Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by RiseAgainst, Nov 5, 2017.

  1. BobbyJoe

    BobbyJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    390
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'll explain...

    on this forum and all over the place, there is a constant barrage of right wing fake news...this very thread, for example...

    And the intention of this fake news, and many other threads around here and elsewhere, is to take any event, any horrible tragedy, and blame it in any way possible on all the "left", all the liberals, all blacks, all Jewish people, all women, all Mexicans, all Democrats, all Hollywood people, all Californians, etc etc etc...that is the "hate" you speak of...the right wing mantra is "it's not us, we are never the bad guy, it's always all of them".

    The only reason the right wing is obsessed with this loser's supposed interest in atheism even though he was born and lived his life as a Christian, is because that somehow separates him in the same way as these other groups....it's all "their" fault. Otherwise, he's one of them. An Air Force guy from Texas, a born Christian white male....

    So whenever a person's background is one of the "bad" groups, the right wing has no problem taking that as some sort of symbol or connection to all the people they hate.

    But when the background is very much their own, it for some strange odd reason is now completely irrelevant, and anyone who points it out has "hate"? Well okay then, I guess anyone who points out and dwells on whether the perpetrator of a crime is Black or Jewish, they are displaying hate for all those people.....right????????????? And that would be wrong, then, wouldn't it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
    Curious Yellow likes this.
  2. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    62,237
    Likes Received:
    11,298
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had no issue keeping my doctor, under Bush I had to change as my employer changed Health insurers, but when you work for a corp, they get to pick, and you get to take what they offer
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  3. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This might be the greatest evidence of 'party switching'. The Republicans then were basically the Northern Oligarchs. It made sense to merge political power, with a growing economy(the North) as opposed to the weaker South. And the South saw it as inevitable and as destructive to their own economy. These factors could have been avoidable by propping up the South economically, offering assistance. Ironically, the kind of steps that could've avoided the war were only proposed AFTER the war.

    Again, if you want to find some Herculean principle of honesty go read a novel. In real life, there were a lot of murky motives. The Northern Oligarchs wanted their cake and to eat it too. 'Against' the principle of Slavery, but not enough to outlaw it legally and certainly not moral enough to let the South secede.

    America has always been a fight against oligarchy, it just so happens in this case the oligarchy defended a moral principle which you agree with. A true representation of history would disregard the moral justification and look at both sides objectively.

    Peace is always achievable with the WILL to achieve it. The Northern Oligarchs never gave the South reassurances. They saw that eventually, you couldn't have slavery in some states and non-slavery in other States. It was paving the way(as you yourself note.)

    The moment that Lincoln wouldn't recognize Jefferson Davis as a legitimate figure, the war was an active self-defense against Northern Aggression. Regardless of the firing at Fort Sumpter. I would have made the same decisions, even knowing the North was bigger.

    Who surrenders to an aggressor, because of that aggressor's "righteousness"?
     
  4. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,008
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, just a bunch of wordy Lost Cause platitudes for someone who seems to know little of actual history.

    You never addressed my post, and you surely didn't address this doozy of a whopper: " Would the South have truly instituted slavery if a better solution didn't arise? It arose a few decades later via the lawnmower. All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

    I'm dying to hear your explanation for this ^ (not that I haven't heard some LC versions of it in the last 30 years) -- but I'd love for you to tell the thread what you meant by this.
     
  5. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you know why Slavery was instituted in the first place? Picking cotton was heavily demanding, and it literally did take that work force. But with the great invention of lawnmowers(and other such inventions), automation pretty much made it unnecessary for such a huge work force. You'd think it'd be an overly simple conclusion, but then you're the one who lets moral righteousness overlook a critical account of the Civil War.

    You might have less than 10 people working at a farm today. We can say that by 1930, there was no longer a reason for institutionalized slavery of any form. Now, racism, that was a much bigger problem. But slavery was an 'answer' to incredible physical demands that the technological development helped manage.

    Had the South been given a 'grace' period to transition to a non-slavery economy, with assistance it would have ended the civil war without a shot. But then, unlike the Northern Oligarchs I'm not trying to push/bully the South into moral righteousness.

    The Civil War should be a lesson about forcing moral righteousness on others. Both sides were wrong, but only if you can take off the blinders.
     
  6. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,008
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol. OK, before I school you on when slavery was instituted (hint: in the early 1600's) -- but never mind that -- and on on this "lawnmower" bit you seem dedicated to (you mean to say the Reaper (primarily the McCormick), and we'll let that too slide. Tell us a bit on about how you came to this conclusion:

    "All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

    For bonus points: you might want to expound, if you can -- on the Cotton Gin. You're on.

    I'll get to the rest of your post in another.
     
  7. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I already gave you my reasoning. Less physical demand, less of a 'logical' reason(such as it were) to institute slavery. To be sure, that's not whitewashing or denying the false racial supremacy that many of the slaveholders held. But it's one of many factors. The war was not some moral righteous crusade, as much as you'd like to make it one.
     
  8. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,008
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's not an answer.

    I don't think you know the timelines at all, when the industrial revolution was, what the cotton gin did for slavery, what the reaper (or as you put it "lawnmower" ) did for mechanization, where it was primarily used, and when it came into any widespread useful effect.

    It's quite a tell.
     
  9. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then gee, enlighten me. Enlighten me on the great moral righteous crusade and my ignorance of it seemingly!
     
  10. Paperview

    Paperview Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    9,008
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really don't know, do you? You come pounding on here so haughty, yet you say things like "Less physical demand, less of a 'logical' reason(such as it were) to institute slavery."

    ("institute slavery??" in the mid 1800's??)

    And your talk about a lawnmower : " Would the South have truly instituted slavery if a better solution didn't arise? It arose a few decades later via the lawnmower."

    and "All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

    I mean ...I can't even begin, and then when I ask you something most freshman or sophomores studying history in high school would know about when the Industrial Revolution was and about the Cotton Gin...

    You go all glib glibbity -- pretty much announcing, you really don't know.

    How bout you just admit, hey, you know, I may just have some reading to do to get up to speed on this?

    There's no embarrassment in that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  11. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    33,045
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just like he was a militant white male Texan who clearly had mental issues and a beef with his mother in law. That was my point. Thx.
    But the other dude wanted to focus on the lie part, antifa.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  12. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    33,045
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right where the RW antifa screaming nutters belong.
    That should end this fake thread.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
  13. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The period of when slavery introduced doesn't change the reasons. Largely due to supremacist views yes, but also economic considerations.(Or a less flattery way to put it, they were too lazy to do hard physical labor by themselves.)

    But let's phrase it another way: Are we going to deny that the Industrial Revolution did not bring those positive benefits to the Union as a whole? That, had the technologies that were developing been around during that crucial time period, the 'argument' for slavery would have even less merit and the South might even be agreeable to ending slavery in Southern States.

    Again, 93% of people disapprove of slavery in the modern times. Only racists are confirmed to be on the record as for it. Our founding and the first 150 years or so were a morally grey area. But many wanted to(and in Lincoln's case, did pursue) a morally righteous claim to fight for.

    But war was never the answer. Lincoln was a terrible President.
     
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    33,045
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is others, I hadn't put you in that category before.
    What the world was like 100s of years ago, has little to do with our laws today. Except I expect many laws are from lessons learned of the past.

    How was it avoidable? Many declarations of secession were being written with slavery as a main declaration. Then the firing on Ft Sumter.
     
  15. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lincoln could have preempted the South with the kind of financial assistance that was given after the war. In fact, according to Congressional testimonies at the time, while such packages were being deliberated Lincoln had no interest. It was only implemented after his death(and not in the best of ways either, but that's not here or there.) Minimizing the financial losses of the South, might have made them more willing.

    The North/South really were two different countries at the time. The North an industrial power, the South a textile one. If the North truly were anti-slavery, the request for peaceful secession by Jefferson Davis should have been recognized. But it wasn't. At no point did Lincoln want to recognize the South.

    The main reason the war was fought, was not slavery but rather Northern dependence on the South's textile and food developments. If the South had seceded, there would have been a major loss of food, supplies and of course land.

    The great tragedy of the Civil War, is that neither side won. The South was not able to protect its economy, and the North badly hampered half of the Union for at least up until the modern era. Lincoln is no savior or a great President.
     
  16. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    33,045
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bringing owning people to an end, is a great achievement. And welcomed by all but the south.
     
  17. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    18,278
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could've been done without killing 600,000 people. Would it have been as quick? No, but I subscribe to George Washington's thoughts on the matter: Evil as it was, it could only truly be done through mutual ending of slavery. That was the only right way to end slavery.

    And as I said: According to recent polls on that question, almost the entire country(including those damn Southerners) don't want slavery back.

    There were better Presidents in our country's history than Lincoln. Presidents who took protecting the Union seriously. Hell, Obama is vastly better than Lincoln.
     
  18. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    11,518
    Likes Received:
    2,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who was also a militant atheist who deliberately chose to shoot up a church instead of just go to his MIL's house. What is your real point here, DA?

    Agreed that the antifa part is part is Fake News.
     
  19. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    11,518
    Likes Received:
    2,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm a Southerner and think slavery is an abomination, but if I was alive in 1862, I'd have defending "my country" from invaders. I'm surprised so many LWers, who pride themselves on education, don't understand the facts of the 19th Century.
     
  20. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    33,045
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The lie, the other posted wanted to focus on. An antifa member.
    Why do you care? It wasn't your post that was upset that white, male, and texan was used. All true. But wanted to focus on antifa and militant atheist.

    He was a deranged militant white male texan atheist.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017

Share This Page