War Room Lounge V36: Liquor in the rear, too

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's funny how politics really does divide people. The WR is probably the most hate filled sub here.

Why can't people just chill out when it comes to politics? It's like every other topic is cool, but wham, politics. Time to fight to the death.
 
well, those people are fucking retarded, because we are not a brotherhood.

We all come here and enjoy this place for our own reasons. If you dont like the whole community, that's fine with me. I enjoy most of the people on the site. Aside from the few troll we have, I hate seeing people get banned.
 
The South, and by that I mean the planter class aristocracy, wanted to control the federal government. Their entire worldview and social-economic system was based on an incredibly rigid class structure of power privilege that made sharing it less and less possible as the years went on. There were broad, popular movements in the south for many years supporting filibusters (not to be confused with the Senate term) that forcibly invaded other countries to try and set up slave empires/whatever. The southern people, like those in the north, were largely dissociated from how and why the war actually manifested (outside, of course, voting). The failure to reach a political compromise on the future of slavery, specifically regarding the Fugitive Slave Act (so much for not liking federal overreach and respecting state's rights) coupled with a bad election cycle, pushed the planter class into a full rejection of what they saw as permanent political marginalization. In other words, the idea was to take the ball and go home rather than entertain the notion of accepting a result that went the other team's way.
You go on and on about the economic aspects of the war, Cap, making the claim- or at least intimation- that northern industrial/financial greed and economic pillaging was the reason that they refused to let the south leave, let alone invade (never mind that the south fired the first shots).Do you know how many times they mention tariffs in the SC articles of secession? I do. Do you know how many times they mention slavery? I know this as well.

You gotta pull your head out of these memoirs; they aren't some ultimate authority. Primary sources have all sorts of problems and, as i've previously mentioned, require broad context and synthesis with historiographical perspective. The have to be interpreted, and you need to be trained to do so properly. I know this flies in the face of ideas about those damn liberal indoctrination centers, but otherwise you're never going to grow as an amateur historian of anything.
Like I said, the articles of secession were a result of the flames fanned by the South Carolina fire eaters. I also said that it was an irrational fear. They were afraid Lincoln would end slavery abruptly and not compensate them for it.

Also, don’t neglect the fact that the federal government wanted that same power and advantage.

Also the whole fired the first shots was orchestrated by Lincoln. He knew by sending in the rations to Sumter, he would bait the first shot which was his intention.

Also, if it were solely over slavery, why did Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia wait until Lincoln called for the 75,000 volunteers, to join the Confederacy?

Also, if ending slavery was the sole intention, why did the Emancipation Proclamation not free all slaves? Why only slaves under Confederate control?

Would you argue that the war would have taken place without the economic impact and on moral reasons only?

That is the bottom line, however you wish to spin it.
 
The site earns revenue from ads and we drive traffic. That's good enough in my book.



Yes, secession.

Then don't contrast it and see it for what it is.
Also, secession isn’t war. Lincoln pushed the war. The South didn’t want war, they just wanted to separate.
 
Well said. It takes a real basket case to go around reporting people here. Jeez, I dislike some of the more smug pompous people here but I would never report them.

It would take a very serious pip for me to report someone and even then, fuck it, I probably wouldn't. I would pip them back and track them down personally.

I usually don't report regulars unless I feel there is seriously fucked up anti-semitic or racist shit going on. But most of the more serious stuff (Holocaust denial, etc.) is done using alts or by White Belts anyway.

Most of the time, my intention is to get the post in question removed, not to get people into trouble. Most people I disagree with I still wanna read. I have one person on my ignore list now, and that is the Tommy Robinson fellow who I feel is nothing but a racist troll with zero value add. Whether to ban him - not sure. People who want to be here will come back anyway with new e mails, names, IPs. Bans are a way of punishment for continued transgressions imo, and the punishment is loss of account and e-cred.
 
If it pleases your identity, we can include sisterhood.
a3k21j.jpg
 
This is the forward thinking we need. Make the Plats great again.

I don’t even use that place. I just want this place greener. Both right and left can agree on getting more green in their own way.
 
@Prokofievian

These were the two I played:



I can't say these two are my favourite Rachmaninoff works, but that second one in particular is a nasty little knuckle buster. Impressive.

My favourite of his preludes are both from opus 32: no. 10 and no 13. Those are just quintessential Rach. It's like ''why are you sweaty?'' I was listening to Rachmaninoff's prelude no's 10 and 13.
 
I can't say these two are my favourite Rachmaninoff works, but that second one in particular is a nasty little knuckle buster. Impressive.

My favourite of his preludes are both from opus 32: no. 10 and no 13. Those are just quintessential Rach. It's like ''why are you sweaty?'' I was listening to Rachmaninoff's prelude no's 10 and 13.
Him and Prokofiev are a bitch to learn initially. NOTHING ever sounds right.
 
Like I said, the articles of secession were a result of the flames fanned by the South Carolina fire eaters. I also said that it was an irrational fear. They were afraid Lincoln would end slavery abruptly and not compensate them for it.

Also, don’t neglect the fact that the federal government wanted that same power and advantage.

Also the whole fired the first shots was orchestrated by Lincoln. He knew by sending in the rations to Sumter, he would bait the first shot which was his intention.

Also, if it were solely over slavery, why did Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia wait until Lincoln called for the 75,000 volunteers, to join the Confederacy?

Also, if ending slavery was the sole intention, why did the Emancipation Proclamation not free all slaves? Why only slaves under Confederate control?

Would you argue that the war would have taken place without the economic impact and on moral reasons only?

That is the bottom line, however you wish to spin it.

The above highlighted sections are why your analysis continues to be stunted, Cap. First of all, I never said that, second of all I wouldn't say that, and third, if I did, I wouldn't say it like that.
You're creating this monolithic normative position, which is unsound, and then dismissing it with further such constructs.
The planter class was protecting slavery, the entire base of their social and political power structure, and refusing to allow for sharing of power with the political opposition.
I'm trying to move you away from "moral reasons" because analyzing history from a normative vantage point is fundamentally problematic.
 
We all come here and enjoy this place for our own reasons. If you dont like the whole community, that's fine with me. I enjoy most of the people on the site. Aside from the few troll we have, I hate seeing people get banned.

i hate seeing people not respect the place enough to abide by the code of conduct.
 
I don’t even use that place. I just want this place greener. Both right and left can agree on getting more green in their own way.

You're ahead of your time, Lead.
 
Him and Prokofiev are a bitch to learn initially. NOTHING ever sounds right.

Prokofiev always came more naturally to me than Rachmaninoff, which is, I suppose, because Rach was in a different league on the ivories than Prok was. Not close either. Morever, Prok is more rhythmic so there's more for you to ''hang on to.'' In parts of that 13th prelude, for example, it's just a sea of notes, with no one clear right way to play it, but many wrong ways. I always wanted to play Rachmaninoff more, though.
 
Also, secession isn’t war. Lincoln pushed the war. The South didn’t want war, they just wanted to separate.
The southern political class absolutely wanted war. That's why they started a war lol.
Also, the entirety of Bleeding Kansas kinda sorta flies directly in the face of your entire apologist narrative, bud.
 
Prokofiev always came more naturally to me than Rachmaninoff, which is, I suppose, because Rach was in a different league on the ivories than Prok was. Not close either. Morever, Prok is more rhythmic so there's more for you to ''hang on to.'' In parts of that 13th prelude, for example, it's just a sea of notes, with no one clear right way to play it, but many wrong ways. I always wanted to play Rachmaninoff more, though.
I changed piano teachers halfway through my time learning. I went from being saddled playing fucking Mozart and Brahms shit to Bach, Rach, and Prok. Started to enjoy it more at that stage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top