The Fifty First State

[Borachio]

Sorry, but it's Puerto Rico first, then England, Scotland and Wales followed by Israel.


We also don't want Northern Ireland.


.

Oi! Ain't happening. Come as a welcome tourist or immigrant if you please. Annexation? No bloody fear.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Link?


Okay, so you're saying he said it's good because you decided that you wanted to take it out of context in that form. Well, at least your an honest troll. It's rare to come across that type.

Not digging up a link for something that takes only a very small assumption on your part to believe.

As for taking it out of context, well my response was more in line with the quote you linked. And it's also pretty rare to find someone who sticks up for the most obnoxious posters of all time.

Oi! Ain't happening. Come as a welcome tourist or immigrant if you please. Annexation? No bloody fear.

Pretty please? It's only a matter of time before Hollywood saturates your brain enough to make you see the pleasant side of annexation in any case.

 

[NickyJ]

Not digging up a link for something that takes only a very small assumption on your part to believe.

If you can't back up your statements, your statements must not have anything to back them up.

As for taking it out of context, well my response was more in line with the quote you linked. And it's also pretty rare to find someone who sticks up for the most obnoxious posters of all time.

It takes one to know one.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If you can't back up your statements, your statements must not have anything to back them up.


It takes one to know one.

To both statements: Right?

Edit to avoid spam: You were like the first person to help me out when I first joined, I rather liked you.

 

[NickyJ]

You can't back up your statements, so you can't expect people to believe you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You can't back up your statements, so you can't expect people to believe you.

Can, but won't. As I said:

Not digging up a link for something that takes only a very small assumption on your part to believe.

Aside from one wild accusation I have made (and we can debate the merits of that over PM if you wish), I would like to think I don't come across as a random bs spam-posting troller who throws out needless garbage at people. Sarcastic, yes. Obnoxious, definitely. But if you won't take my word on what he said (with the explained context that I gave) then there's nothing else to it. I'm not digging up a thread when we both know it's perfectly in line with the many other statements he's made on CFC.

Edit: I do put thought into what I post but will readily admit to hyper-obnoxiousness when debating someone unworthy of any respect if only for the insensitivity and downright nonsensical nature of a vast majority of their posts (regarding GhostWriter16)

 

[Farm Boy]

It would be classy to edit out the last parenthetical part of your post.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It would be classy to edit out the last parenthetical part of your post.

Yes, but at the same time the whole conversation started about him and I don't want to give the impression that I'm talking about him but not talking about him or going behind his back while still in public. I struggled with including that or not but I decided full disclosure was best, especially given the multiple references to him through this mini-segment. I actually included it for the main reason that I didn't want to give NickyJ the impression that my edit was a sneaky back-handed reference to NickyJ, because, as I've said, I like him.

 

[NickyJ]

Can, but won't. As I said:

Aside from one wild accusation I have made (and we can debate the merits of that over PM if you wish), I would like to think I don't come across as a random bs spam-posting troller who throws out needless garbage at people. Sarcastic, yes. Obnoxious, definitely. But if you won't take my word on what he said (with the explained context that I gave) then there's nothing else to it. I'm not digging up a thread when we both know it's perfectly in line with the many other statements he's made on CFC.

I'm afraid that, just as hearsay doesn't stand in a court of law, neither does it stand here.

I do put thought into what I post but will readily admit to hyper-obnoxiousness when debating someone unworthy of any respect if only for the insensitivity and downright nonsensical nature of a vast majority of their posts (regarding GhostWriter16)

In that case, we have nothing left to say....

I actually included it for the main reason that I didn't want to give NickyJ the impression that my edit was a sneaky back-handed reference to NickyJ, because, as I've said, I like him.

....except to say that I am ashamed to hear that you like me, in light of the bolded words above.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ashamed of me or ashamed of you? Not playing word games - that was unclear.

 

[Core Imposter]

I am asserting an assumption, which is that the US will back Israel in any case, if invaded and overrun, 100% chance that the US would liberate, if struck with WMD, 100% chance that the US would retalitate. That being the case and a Caliphate a fait accompli, the only logical course of action is to give the Israel public the choice to exercise their democratic right to exchange sovereingty for security.

They might turn it down, but this is the path that best reduces the likelyhood of a general war. With China's tendrils sinking deeper into the world's oil supplies, Russia already committed to Iran, and acknowledging the strong ties that Europe has had in the Middle East and still retains economically, this is very much the clear signal that non-fundamentalists in the Middle East need to receive so that they will understand that they must push back against the current course of the radicals.

Now is the time to push our chips in the middle of the pot.

 

[Ironsided]

And you still accuse fundamental Muslims of being radical?

 

[NickyJ]

Ashamed of me or ashamed of you? Not playing word games - that was unclear.

Distort it in whatever way makes you feel better, since it "takes only a very small assumption" to distort it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Slavery is wrong, period. However, saying the Confederates were "Devoted" to maintaining slavery is a statement that directly leads to false connotations, mainly that the North was some kind of moral deliverer who wanted to free the slaves (Nevermind that the North didn't abolish slavery either.)

Plus, while I absolutely deplore slavery, I think most of the other CSA positions, mainly reduced Federal governmen involvement, were correct. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and his court basically manipulated the constitution to increase Federal power, which increased the wealth of the North. The South, rightfully, opposed this idea.

But the main reason I use the CSA flag on occasion is to simply spread the message that the right to secede is not, in fact, banned, and that the CSA were no more traitors than the Patriots.
Plus, horrible things were done in the name of the US flag as well, but we still patriotically defend it.

And finally, while I absolutely agree slavery is disgusting, it wasn't always like it is portrayed, many slaveowners had familial bonds with their slaves. It was big plantation owners that really abued them [assumption being only big plantation owners abused them, added by Hobbsyoyo]. And for the ones who were treated nicely, due to racist attitudes at the time, short of going to Canada, there was no better option for them.

In short, while slavery is completely evil, there's a bit more to the whole thing than you know. Not that I really expect someone from Britain who doesn't have a serious academic interest in American History to know the details. A lot of Americans falsely believe the same things you do about the CSA.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459436&page=8
post #144

Boom.

Oh, and by the way, he wasn't just talking about Biblical slavery, he was talking about SLAVERY IN THE USA/CSA. And making that the point that CSA wasn't all that bad or wrong.

Awaiting your apology...oh wait, that makes a very small assumption on my part, namely that you aren't a self-serving hipocrit. Do you want me to find all of the baseless/unsourced assertions you have made? At least mine have fact behind them.

Really did like you NickJ.

 

[Farm Boy]

Seems to me like like you are adding a lot in there hobbsy. If the goal of this great exercise in forum boarding is to exchange ideas the appropriate place to do so would be in response to a post rather than a random pull from a different thread. Lets even forget the the American Civil War is a big issue and trying to make that point that the CSA was all bad or wrong is almost certainly going to wind up being something of an overstatement.

 

[peter grimes]

@GhostWriter16:
if you are sincere in this:

the main reason I use the CSA flag on occasion is to simply spread the message that the right to secede is not, in fact, banned, and that the CSA were no more traitors than the Patriots.

..then you may want to reconsider. Because despite your intentions, the confederate flag is universally seen as a symbol of the south's desire to cling to the slavery economy. Perhaps that's unfair, but that's the way it is.

Other things also have unfortunate negative connotations due to purely accidental historical contingencies. Charlie Chaplin in the 2nd most recognized person to have sported a widely popular style of facial hair. Know who the 1st most recognized person is?

So imagine, if you will, a vegetarian growing a 'Hitler Moustache' in order to raise awareness of vegetarianism, but then acting offended when people assume he's a Nazi.
"What?? You think this is about lebensraum, aryanism, and the jewish problem? No, silly! I'm a vegetarian! Where on earth did you get all those other crazy ideas??"

This is EXACTLY what you're doing when you choose a confederate flag but then claim anything other than slavery.

Get real. The 'rebel' flag is a symbol of slavery, white supremacy, and racism - rightly or wrongly - and claiming you are using it in a different aspect is pedantry that will be lost on 99% of forum users. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you know this, which is why I'm calling you out on it.

So go ahead and use it, just realize that EVERYONE will be reading it as an endorsement of slavery, as opposed to your ostensible claim of something or other about a state's right to secede from blah blah blah... and you really have no valid reason to protest our protestations.

Maybe you should make an avatar that more clearly represents your views on a state's right to secede so that the rest of us can understand it at a glance... maybe an embryo extracting itself from the uterine lining? Or one of the apostles fleeing the Last Supper tableau?

 

[NickyJ]

Hobbs, I really am disappointed with your reading comprehension:

Slavery is wrong, period. However, saying the Confederates were "Devoted" to maintaining slavery is a statement that directly leads to false connotations, mainly that the North was some kind of moral deliverer who wanted to free the slaves (Nevermind that the North didn't abolish slavery either.)

Plus, while I absolutely deplore slavery, I think most of the other CSA positions, mainly reduced Federal governmen involvement, were correct. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and his court basically manipulated the constitution to increase Federal power, which increased the wealth of the North. The South, rightfully, opposed this idea.

But the main reason I use the CSA flag on occasion is to simply spread the message that the right to secede is not, in fact, banned, and that the CSA were no more traitors than the Patriots.
Plus, horrible things were done in the name of the US flag as well, but we still patriotically defend it.

And finally, while I absolutely agree slavery is disgusting, it wasn't always like it is portrayed, many slaveowners had familial bonds with their slaves. It was big plantation owners that really abused them. And for the ones who were treated nicely, due to racist attitudes at the time, short of going to Canada, there was no better option for them.

In short, while slavery is completely evil, there's a bit more to the whole thing than you know. Not that I really expect someone from Britain who doesn't have a serious academic interest in American History to know the details. A lot of Americans falsely believe the same things you do about the CSA.

By all means, please tell us where he said that "slavery wasn't all a bad thing." Enlighten us!

 

[Verarde]

The only time slavery is a good thing is when you're whipping in a nice wonder in Civ4.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hobbs, I really am disappointed with your reading comprehension:



By all means, please tell us where he said that "slavery wasn't all a bad thing." Enlighten us!

Yup. Ignore the bolded part that had direct relevance to the original statement that I posted that sparked the whole conversation. But please, use more large fonts and colors while you do so, and male sure to also ignore the context of the conversation. It makes your inability to defend your statements all the more glaring.

 

[NickyJ]

So pointing out that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery is saying that "slavery wasn't all a bad thing"?