Slave states. Thus, the South had to leave if they wanted to keep slavery. Now you could say here that the Union only fought the Confederacy bc of money and the need for raw materials that were gained from the Southern states. But if the South doesn't leave initially bc of slavery, then there's no need for the Union to fight them.
That's long, but that's the way I interpret the situation.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:14 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
This war, like just about EVERY war EVER, was mostly about money. And anyone that says differently is a fricking bleeding heart, misinformed, liberal.
This is what led me to believe you're angry. "fricking bleeding heart, misinformed, liberal." Tough to take you seriously with that view of people.
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:19 pm to jturn17
Posted on 10/6/11 at 9:24 pm to 870Hog
Name a war that was wasn't about money? Iraqi Freedom LOL.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News