|
|
#11
05-21-2007, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] MY PONY TOO SLOW [/ QUOTE ] What does this pony stuff mean? [/ QUOTE ] I think it started when some statist posted some welfare-state pipedream or another, which prompted both borodog and I to post pictures of ponies, with the standard "And free ponies for every child" response within seconds of each other. Borodog's appeared first, so he posted "YOUR PONY TOO SLOW" in response to my redundant pony. FWIW, my pony was cuter than his. 
|
|
#14
05-21-2007, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] MY PONY TOO SLOW [/ QUOTE ] What does this pony stuff mean? [/ QUOTE ] If a regular doesn't get this, I can only imagine how annoying the lurkers find it. [/ QUOTE ] [censored] 'em. They're lurkers.
|
|
#15
05-21-2007, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
OP should be aware of the fact that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are not in the mainstream of American historical thought. Of course they THINK they are correct, but I'd advise you to look elsewhere for a more balanced viewpoint.
|
|
#16
05-21-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
OP should be aware of the fact that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are not in the mainstream of American historical revisionism. Of course they THINK they are correct, but I'd advise you to look elsewhere for a more "fair and balanced" viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#17
05-21-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
OP should be aware of the fact that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are not in the mainstream of American historical thought. Of course they THINK they are correct, but I'd advise you to look elsewhere for a more balanced viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ] Just say "slavery"
|
|
#18
05-21-2007, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
I know pretty much nothing about US history (I'm an Australian) but last night someone I respect who knows lots claimed the following: During the US civil war, there was a distinct possibility that England would enter the war on the side of the southern states so abraham lincoln adopted an anti-slavery position to ensure england was on his side. In other words, the anti-slavery position was adopted mid-way through the war and was not ethically motivated but was a political/military decision. Is this true? It is counter to popular versions of history I have heard - where slavery was portrayed as one of the primary motivators of the war. [/ QUOTE ] Thomas DiLorenzo & The Mises Institute ftw http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?acti...ame&ID=425
|
|
#19
05-21-2007, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
OP should be aware of the fact that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are not in the mainstream of American historical thought. Of course they THINK they are correct, but I'd advise you to look elsewhere for a more balanced viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ] It was generally well understood for decades that economic conditions other than slavery were the main impetus for the seccession of the states, and that Lincoln was not interested in freeing slaves as a primary motivation for his actions which lead to the war. Even Apu understood that. And you don't have to go elsewhere to find balance, check sources and read quotes incontext and its obvious where Lincoln's concerns lie.
|
|
#20
05-21-2007, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is this true?
[ QUOTE ]
OP should be aware of the fact that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are not in the mainstream of American historical thought. [/ QUOTE ] Uh, false? The main break with most historians is that they feel Lincoln was justified. [ QUOTE ] Of course they THINK they are correct, but I'd advise you to look elsewhere for a more balanced viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ] This is the kind of thing that is always said by someone who can neither defeat an argument nor create and defend one.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
