Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

Theseus

Members
  • Content Count

    2,248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Theseus

  1. The only one of these that can possibly even claim the Confederate Battle flag is a demonrat from Arkansas. Only one of the above falls into that category. All others are doing what the kkkommie leftists claim others of doing "cultural appropriation". No, Hitlary is not from Arkansas she grew up in Chicago. Can we start a Hypocrisy News Channel?
  2. One time at band camp... No seriously, My mom went to the school that Madonna went to in Detroit. Sadly neither of them are any better for it. ( I am playing around here.)
  3. Our past has a bearing on where we are today. To say it has zero bearing is false. That is like trying to steer a ship towards France with no bearings. Navigation by sun or stars is taking a bearing. I would never say Slavery has no bearing on America today because it has shaped us and made us all better for the end of it. (I did not say slavery was good)
  4. Its one of the funniest Gordon Ramsey videos I have seen. Although all of it is good, it really starts warming up starting around the 7:40 mark. He does give his recipe for a great burger and talks about his critiques. The examples are quite brutal. AT mark 17:11 he takes on the Hot Sauce which is called Da'Bomb with a Scoville level of 135,600. You have to watch until the end where he tries a wing with a Scoville level of 2 million plus. Notice what he uses to counter the hotness.
  5. Please do show me where this word appears in either document. And "...their Creator..." is not in the Constitution only the Declaration of Independence. Because On a side note: I am surprised you missed the significance of the Lunar Eclipse on July 4th called a Buck Moon. A Lunar eclipse hasn't happened on July 4th in about 100 years and has Biblical prophecy associated with it.
  6. LGD the problem with States' Rights leading up to the Civil War was the Southern states wanted to use States' rights to abolish all laws pertaining to slavery they did not support. The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the Federal government to do so. While not in all cases is States' rights is wrong when the Federal Government is wrong. Had the South able to successfully assert States' Rights, this would have delayed the Civil War until the next time the Republicans gained power in the WH and Congress. There would be no telling how long that delay could have been had Lincoln not been elected. The war and the general election of 1860 was about slavery. Had Lincoln not been elected it could also be said that slavery would have expanded further west and a more favorable position given to foreign-bound slave traders at the time. Lincoln having been elected saw that through the war freeing the slaves was inevitable. He would not be able to get around it. Yes, there was never a form of cultural appropriation more apparent than when the Confederate Battle flag was appropriated by the Klu Klux Klan - Southern Demoncrats. Demoncrats have been trying to rewrite history to put the blame of slavery onto the Republican party but it is the demoncrats that own this lock stock and barrel. This could also be said when nearly 80 years later a leader appropriated the Swastika. Symbols change and are appropriated by evil men and organizations. The United States appropriated Great Britain's Union Jack when it came up with the original American flag. Something not too many know about the true story of how the flag was designed. A flag has never been about a piece of fabric, it has always been more than that. Through time the American flag has been changed but what hasn't changed is the emotion it stirs when people see it. The emotion of Liberty, Justice and the pursuit of Happiness; to feel a common bond with someone you never knew. A rally point on a field of battle, something to be inspired from when the fear sets in as whistle of bullets and projectiles fly through the air, a flag warms the heart and remembers the tears that have cried for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. The American flag is a symbol of patriotism but it is the patriotism one feels in their heart to muster the courage and bravery to want to be something more than you are. TO be the best of the best. TO separate us from the rest of the world because we are exceptional in all of history in our Freedoms, our Liberties and our Justice. The American flag is something for the world to look up to and want to aspire to. Those who hate America and want to transform it will be met by the big red guy, not Santa Claus, the guy with the pitched fork and pointy tail.
  7. First off, no where in the United States Constitution does the word "God" appear, this also includes the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was designed as a playbook for how the government should be run. The Preamble to the Constitution even states that it is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Now as to the phrase "..the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." we look at the Declaration of Independence and in the second paragraph we come to these blessings "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Those are the Blessings of Liberty granted by God as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution then protects those unalienable rights given to men, women and children but not to the states. Why? The Declaration answers this in the next sentence: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed." (NOTE: For brevity sake, when discussing this issue and the word "Men" appears this is to mean all humans unless otherwise denoted. The word "Men" will denote all peoples and the word "men" will denote only those peoples of the male persuasion as this is historical context, not today's context.) State rights are NOT given by God, they are given by Men and it is up to Men to give powers to those governing. This is the basis of a Republic. Governance through representation. The power derived from the people and by the people. The Declaration also goes on to state "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it..." So you can see that neither the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence states God gives rights to the State whether that be a Nation state or a state oi a Nation. Only the Declaration of Independence identifies the rights given by God which are called the Unalienable rights (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness). This not to say that a State does not have rights as they do. However, these rights are derived from Men and not from God. Although it is Men who may seek their God's advice on a particular matter. Also notice the words "...their Creator..." this is an important distinction at the time it was written because it does not say God even though the ideologies taken from are the Judeo-Christian with a combination of Roman and Greek ideologies. It is unfair to say that any other culture was left out because at the time only those were known to the founders. Since this was a nation founded from religious persecution the words "...their Creator..." encompasses all people's beliefs of who created them, including Atheists. I digress. In my posting, I wrote about a book called "Uncle Tom's Cabin". An acrophylal statement (a quote only revealed and attributed to that person after they have died) has been attributed to Lincoln about the female author. That statement is from President Lincoln when he greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1862 as "the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war". Now you said that slavery was not the issue and I said it was. I am not going to assume that you think that I said it was a moral issue about slavery as to why it was fought. In fact the Civil War issue of slavery was not based on morals but rather of an economic nature and I have always maintained that. Everything in this God-given world boils down to the issue of money as it states in the Bible, it is the root of Evil. (The word all does not appear in that statement. IF you disagree go look it up). As to States' rights, most do not know President Lincoln was elected without a single Southern Electoral vote (See why Electoral College is so important?). I actually addressed one aspect of States' rights through the Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 and the battle that ensued. Without going further into detail, I should have addressed it more. The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 was to address the Western Expansion of the United States. Those proponents of Slavery wished to take slavery West. The Federal Government, through the Act of 1854, left it up to the people of the territory when the territory became a state. The Battle that ensued along the Missouri border was about those who wanted slaves in Kansas and those who did not. People were killed on each side and is debated as the "unofficial" start of the Civil War a few years later. Mind you at the time President Lincoln was elected the Whig party was dissolving and that is why President Lincoln is considered the first Republican President. Members of the Republican Party were adamantly opposed to taking slavery into the westward expansion. This is not to assume they were against slavery, those members were against the expansion of it westward. States' rights also has to deal with the South wanting to assert authority of the Federal Government to abolish federal laws they did not support. When Lincoln was elected they lost all hope as Lincoln's election was a clear signal the South had lost all influence. Thus one by one they seceded from the United States. Now I stated that you probably thought that I believed that the major tenet of the Civil War was about the moral issue of slavery. I merely stated it was about slavery. Every issue, economics and States' rights, deals with slavery in some form or fashion. Now I want to address the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln. This speech was not written without some great deal of thought. President Lincoln while against slavery as an Abolitionist and a true Republican (not the repubes we have in office today) did not take this task lightly. It is documented that he came to the decision to free the slaves only during the Civil War. He saw the blood being spilt to keep the United States together and that was one of his major focuses. However, he could not justify himself with God that the blood spilt in the name of our Forefathers when they wrote that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...". And it was Madison that explained years after Constitutional Convention that this clause in the Declaration of Independence would eventually lead to freedom of the slaves and its ending of slavery. This is why the words "slave" and "n-gro" do not appear anywhere in the Declaration nor the Constitution. So the freeing of the slaves was a decision by Lincoln during the war about issues dealing with slavery. Slavery was a major issue at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as Madison stated there was more to the slavery issue than was recorded and it remained a pervasive and persistent issue leading up to the Civil War in 1861. The issue was at the forefront of the expansion west and it was the issue of the South wanting to assert itself over the federal government and it was an economical issue of the day. The New York Times founder was an Abolitionist and father to the Republican party but was removed from the NYT when he took a hard stance against Southern states during the time of Reconstruction. At the time President Lincoln is said to have stated that the Southern states had never left the Union. The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery in its many forms and Lincoln came to the conclusion that it was unjust for the Declaration to state all men were created equal and spill the blood of many fine Americans without freeing them in the end. As to the Railroad and Lincoln's support for it. It has to deal with the Civil War. The railroad was determined to be one of the instrumental players in the win for the North.
  8. XChange of America is out of IQD at this time. They also raised the price per million 25K notes by 80 dollars. 1,000,000 IQD 25K uncirculated notes can now be bought for $1,160 USD. To sell them back to XchangeofAmerica is $862 per million.
  9. Should be 1861 not 1961. C'mon everyone writes last year's year as this year. It's a common mistake when you write 19-- this and that all the time.....
  10. LGD President Lincoln giving the Emancipation Proclamation speech and thus freeing all slaves does not show that slavery was never the main reason for the war. Actually it is one of the very major tenets of the Civil War. I am going to take you back to a different war where the United States fought to be free of the British Crown. People only associate the Civil War as relating to slavery. When from the very beginning of this country, slavery was a major issue. It was such a major issue that it almost prevented the Untied States, as we know it up until the time of the Civil War, from becoming a single nation. During the May 1787 Constitutional Convention slavery was little debated and this is what most are taught. However, over the Summer of 1787 it became a central issue the form of taxation and representation were to be followed in the new House of Representatives, as well as, provisions for foreign-based slave trade. The words "slavery" and "n---o" was deliberately omitted from the founding document because it was thought to tarnish the vision of American liberty and justice. The original draft had 5 articles that detailed explicit sanctions on slavery and indirect protection in other clauses. James Madison said years later that during the Convention there was more debate about slavery and in ratifying the Convention than was ever recorded. And when the Constitution was finally ratified, compromises on the economic viability of slavery in the form of taxation and representation had to be attained. Virginia had recommended at least 11 different such recommendations. The Civil War as taught today claims that the Civil War was not about the freeing of the slaves but it major tenet was about slavery in general. The New York Times founder and godfather of the Republican Party was especially opposed to slavery overall. Since the ratification of the US Constitution Madison claimed that states were not divided by interest but by whether a state had or did not have slaves. This was such a major role that it alone defined a state. The divide in the states in the Civil War was based on this defining role. So the question remained how long would it before the United States would tolerate slavery as an entire country. And if the nation were to go to war over the secession of states from the whole, did that also mean freeing them? Lincoln had no choice but to free the slaves at the end of the Battle of Gettysburg. It was destined to happen from the first shot of the war. In 1852 a novel was published that is said to change everything. That novel was Uncle Tom's Cabin. If anyone has not read it, it is centralized around the main character called Uncle Tom and depicts the reality of life as a slave. In 1854, the Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 was passed that included a provision for "popular sovereignty". Popular sovereignty is the notion that the people of that territory could decide whether they wanted slavery in their territory devoid of Congressional interference. This is said to be a brainchild of Steven Douglas but had come up earlier in 1848. This is important piece of legislation because I told you a state was defined at the time as whether it was a slave or not a slave state. Some scholars also argue that the first shot of the Civil War was not at Fort Sumter as we were led to believe but it was a little known battle (as I call it) along the Missouri-Kansas border where slavery and anti-slavery proponents fought and killed each other to control the area. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was caned on the floor of the Senate by Preston Brooks a representative of South Carolina. Sumner had just given a speech decrying the "Crimes Against Kansas" which was about bringing slavery into the state of Kansas. In 1857 the Dred Scott decision was handed down by the SCOTUS. Lincoln was elected and became President in 1860 and inaugurated on March 4, 1861. April 12, 1961 the first shots of the Civil War were fired by Confederate Soldiers at Fort Sumter. Slavery was very much the thorn in the side since before this country was founded and it almost caused the United States to not be formed as one nation. There are more incidents but the aforementioned ones are the major political incidents leading up to the Civil War. There are far more than this as the United States was in and has been in a state of turmoil based on the decision to continue to allow slavery. What is ironic is that slavery, aka human trafficking, is still practised in countries like the KSA and slave markets still exist in countries like the Sudan. The KSA has denied this but as recently as 2006 a KSA couple was charged with slavery and agreed to pay the worker $64K in Denver Colorado.. That was a very insightful case into the goings on with slavery in the KSA. The Telegraph had footage of African migrants being sold at slave auctions for as little £300 in 2017. The footage has since been taken down. If Slavery as it pertains to the United States be taught right in our elementary, middle, high and higher education schools that is open and objective rather than a one sided perspective that this nation was built upon slavery, which it was not, then we wouldn't be having this debate today. Sorry this was long post but needed to be said.
  11. A float would bring extreme volatile swings in the beginning as with everything else does when first put up for sale or on the market. After several months to a couple of years the price point should find a relative leveling off. It would be like approaching the purple mountain majesties of the Rocky Mountains from California traversing them then slowly reaching the rolling hills and crossing the Continental Divide before coming to the Great Plains, where the Buffalo roam, then occasionally coming to the Smoky Mountains every so often before circling around to the Great Plains of the Midwest..
  12. Agnes Callamard, U.N. special rapport[eur] is a French Human Rights Activist. In other words, if Trump nicked Solemani's little pinky fingernail, she would claim it was a Human Rights violation. The UN is controlled by third world despots and dictators that do not have any interest in their primary mission. Rather they are in it to spread the wealth amongst themselves. The UN will not try to arrest Trump because we are not part of the UN Court System and as such have declared no US Citizen can be tried by the UN. If the UN were to try to capture and arrest a sitting President or former President (even 0Bummer) it would be seen as an act of war.
  13. Ckay this guy states The swap lines are a big tell on what is happening globally. Let me first explain what a swap line is. Then his next statement is And if your favorite mining stock has significant production in what I call negative swap nations... He never tells the reader what a "swap line" is but just goes on to discuss as if he already did. This is fear-mongering pure and simple. We may be going back to the gold standard but there is a reason why those CEOS have no friggin clue what a "swap line" is because it is made up by this guy who is trying to scare people. Define "swap line" then talk about "negative swap nations" because the author never explained what a "swap line" is. This reads as a scare-mongering commercial article to get you to buy something at the very end of the article. In other words it is a squeeze or landing page to capture your email in exchange for something so that you can be put onto a list where you then get emails trying to cajole you into buying something. Hence the links in the text taking you to other articles by the same author. Wait there is more! At the very end of the article before he goes into other stuff... Know the plan. Get the playbook. Be prepared both mentally and financially for what to do if gold prices take a big hit to the downside. Luck is being prepared when the opportunity arises. And you can get a head start by watching my exclusive presentation right here. Did I call it right? I did. This is a scam article.
  14. What else do you do when you are waiting for someone to answer the door?
  15. Eskimo Pies are not "racist" ...they be "reycist".
  16. I was once told Henry Winkler was the original MacGyver (not the idjit show that ran recently). Well his name did show up in the beginning credits as the executive producer but being the original MacGyver, that turned out to be quite a shark jump too. Ah c'mon peeps, it was Happy Days that made the shark jump synonymous with something going overboard in the episode where Fonzie jumps the sharks. It's even an actual phrase when a show is done. LSM has jumped one too many sharks of late.
  17. What leaders? That is the crux and juxtaposition of it all. True Anarchy by definition have no leaders. However in the few days that this tripe has set up an "autonomous" zone, they have duly armed themselves (something they are against), they have banned certain peoples from immigrating into their zone (thought they were for open borders), thay have built walls and barricades (what ever happened to "no walls"?), they have shown blatant discrimination and racism (isn't that what they were "protesting against) they have since their "humble" beginnings have changed from an autonomous zone to something akin to an organized occupied protest organization (probably because they still need things from the government), within three days they created their own police force and judicial system (weren't we supposed to defund the Seattle police department), they have had a need to call 911 for health emergencies which their autonomous zone cannot provide and the list foes on and on. After truly analyzing their so-called demands and their actions you find they expect everyone to do as they say but not as they do. In a sense Antifa has become as facist as the day is long. At night this band of thugs no more operate with no due process and it has bitten a few of them in the derriere. For example they accused someone of stealing another's phone. Threatened him with physical and bodily harm. In the end the phone was "misplaced" and found elsewhere. Or the when they tried to set a business on fire and the store owner captured one of the "peaceful" protestors and called the police. The police never came. However, around 100 peaceful protestors showed up and destroyed the store to get their buddy back. This isn't anarchy is facism on the streets of America an a demonrat mayor is allowing it to occur in her own city.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.