Discussion:
Reply To Rumpel
Add Reply
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 08:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .

This idea of slavery not being the war causeis very similar to
the current O'Riley situation.

To suggest that Bill was canned primarily because of his sexual
peccadilloes by the owners would be false. His canning was because
of money!

"Just weeks ago, “The O’Reilly Factor” was home to at least 30
nationally broadcast commercials each night, with giant sponsors
like Mercedes-Benz and Aleve. By last Tuesday, that number had
dwindled to 10, mainly small-budget spots for a pain relief cream
and a bedding retailer, MyPillow.com..."
b***@gmail.com
2017-04-21 08:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Yes, I realise I misspelled O'Reilly but only after the fact.
Gary
2017-04-21 13:00:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
There was no guilt on either side. Let's take this step by step. First of
all, (1) why did the South secede ? When they seceded, the South did not
invade the North. So (2) why did the North invade the South ?

(1) The rich planters wanted to form a new nation so they could re-open the
African slave-trade. And ... be able to make treaties with the other slave
countries. They would have named the country -- The Golden Circle.

(2) The North did not want the South to leave. As a separate country -- they
would do most of their trade with European countries -- who were cheaper. And
the Yankee factories would have gone broke.

The idea that anybody in 1861 cared anything about the slaves -- is misguided.
They were regarded as farm animals. No better --- no worse.
Cordle
2017-04-21 14:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
There was no guilt on either side. Let's take this step by step. First of
all, (1) why did the South secede ? When they seceded, the South did not
invade the North. So (2) why did the North invade the South ?
(1) The rich planters wanted to form a new nation so they could re-open the
African slave-trade. And ... be able to make treaties with the other slave
countries. They would have named the country -- The Golden Circle.
(2) The North did not want the South to leave. As a separate country -- they
would do most of their trade with European countries -- who were cheaper. And
the Yankee factories would have gone broke.
The idea that anybody in 1861 cared anything about the slaves -- is misguided.
They were regarded as farm animals. No better --- no worse.
They must have been very racist back then.
El Castor
2017-04-21 18:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
There was no guilt on either side. Let's take this step by step. First of
all, (1) why did the South secede ? When they seceded, the South did not
invade the North. So (2) why did the North invade the South ?
(1) The rich planters wanted to form a new nation so they could re-open the
African slave-trade. And ... be able to make treaties with the other slave
countries. They would have named the country -- The Golden Circle.
(2) The North did not want the South to leave. As a separate country -- they
would do most of their trade with European countries -- who were cheaper. And
the Yankee factories would have gone broke.
The idea that anybody in 1861 cared anything about the slaves -- is misguided.
They were regarded as farm animals. No better --- no worse.
I have at least one ancestor (from Minnesota) who fought for the
North. The Civil War was a terrible thing. The slaughter on both sides
was horrendous. The North should have just let the South go. Either
way, slavery would be a thing of the past.
Gary
2017-04-21 19:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
There was no guilt on either side. Let's take this step by step. First of
all, (1) why did the South secede ? When they seceded, the South did not
invade the North. So (2) why did the North invade the South ?
(1) The rich planters wanted to form a new nation so they could re-open the
African slave-trade. And ... be able to make treaties with the other slave
countries. They would have named the country -- The Golden Circle.
(2) The North did not want the South to leave. As a separate country -- they
would do most of their trade with European countries -- who were cheaper. And
the Yankee factories would have gone broke.
The idea that anybody in 1861 cared anything about the slaves -- is misguided.
They were regarded as farm animals. No better --- no worse.
I have at least one ancestor (from Minnesota) who fought for the
North. The Civil War was a terrible thing. The slaughter on both sides
was horrendous. The North should have just let the South go. Either
way, slavery would be a thing of the past.
It really was a tragic four years. About 700,000 American men died and
another 500,000 were wounded. Which meant it caused about 700,000 women to be
widowed or left in spinsterhood.

I have traced three of my Alabama family branches back to the war. One was
killed, one wounded and one taken prisoner. Two of those families had small
farms in 1861. By 1866 -- they had lost them to the occupying forces.

It is so sad they did not try to settle their disagreements by discussions and
compromises.
El Castor
2017-04-22 07:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by El Castor
Post by Gary
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
There was no guilt on either side. Let's take this step by step. First of
all, (1) why did the South secede ? When they seceded, the South did not
invade the North. So (2) why did the North invade the South ?
(1) The rich planters wanted to form a new nation so they could re-open the
African slave-trade. And ... be able to make treaties with the other slave
countries. They would have named the country -- The Golden Circle.
(2) The North did not want the South to leave. As a separate country -- they
would do most of their trade with European countries -- who were cheaper. And
the Yankee factories would have gone broke.
The idea that anybody in 1861 cared anything about the slaves -- is misguided.
They were regarded as farm animals. No better --- no worse.
I have at least one ancestor (from Minnesota) who fought for the
North. The Civil War was a terrible thing. The slaughter on both sides
was horrendous. The North should have just let the South go. Either
way, slavery would be a thing of the past.
It really was a tragic four years. About 700,000 American men died and
another 500,000 were wounded. Which meant it caused about 700,000 women to be
widowed or left in spinsterhood.
I have traced three of my Alabama family branches back to the war. One was
killed, one wounded and one taken prisoner. Two of those families had small
farms in 1861. By 1866 -- they had lost them to the occupying forces.
It is so sad they did not try to settle their disagreements by discussions and
compromises.
Yup. Most wars turn out to be a disaster for both sides.

I still have a letter from the Minnesota recruit, written to his
mother from what passed for boot camp. So far the high point of his
service in the Union army was a new pair of socks. (-8

rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 13:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
This idea of slavery not being the war causeis very similar to
the current O'Riley situation.
To suggest that Bill was canned primarily because of his sexual
peccadilloes by the owners would be false. His canning was because
of money!
"Just weeks ago, “The O’Reilly Factor” was home to at least 30
nationally broadcast commercials each night, with giant sponsors
like Mercedes-Benz and Aleve. By last Tuesday, that number had
dwindled to 10, mainly small-budget spots for a pain relief cream
and a bedding retailer, MyPillow.com..."
Yep. O'Relly wouldn't have been canned except
that all the tentacles hanging from him suddenly
became fearful that continuing to be associated
with him would damage their own bottom lines.
islander
2017-04-21 16:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
This idea of slavery not being the war causeis very similar to
the current O'Riley situation.
To suggest that Bill was canned primarily because of his sexual
peccadilloes by the owners would be false. His canning was because
of money!
"Just weeks ago, “The O’Reilly Factor” was home to at least 30
nationally broadcast commercials each night, with giant sponsors
like Mercedes-Benz and Aleve. By last Tuesday, that number had
dwindled to 10, mainly small-budget spots for a pain relief cream
and a bedding retailer, MyPillow.com..."
Yep. O'Relly wouldn't have been canned except
that all the tentacles hanging from him suddenly
became fearful that continuing to be associated
with him would damage their own bottom lines.
He got a $25M golden parachute, however. Between O'Reilly and Roger
Aires, Fox paid out a total of $65M to them in severance packages. It
hardly seems right that this is more than three times the total amount
paid out to their victims.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 18:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
This idea of slavery not being the war causeis very similar to
the current O'Riley situation.
To suggest that Bill was canned primarily because of his sexual
peccadilloes by the owners would be false. His canning was because
of money!
"Just weeks ago, “The O’Reilly Factor” was home to at least 30
nationally broadcast commercials each night, with giant sponsors
like Mercedes-Benz and Aleve. By last Tuesday, that number had
dwindled to 10, mainly small-budget spots for a pain relief cream
and a bedding retailer, MyPillow.com..."
Yep. O'Relly wouldn't have been canned except
that all the tentacles hanging from him suddenly
became fearful that continuing to be associated
with him would damage their own bottom lines.
He got a $25M golden parachute, however. Between O'Reilly and Roger
Aires, Fox paid out a total of $65M to them in severance packages. It
hardly seems right that this is more than three times the total amount
paid out to their victims.
O'Reilly probably made far more than that over his career.
I'm not familiar with Roger Aires, except for seeing his
name mentioned in this newsgroup once. Don't bother
telling me about him, because if he's anything like O'Reilly,
I wouldn't care - I don't want to get up with fleas.
mg
2017-04-21 19:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
In a reply to the topic of "Closet Atheists, Rumpel suggested that
slavery was not the cause of the Civil War or, as Gary would have
it, the "War of Northern Aggression" but rather money. Since slaves
were money, this is a distinction without a difference and, further,
Southern apologists have been peddling the notion that slavery was
not the proximate cause of the war in a effort to minimize the
guilt connected with the immorality of owning humans especially
if one professes a belief in Christianity as these hypocrites do. .
This idea of slavery not being the war causeis very similar to
the current O'Riley situation.
To suggest that Bill was canned primarily because of his sexual
peccadilloes by the owners would be false. His canning was because
of money!
"Just weeks ago, “The O’Reilly Factor” was home to at least 30
nationally broadcast commercials each night, with giant sponsors
like Mercedes-Benz and Aleve. By last Tuesday, that number had
dwindled to 10, mainly small-budget spots for a pain relief cream
and a bedding retailer, MyPillow.com..."
Yep. O'Relly wouldn't have been canned except
that all the tentacles hanging from him suddenly
became fearful that continuing to be associated
with him would damage their own bottom lines.
My guess is that it's because of threats from advertisers
and it's probably no more complicated than that, and it's
certainly not a matter of any ethical, or moral,
considerations.
Loading...