Eu - Page 5

nativeastral · 07-03-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawn

Van Gogh was Dutch.

yeh but he fell in love in arles

Faithfulservant · 07-03-2009, 09:48 PM

As much as the world makes the American Civil war out to be about Slavery... it wasnt.. it was about this very thing. You just summed up the American civil war. Alex.

Quote:

As long as there are people like me/ (TYPICAL SOUTHERN DUDE)... There will -never- be unity... Simple, You cannot have unity when there are those that oppose it... **** the united europe/(STATES of AMERICA). To be united... Everyone has to be united.... Or it isn't unity is it now...

It would never work..... Our peoples are too different....

We would end up fighting each other. And there will be a return to normality heh.

I for one will -never-... neeeeeeeever say I am at unity with europe/(THE NORTH)... Specially the french/(YANKS). Oh and the freaking macedonians/ (BLACKS).

Sorry to burst your bubble Alex *hugs*

shawn · 07-04-2009, 12:49 AM

The civil war was more about "money matters" than anything else.
The slavery issue was just a nice side benefit which was used by the spin doctors to get the peoples consent.

Besides, now we are all slaves to "money".
What is going to remedy that?
The gov't gave all that stimulus money to the banks which they then lend out, at interest to everyone else, including the gov't.
Yet the gov't has (or had) the right to issue currency into existence without debt.
That is the root of most of our world's troubles and all I ever hear is ignorant people who still haven't figured it out whining about red herrings.

17th Angel · 07-04-2009, 01:36 PM

lol So I am a black hater now? lol.... *gets his white hood out*

bob x · 07-04-2009, 10:56 PM

The South seceded over one issue and one issue only. They were totally explicit about their motivations, writing very lengthy declarations spelling out exactly why they were doing what they were doing. They wanted to keep their slaves and they were afraid the North would not continue to let them. All this bull**** about how it wasn't about slavery was invented recently by southerners who are ashamed of the reality.

wil · 07-05-2009, 01:25 AM

Namaste all,

Yes it was about slavery, but more than that, it was about states rights. Slavery was the discussion point. It wasn't about whether they could have slaves or not, but if they were allowed to determine their own course.

The federal Gov't called it a civil war, the south called it the war between the states.

Again this pertains exactly to the EU discussioin, the time will come (as it did 90 years into our federal experiment) that one or more of the 'union' will want to control their own destiny, keep their own rules, and the EU will say no, and you'll find you can't leave and must conform...

shawn · 07-05-2009, 01:28 AM

Suure Bob....the money issue had nothing to do with it

You have to learn how to see through the window dressing m8 or did you skip that class

I'm just messing with you.
Maybe.

nativeastral · 07-05-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste all,

Yes it was about slavery, but more than that, it was about states rights. Slavery was the discussion point. It wasn't about whether they could have slaves or not, but if they were allowed to determine their own course.

The federal Gov't called it a civil war, the south called it the war between the states.

Again this pertains exactly to the EU discussioin, the time will come (as it did 90 years into our federal experiment) that one or more of the 'union' will want to control their own destiny, keep their own rules, and the EU will say no, and you'll find you can't leave and must conform...

yes and nestled within that auld alliances and auld animosities, much more 'complicated' than the US in that respect, once it was slavery as a bone of contention now nuclear rights, all moral.

dunno if this was the thread mentioning france but after watching the iran/west doc l have remembered l have regard for french diplomacy [history speaks now].

citizenzen · 07-05-2009, 02:55 AM

Now, I too had thought there were issues beyond slavery that lead to the Civil War. But upon re-reading the causes, it does seem that the crux around most of the issues revolved was slavery. While I know that it wasn't solely a conflict based on slaves-rights, it seems that every economic and state's rights argument at that time had slavery as a major component.

What this has to do with the EU is anybodies guess. Are they going to legalize slavery there? Cool! Enslave the Brits! Ship 'em all off to France. I like that idea.

And no... I have no intention of reading past posts to see what the heck you're all talking about.

bob x · 07-05-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

Yes it was about slavery, but more than that, it was about states rights.

Only ONE "right" of the states was at issue, the right to keep their slaves. No other "right" was ever mentioned as an issue.

Janz · 07-06-2009, 12:00 AM

Should we Americans start another thread to discuss the Civil War or as my friends from the deep south call it "The War of Northern Aggression?" Maybe we can start another war whether the reason for its cause was slavery or states' rights.

citizenzen · 07-06-2009, 12:20 AM

Peoples do likes a fight. I should know.

Avi · 07-06-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janz

Should we Americans start another thread to discuss the Civil War or as my friends from the deep south call it "The War of Northern Aggression?" Maybe we can start another war whether the reason for its cause was slavery or states' rights.

Janz, let me see if I understand, do you want to create a thread to start a war...............or...............start a war to break a thread

?

wil · 07-06-2009, 03:18 AM

Slavery and States Rights

all bogus??

bob x · 07-06-2009, 04:13 AM

I'm not sure what your point is, wil. The piece you link to confirms that the only "States' Rights" issue that any southern state ever raised was their supposed "right" to keep holding slaves.