Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Nov '17 15:01
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8-pY3n3MAs

    The youtube is with Samantha Bee and about Kelly's hilarious statement that "the Civil War happened because the americans couldn't reach a compromise".
    I wonder how a compromise on slavery would have looked. Mondays through Wednesdays? Every other weekend?
    Damn abolitionists being unreasonable.
  2. 02 Nov '17 15:13
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8-pY3n3MAs

    The youtube is with Samantha Bee and about Kelly's hilarious statement that "the Civil War happened because the americans couldn't reach a compromise".
    I wonder how a compromise on slavery would have looked. Mondays through Wednesdays? Every other weekend?
    Damn abolitionists being unreasonable.
    I thought they got upset that Kelly called General Lee an honorable man.

    Do you think he was an honorable man?
  3. 02 Nov '17 15:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I thought they got upset that Kelly called General Lee an honorable man.

    Do you think he was an honorable man?
    they absolutely didn't get upset on that but on the ludicrous revisionist notion that a compromise should have been reached on slavery. That however is more about your abysmal reading comprehension which i don't care to insist.

    on robert Lee's character, no, he wasn't honorable, he was a slavery apologist who viewed blacks as property
    https://books.google.ro/books?id=1w5Qp4qYfE0C&pg=PA433&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


    Negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.
    To Ulysses S. Grant on why black U.S. soldiers were not be repatriated by the Confederacy, as quoted in Liberty, Equality, Power: Enhanced Concise Edition (2009), California: Cengage Learning, p. 433

    on the following link try to keep your ADD in check and read it fully, not just the text in red (which was written by Gingrich and the author of the article states is pure fiction)
    https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/robert-e-lee-and-union-black-pows/
  4. 02 Nov '17 16:12
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    they absolutely didn't get upset on that but on the ludicrous revisionist notion that a compromise should have been reached on slavery. That however is more about your abysmal reading comprehension which i don't care to insist.

    on robert Lee's character, no, he wasn't honorable, he was a slavery apologist who viewed blacks as property
    https://books.goo ...[text shortened]... pure fiction)
    https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/robert-e-lee-and-union-black-pows/
    So would you say that Michelle Obama would not regard General Lee as a wonderful human being?

    YouTube : harvey
  5. 02 Nov '17 16:39
    As we all know, the Civil war was not caused by a lack of compromise.

    Only a buffoon would say that. No, the Civil war was a direct result of global warming.
  6. 02 Nov '17 18:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8-pY3n3MAs

    The youtube is with Samantha Bee and about Kelly's hilarious statement that "the Civil War happened because the americans couldn't reach a compromise".
    I wonder how a compromise on slavery would have looked. Mondays through Wednesdays? Every other weekend?
    Damn abolitionists being unreasonable.
    In fact, the US Civil War broke out not long after the famous Compromise of 1850.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

    "The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States
    Congress in September 1850, which defused a four-year political confrontation between
    slave and free states on the status of territories acquired during the Mexican–American
    War (1846–1848). The compromise, drafted by Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky and
    brokered by Clay and Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, reduced sectional conflict."

    "The Compromise proved widely popular politically, and both parties committed
    themselves in their platforms to the finality of the Compromise on sectional issues."
  7. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    02 Nov '17 19:39
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    In fact, the US Civil War broke out not long after the famous Compromise of 1850.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

    "The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States
    Congress in September 1850, which defused a four-year political confrontation between
    slave and free states on the status of ter ...[text shortened]... ommitted
    themselves in their platforms to the finality of the Compromise on sectional issues."
    "The Compromise proved widely popular politically, and both parties committed
    themselves in their platforms to the finality of the Compromise on sectional issues."


    Though factually correct, it's safe to say both parties' level of "commitment" was not extremely high, since a very long and destructive war followed a few years later.
  8. 02 Nov '17 20:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @mchill
    "The Compromise proved widely popular politically, and both parties committed
    themselves in their platforms to the finality of the Compromise on sectional issues."

    Though factually correct, it's safe to say both parties' level of "commitment" was not extremely high, since a very long and destructive war followed a few years later.
    Mchill's abysmal 'reading comprehension' strikes again!

    "In fact, the US Civil War broke out not long after the famous Compromise of 1850."
    --Duchess64 (in my previous post to which Mchill responded)

    "...both parties committed themselves in their platforms."
    --Wikipedia

    Does Mchill expect political parties to follow faithfully every commitment in their platforms?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Nov '17 21:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    In fact, the US Civil War broke out not long after the famous Compromise of 1850.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

    "The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States
    Congress in September 1850, which defused a four-year political confrontation between
    slave and free states on the status of ter ...[text shortened]... ommitted
    themselves in their platforms to the finality of the Compromise on sectional issues."
    Another party soon formed and its candidates won the Congress and the Presidency.

    It's fair to say that Republican Party had little use for the Compromise of 1850.

    The Civil War was caused by certain slave States being outraged that Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election. What "compromise" would have assuaged them is quite unclear.
  10. 02 Nov '17 21:43
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Another party soon formed and its candidates won the Congress and the Presidency.

    It's fair to say that Republican Party had little use for the Compromise of 1850.

    The Civil War was caused by certain slave States being outraged that Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election.
    What "compromise" would have assuaged them is quite unclear.
    John Kelly seems to have been brought up on a pro-Confederate narrative of the US Civil War.
    That was very common in the USA (even in the North), including in school textbooks.
  11. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    03 Nov '17 03:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Mchill's abysmal 'reading comprehension' strikes again!

    "In fact, the US Civil War broke out not long after the famous Compromise of 1850."
    --Duchess64 (in my previous post to which Mchill responded)

    "...both parties committed themselves in their platforms."
    --Wikipedia

    Does Mchill expect political parties to follow faithfully every commitment in their platforms?
    Does Mchill expect political parties to follow faithfully every commitment in their platforms?




    Mchill was not expecting anything Duchess. It was you who first mentioned the word "commitment" not I. Commitment is a matter of degree. If you could put your emotions aside for a moment you would notice that I was not disagreeing with what you wrote, only questioning the degree of commitment that both sides had.

    Introducing a point of information regarding a historical event is hardly an attack on you Duchess, it's sad that your dislike of white males clouds your judgement in these debates, especially since some of your posts are quite interesting.
  12. 03 Nov '17 10:10
    Originally posted by @whodey
    So would you say that Michelle Obama would not regard General Lee as a wonderful human being?

    [youtubeharvey]r5lTpmF924Y[/youtube]
    we are talking about john kelly, someone in a position of power in the government of the biggest military power in the world.

    what michelle obama said one time is irrelevant.
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    03 Nov '17 10:40
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    we are talking about john kelly, someone in a position of power in the government of the biggest military power in the world.

    what michelle obama said one time is irrelevant.
    I'm guessing that Michelle Obama is smarter than Trump's entire cabinet.
  14. 03 Nov '17 10:44
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    I'm guessing that Michelle Obama is smarter than Trump's entire cabinet.
    don't humor him. he is deflecting with the dumbest, oldest trick "yeah, but another person did this other thing".

    he can't defend what kelly did, so he doesn't.
  15. 03 Nov '17 20:24
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Does Mchill expect political parties to follow faithfully every commitment in their platforms?

    Mchill was not expecting anything Duchess. It was you who first mentioned the word "commitment" not I. Commitment is a matter of degree. If you could put your emotions aside for a moment you would notice that I was not disagreeing with what you wrote, only quest ...[text shortened]... ouds your judgement in these debates, especially since some of your posts are quite interesting.
    The racist troll Mchill spews more nonsense.

    "Introducing a point of information regarding a historical event is hardly an attack on you..."
    --Mchill

    In fact, Mchill 'introduced NO point of information' in his claim:
    "a very long and destructive war followed a few years later" [after the Compromise of 1850]

    I ALREADY had written:
    "In fact, the US Civil War broke out not long after the famous Compromise of 1850."