Heh.

“But what will we have to protect us from the enemy bullets?”
“Well, the Lord’ll be there.”

Ha!

Darwinism at its best.

Reminded me of Fuck the South.

Reply

I wish it were Darwinsim at its best. Unfortunately the Southern Baptists and Southern Apologists just aren’t crazy enough to drink the kool-aid just yet.

But this is the general gist of what any modern Confederacy loon talks about these days. Basically they lost an election and their opinions about owning other human beings as property to kill and rape at a whim were no longer the majority in the union.

Point 1: Not all people in the south owned slaves and therefore the South weren’t the racist ones – pffft. What does this prove? Besides that black people were seen as a physical and economic commodity in the south. Wow.

Point 2: Lincoln said something about while black people should be free but not allowed to be married or vote in elections. – And yet, he was killed for being a radical leftist who couldn’t be convinced by irrational southerners who thought of blacks as being even less deserving of what Lincoln wanted for them.

Point 3: The North attacked first. – The south committed a federal crime against the union by claiming unlawful mandate over federal lands. The union responded as it should have.

Point 4: States rights – UTTER BULLSHIT. States rights only come into play when the states don’t like what the higher courts rule. Here’s a hint about what States’ Rights actually means to the right-wing. No states right advocate ever complained about the intervention of federal courts when the state of Florida said Terri Schiavo’s plug could be legally pulled.

Reply

I seem to recall, in regards to Point 3 by Zenrage, South Carolina attacking Fort Sumter (spelling might need work) first before the “Damn Yanks” attacked the South. I could be mistaken though. But not as mistaken as that n00b in the video. 😉

Reply

Holy crap, people are fucking ignorant. More importantly Americans are ignorant of their own history, I’ve asked a few people and they are REALLY convinced that christianity was involved in the conception of the U.S. in more than a “Yeah, we had that” manner, as if it had a direct affect on the decisions made by the founding fathers other than “We don’t want to be like that, and no we aren’t going to have a major religion.” The separation of church(or crutch as I like to think about it) from state is a fundamental building block of the U.S. government, always has been, always should be.

I don’t think any trying to claim that any denomination was supposed to be built into the the U.S. constitution from the ground up, is well-meaning, I think they are in fact trying to get more power for the church that they are representing.

I’m also inclined to believe that the churches of today have far far too much power in the political arena, otherwise politicians wouldn’t have to claim that they go to church on Sundays, I also don’t think that going to a church is a qualifier for determining if you want a person in office or not, since being religious does not mean they are any good at being a leader, nor is it a way to judge if a person is good or not.

Reply