RIP Araysar

Chris said:

My mortgage rates are locked and utility bills I got a payrise and government payout for. My savings are actually going up.

Click to expand...

Weird how you talked about everything but your utility rates which presumably went up. Just as we told you 2 years ago.

Chris said:

How is it being the laughing stock of the forum?

Click to expand...

Good question, my man. How DOES it feel?

"Made even more ridiculous by the fact that they are most likely doing it on the mistaken belief that the civil war was about slavery when it wasn't. The slavery connection comes from the 1960s when the Democrats, under JFK, wanted to find a way to increase their standing amongst black people so they rewrote history - literally. I mean hell, Lincoln and his fellow Northerners had to hold speeches and write articles telling their soldiers that they were fighting for other, more important things, than to free some joggers, since none of them wanted to fight for that.

They also ignore the question as to why these monuments were built in the first place, especially during the timeframe of about 1890-1920, when those who fought and survived were in their senior years. It was done as a means to heal a rift in the nation, as an acknowledgment that both sides had points they fought for, that mistakes were made by both sides, and most importantly, there were heroes on both sides fighting for what they believed in.

It's this more than anything that pisses me off about the whole fucking thing. But that's what you get when you either stop teaching history, or teach a false version of it.". -- Aaron

Come on bro, "States Rights" is mid-20th century revisionism to distance the Confederacy from slavery. Up until the civil rights era no one had any problems with Civil War being fought about slavery until the Left made it culturally verboten. In the secession proclamation of several states like Mississippi and South Carolina they openly state that they are seceding because of slavery because slavery is the most important thing.

Here is Mississippi's version, note how they get right to it in 2nd paragraph. No need to waste time. And they don't switch gears because there was basically no other reason for them.

"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."

"The fighters of the Yalam unit and the fighters of the 401st brigade combat team today destroyed the network of tunnels in the "senior quarter" of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which connects hiding apartments, offices, offices and living apartments of the senior military and political wing of Hamas. Watch the documentation:" -- Tuco


Oh yeah? How long did it take to flood them?

Chris said:

Wow you make this NATO sound really powerful, the nations funding it must be real threats.

Click to expand...

Yeah, one in particular that loves printing money and a couple vassals that help it do its bidding.

Did you miss the part where Ukrainians themselves confessed that they would have last less than a month when SMO started if it wasnt for monthly $20-30B injections into Ukraine?

Think about that amount. UK's annual military budget is $70B. Every 2-3 months, for over 2 years, Ukraine was receiving the equivalent of UK's entire annual military budget. That's how much money you wasted propping up these Hohol losers.

Araysar said:

"Made even more ridiculous by the fact that they are most likely doing it on the mistaken belief that the civil war was about slavery when it wasn't. The slavery connection comes from the 1960s when the Democrats, under JFK, wanted to find a way to increase their standing amongst black people so they rewrote history - literally. I mean hell, Lincoln and his fellow Northerners had to hold speeches and write articles telling their soldiers that they were fighting for other, more important things, than to free some joggers, since none of them wanted to fight for that.

They also ignore the question as to why these monuments were built in the first place, especially during the timeframe of about 1890-1920, when those who fought and survived were in their senior years. It was done as a means to heal a rift in the nation, as an acknowledgment that both sides had points they fought for, that mistakes were made by both sides, and most importantly, there were heroes on both sides fighting for what they believed in.

It's this more than anything that pisses me off about the whole fucking thing. But that's what you get when you either stop teaching history, or teach a false version of it.". -- Aaron

Come on bro, "States Rights" is mid-20th century revisionism to distance the Confederacy from slavery. Up until the civil rights era no one had any problems with Civil War being fought about slavery until the Left made it culturally verboten. In the secession proclamation of several states like Mississippi and South Carolina they openly state that they are seceding because of slavery because slavery is the most important thing.

Here is Mississippi's version, note how they get right to it in 2nd paragraph. No need to waste time. And they don't switch gears because there was basically no other reason for them.

"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."

Click to expand...

For some states, it was imperative to maintain slaves for their business enterprises. Especially South Carolina's rice trade. For others, it was more trying to balance the aggression of the northern states. The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 was easily passed by Congress and promoted by a slave owner in a slave state. The 3/5ths clause was specifically put in to balance power between southern and northern states, and it was the northern states who didn't feel like blacks were people and still didn't pay 'free' black people for their work. The biggest riots of the 19th century were in northern states that 'hired' black people for cheap labor which pissed off mainly immigrants. The most powerful people in the South owned slaves and 'represented' their interests in Congress but a lot of the issues for many southerners was the efforts by the north to take their representation. Just like Dems are doing today with their efforts to end the electoral college.

In the end, representation of the South was shit on and 'free states' were the excuse to push northern regional superiority into national superiority, much like Dems are doing today with their transgender, DEI, and racism pushes. What we see with illegal immigration is EXACTLY what the northern states were doing in in 19th century. Are Democrats and some GOP businessmen trying to save those poor Hispanics from their own bad decisions? Or are they trying to get cheap labor while pushing for illegals to vote? It's the same kind of power play and has little to do with helping poor negros or poor Mejicanos.

Remember when the UK was the undisputed world power and it's population was a quarter of the whole world's? Now it's just one of India's toilets, getting flooded with brown.

My Irish ancestors would be proud of what we've done to this gay earth.

Aldarion said:

This is fascinating. The guys banned from all but this little corner, what does he do? Instead of taking the timeout and going elsewhere, he stands in this little corner still stamping his feet and insisting what he read in his favorite history book is correct?

Its quite a window on the human condition. I'd like to think we wouldnt all do the same but who knows.

Click to expand...

Yet, everybody comes to shoot the shit with me in my little corner.

On the oither hand, you can post anywhere on the board and no one cares about anything you have to say.

LMAO.

Chris said:

Wow so just money can make Ukraine into this persistent regional threat

Click to expand...

More like a persistent regional nuisance.

Chris said:

and it didn't effect my quality of life at all!? Bargin.

Click to expand...

Did your electricity rates go up? Weird how you keep avoiding this subject.

Chris said:

Well more like you @ people until they drop in out of morbid curiosity to see your little fits.

Click to expand...

I literally summon you with a one liner, and here you are, at my beck and call. You're not locked in here with me. You CHOOSE to be here with me.

LMAO.

Furry bae sent what christmas looks like to a far east russian citizen.

zzeris said:

For some states, it was imperative to maintain slaves for their business enterprises. Especially South Carolina's rice trade. For others, it was more trying to balance the aggression of the northern states. The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 was easily passed by Congress and promoted by a slave owner in a slave state. The 3/5ths clause was specifically put in to balance power between southern and northern states, and it was the northern states who didn't feel like blacks were people and still didn't pay 'free' black people for their work. The biggest riots of the 19th century were in northern states that 'hired' black people for cheap labor which pissed off mainly immigrants. The most powerful people in the South owned slaves and 'represented' their interests in Congress but a lot of the issues for many southerners was the efforts by the north to take their representation. Just like Dems are doing today with their efforts to end the electoral college.

In the end, representation of the South was shit on and 'free states' were the excuse to push northern regional superiority into national superiority, much like Dems are doing today with their transgender, DEI, and racism pushes. What we see with illegal immigration is EXACTLY what the northern states were doing in in 19th century. Are Democrats and some GOP businessmen trying to save those poor Hispanics from their own bad decisions? Or are they trying to get cheap labor while pushing for illegals to vote? It's the same kind of power play and has little to do with helping poor negros or poor Mejicanos.

Click to expand...

I mean there is so much horseshit in here. Cmon man.

Wow, one slave owner promoted a slavery import ban in 1 single year? What does that prove? Maybe he had a fuckton of slaves already and didnt want people flooding the market with more "supply"

3/5ths compromise: Oh now, the North didnt feel like Blacks were people but the South totally believed they were people? How noble and magnanimous of the South to accord such dignity to those blacks they enslaved, its almost as if they thought of them as actual people. Anyways, that's amusing revisionism. The reality of course is that abolition movement existed even before USA was formed and North didnt want blacks to be counted in apportionment because they had no rights as free citizens. The South would just use slaves to pump up their population numbers to have more representation in the House and Electoral College since thats how that power was apportioned to each State. 3/5ths compromise was finally reached because without it, slaveholding states wouldnt join the Union. Basically, the South used black slaves to grab more power in Congress by demanding defacto representation for slaves, without according any rights to slaves that this representation would have come from.

The 19th century riots were about all kinds of people including foreigners, immigrants and blacks. Claiming that "biggest ones" were about blacks is not only meaningless but disingenuous. Maybe if the riots were ONLY about Blacks it might have some point, but to prove what? That some Northerners didnt want to lose jobs to newly arriving labor from the South? Yah, no shit. So what?

And on... and on... and on....

I want to take a special moment and present this piece of gaslighting in regards to slaves rights and 3/5ths compromise

"The most powerful people in the South owned slaves and 'represented' their interests in Congress but a lot of the issues for many southerners was the efforts by the north to take their representation. Just like Dems are doing today with their efforts to end the electoral college. "

Click to expand...

The fact that you managed to write this horseshit and present it as a serious argument is fucking impressive.

They represented their interests, huh? While holding them in chattel slavery? Weird how in a country founded on freedom, Southern lawmakers forgot to represent the one and only interest of slaves: FREEDOM.

Yeah, the North wanted to "take their representation" because they were using slaves to grab more political power without representing any interests of the people from whom this power was derived!

Finally, its amusing that you compare the North to the Dems in terms of grabbing power when the opposite is true. Dems to this day, literally use people who have no representation in Congress, such as illegals, non-citizens, dead people, fake non existing voters to grab power in the government, just like the original slaveholding Dems did 200 years ago.

Furry said:

View attachment 505336

Furry bae sent what christmas looks like to a far east russian citizen.

Click to expand...

Looks pretty nice actually. Chris , look they have electricity cheaper than yours in the middle of nowhere, Russia.

Araysar said:

"The fighters of the Yalam unit and the fighters of the 401st brigade combat team today destroyed the network of tunnels in the "senior quarter" of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which connects hiding apartments, offices, offices and living apartments of the senior military and political wing of Hamas. Watch the documentation:" -- Tuco


Oh yeah? How long did it take to flood them?

Click to expand...

I dunno. I've been on team "I bet it's strategically sound flood Gaza tunnels". Even if they don't drown anyone the destruction of the tunnels probably does something. I imagine because they aren't doing it in large scale means it doesn't make sense to meet their objectives.

Araysar said:

Wow, one slave owner promoted a slavery import ban in 1 single year? What does that prove? Maybe he had a fuckton of slaves already and didnt want people flooding the market with more "supply"

Click to expand...

That became defacto US law bub. That's a little stronger than a single year's ban, isn't it?

Araysar said:

3/5ths compromise: Basically, the South used black slaves to grab more power in Congress by demanding defacto representation for slaves, without according any rights to slaves that this representation would have come from.

Click to expand...

Araysar said:

Yeah, the North wanted to "take their representation" because they were using slaves to grab more political power without representing any interests of the people from whom this power was derived!

Click to expand...

Yes, because power and loss of power was the primary initiator of the Civil War. Sure, free labor was a part of that but not all of it. Not by a long shot.

Araysar said:

Finally, its amusing that you compare the North to the Dems in terms of grabbing power when the opposite is true. Dems to this day, literally use people who have no representation in Congress, such as illegals, non-citizens, dead people, fake non existing voters to grab power in the government, just like the original slaveholding Dems did 200 years ago.

Click to expand...

Very true except who had the power disadvantage in the 1850s? Who had every single agreement discarded because the other side was disingenuous? Sure, slave states used slaves as a means to maintain a balance of power with northern states but the underlying issue, just like today is over power.

Again, do modern Dems care about blacks and Hispanics? Just like 19th century Dems, they don't. Are you sure the underlying positions over 150 years ago were specifically about slavery for everyone, or just certain parties? Did Russia invade Ukraine primarily to help Russian speaking people or did they do it to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO? Could both be primary reasons? Could there be more primary reasons for the Civil War than muh slavery!!!? The answer is obviously yes.

Tuco said:

I dunno. I've been on team "I bet it's strategically sound flood Gaza tunnels". Even if they don't drown anyone the destruction of the tunnels probably does something. I imagine because they aren't doing it in large scale means it doesn't make sense to meet their objectives.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like the vax.

"Probably does something".