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

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.

 

Right where the RW antifa screaming nutters belong.
That should end this fake thread.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Bringing owning people to an end, is a great achievement. And welcomed by all but the south.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Because, while I don't agree with the lie about Kelley being antifa (there's no proof he was, but the investigation isn't over yet), I also don't agree with the lies being told by others.

 

Yet you're posting to me and my response to the one who wanted to focus on him being antifa.
The only one, based on evidence so far, to post the lie, is the antifa poster.
Not I, nor the person the antifa poster responded to.

 

I'm attempting to clarify the difference between what I perceive to be extremes. I've already agreed with you that the OP is wrong, which is supported by the fact it's now in the conspiracy theory forum, but you don't want to budge on your position that Kelley's atheism isn't a factor while his maleness and race are relevant.

 

You make no sense. You talk in vagaries, and never really say anything concrete, and show again your lack of understanding of the timeline of Slavery in America when it (in your words) was "instituted" -- as if it wasn't fully part of our entire history until 1865 -- and still this whopper of yours is an astounding one you've yet to explain: "All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

If it made it moot, why did slavery explode after that? What single Industrial Revolution mechanism was responsible for enmeshing the demand for slaves in the South to such a great degree, it could be arguable said that it literally helped to create the factors that directly led to the Civil War?

 

I respond in extremes, when dealing with extremes. Especially when the extreme is meant as flamebait, because it is false.
But you still have not responded to the antifa poster. So I don't buy what you're selling me. Only that you don't like I called the person out.

 

You mean the “random website” this entire thread is based on?

 

I have, but you are free to believe as you wish.

As for calling him out on the BS, please quote me where I've disliked you for it. The fact is, I've posted several times against the BS. What you don't like is that I do not agree with you being close to him, that I don't agree with you 100%. That I am more centered than either of you.

 

You are not centered. Bottom line. Except maybe in your mind. That's why I'm not buying what you're selling.

 

Oh really? Pray tell what I am since you've appointed yourself an expert on my beliefs.

 

No idea on your beliefs. Only what you post.
You are posting to me because I said the shooter was a militant white male texas atheist.
While not posting to the one who said he was a militant atheist antifa member, while he was upset another mentioned he was white male texan.

 

A biased post since it's obvious to all my first post to you was this:

We are agreed on the antifa part as I've posted several times.

Are you backing away from your statement "You are not centered. Bottom line. Except maybe in your mind"?

 

funnier if you think he is a Democrat

 

He is more a dem than a repub.

 

Of course you are not because this news is fake right-wing news designed to get a rise out of you guys.

 

lololololol


sour grapes do make the best whine