Tell your brother that it is okay if he sticks to the gaming forum.
Wouldn't want to upset the applecart.
Give me the highlights.
Quote from: Jaron on April 24, 2010, 11:14:53 PM
Give me the highlights.
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree in Habakkuk's family.
So Jonas is Habbaku's brother? :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on April 25, 2010, 02:34:13 AM
So Jonas is Habbaku's brother? :huh:
A constant reminder why the Union marched through Georgia.
What's with the hate?
Is this the thread for one-liners?
I don't mind polio boy. He seems to suit languish just fine.
Viking, change period to semicolon plz.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 25, 2010, 10:32:15 AM
Viking, change period to semicolon plz.
I'm not conforming. To your one liner diktat.
Quote from: Viking on April 25, 2010, 10:28:54 AM
I don't mind polio boy. He seems to suit languish just fine.
Yeah, I like it when people are completely uninteresting.
Quote from: garbon on April 25, 2010, 11:20:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 25, 2010, 10:28:54 AM
I don't mind polio boy. He seems to suit languish just fine.
Yeah, I like it when people are completely uninteresting.
:hug:
Quote from: The Brain on April 25, 2010, 03:54:21 AM
What's with the hate?
Razgovry doesn't like it that I dared to defend secession in any form from any nation at all. So rather than argue like a man, he chose to engage in random attacks and namecalling, which appears to be what many of this forum's members engage in regularly. So like a good lad, I joined in on the fun and some people got sand in their vaginas over it. Raz knows absolutely nothing about me beyond my familial relationship with Habbaku, but apparently that's enough for some of this forum's members to stereotype and name-call pointlessly.
You realize Raz is cuckoo, right?
And since when is name calling pointless anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2010, 12:53:58 PM
And since when is name calling pointless anyway?
I agree with Dickhead from New York here
I'm not a big fan of Jonas Salk's RACIDISTIC avatar. Nor of his goddamned vaccine. :mad:
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 25, 2010, 12:33:23 PM
Razgovry doesn't like it that I dared to defend secession in any form from any nation at all.
He's right.
Anyone who defends any secession from a democratic country is a retard and an idiot.
USA = Republic :)
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:00:09 PM
Anyone who defends any secession from a democratic country is a retard and an idiot.
Not at all. :huh:
It's just trying to defend secession in order to preserve slavery that is retarded.
:yes:
NUNAVUT INDEPENDENCE :punk:
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2010, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:00:09 PM
Anyone who defends any secession from a democratic country is a retard and an idiot.
Not at all. :huh:
It's just trying to defend secession in order to preserve slavery that is retarded.
I disagree. I am not talking about a secession that is done within the democratic/constitutional process, but as a unilateral decision by some "nation" or its representatives that is not a sovereign. If a government of Canada decides to let Quebec go, then it is fine. If some more or less arbitrary group of people decides to "secede" from a democratic country, they are either criminals or madmen, and should be dealt with accordingly.
@Marti - How do you feel about: Slovakia. I think that was done with the approval of the Czechs, but I'm just curious and all.
Another Bugs Bunny reference wasted, WASTED on the youth of today. That's right, I'm talking to you.
Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2010, 02:07:28 PM
I always thought he was more of a dark red myself. :huh:
Me? No, I think you're thinking of Princesca (a.k.a. my Cherokee maiden). :)
Cal looks more like a hair ball.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2010, 02:11:20 PM
Another Bugs Bunny reference wasted, WASTED on the youth of today. That's right, I'm talking to you.
I've been busy today.
:hug:
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2010, 02:11:20 PM
Another Bugs Bunny reference wasted, WASTED on the youth of today. That's right, I'm talking to you.
I just took your Bugs reference, and went in a different direction. Is that so wrong?
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:06:44 PMI disagree. I am not talking about a secession that is done within the democratic/constitutional process, but as a unilateral decision by some "nation" or its representatives that is not a sovereign. If a government of Canada decides to let Quebec go, then it is fine. If some more or less arbitrary group of people decides to "secede" from a democratic country, they are either criminals or madmen, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Yeah, only the people already in charge should decide whether its minorities get self-determination or not. Goddamn minorities always fucking things up.
America just needs to rejoin the United Kingdom, then. Montenegro should be violently forced back into union with Serbia. Kosovo/a too. Shall I go on?
This is a fairly pro-union board. Also pro-Israel, but only when siegy isn't around. Then the Israelis are just Chinese lackeys.
Habbaku is not Habs. :mad: Even if he doesn't post here anymore, Habsburg has a permanent claim on that contraction.
Interesting, martinus. So what matters to you is that Canada lets quebec go democratically, instead of Quebec's wishes in the matter? What if Quebec voted to stay in the union but was kicked out?
What if Quebec voted to leave by an overwhelming majority but Canadians voted to keep it in?
Just wondering, what if Russia votes tomorrow to add Poland to the federation? To make things fair, the Poles can have a vote as well.
All fucking secessionistas must fucking hang. This board is Unionist, and built to stay that way.
You don't like it, seceed to EUOT.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 25, 2010, 05:52:27 PM
Habbaku is not Habs. :mad: Even if he doesn't post here anymore, Habsburg has a permanent claim on that contraction.
Yeah, I thought that was strange as well.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 25, 2010, 06:10:24 PM
Interesting, martinus. So what matters to you is that Canada lets quebec go democratically, instead of Quebec's wishes in the matter? What if Quebec voted to stay in the union but was kicked out?
What if Quebec voted to leave by an overwhelming majority but Canadians voted to keep it in?
The wishes of the population of Quebec are less important than those of the country as a whole.
QuoteJust wondering, what if Russia votes tomorrow to add Poland to the federation? To make things fair, the Poles can have a vote as well.
Russia would have to have the military strength to occupy Poland and the moral strength to enforce their laws and collect their taxes.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 25, 2010, 05:52:27 PM
Habbaku is not Habs. :mad: Even if he doesn't post here anymore, Habsburg has a permanent claim on that contraction.
I didn't feel like typing an extra B, since as you said, Habsburg is almost never here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2010, 06:21:11 PM
All fucking secessionistas must fucking hang. This board is Unionist, and built to stay that way.
You don't like it, seceed to EUOT.
Nonsense, we seceded here from there in the first place. :contract:
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 25, 2010, 04:28:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2010, 02:06:44 PMI disagree. I am not talking about a secession that is done within the democratic/constitutional process, but as a unilateral decision by some "nation" or its representatives that is not a sovereign. If a government of Canada decides to let Quebec go, then it is fine. If some more or less arbitrary group of people decides to "secede" from a democratic country, they are either criminals or madmen, and should be dealt with accordingly.
Yeah, only the people already in charge should decide whether its minorities get self-determination or not. Goddamn minorities always fucking things up.
The irony of arguing for the right of the south to secede so they can own slaves on the basis of minority rights is really quite impressive.
This board hates unions!
And the Union! I can't stand MSil.
Quote from: Caliga on April 25, 2010, 02:09:10 PM
@Marti - How do you feel about: Slovakia. I think that was done with the approval of the Czechs, but I'm just curious and all.
I thought it was unnecessary. I didn't see the point.
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 25, 2010, 04:28:07 PM
Yeah, only the people already in charge should decide whether its minorities get self-determination or not. Goddamn minorities always fucking things up.
America just needs to rejoin the United Kingdom, then.
Last time I checked, people in American colonies had no say in the British government or British elections. Hence the system was not democratic, which was my main criterion. Besides, are you saying that Americans were an "ethnic minority" and that's why they rebelled? :lol:
For the record, I don't think minorities have any innate "self-determination" rights (if only because they are often completely arbitrary groups that can be theoretically divided into even smaller minorities infinitely, and it would be unworkable to argue every such smaller and smaller group has such "rights").
What matters is an existence of a democratic one-man-one-vote system and equality under law - as long as these criteria are met (i.e. a vote of a member of a minority is worth as much as a vote of a member of the majority; and members of a minority are not persecuted or have less rights than members of the majority) there is no reason whatsoever to argue that some minority group has a right to overrule the majority's will and unilaterally rebel. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2010, 01:09:53 AM
For the record, I don't think minorities have any innate "self-determination" rights (if only because they are often completely arbitrary groups that can be theoretically divided into even smaller minorities infinitely, and it would be unworkable to argue every such smaller and smaller group has such "rights").
What matters is an existence of a democratic one-man-one-vote system and equality under law - as long as these criteria are met (i.e. a vote of a member of a minority is worth as much as a vote of a member of the majority; and members of a minority are not persecuted or have less rights than members of the majority) there is no reason whatsoever to argue that some minority group has a right to overrule the majority's will and unilaterally rebel. :huh:
Well it is not THAT simple: what about for example an ethnic minority's use of its own language? If they can't use it in education or town halls, they dont have less rights than the majority, yet they are restricted.
Comparing the ACW to the American revolution fails on two counts, I think.
1. When the rights of a population or group are not being fairly accounted for, the first recourse is clearly the agreed upon political system in place. When this system is representative, the claim that there is a need to go outside the system for redress is very dubious. The South had perfectly fair (even unfair over-representation if anything) in the political system of the United States. This is not at all similar to the American colonies under British rule, where the colonists were not allowed equal representation to have their grievances heard.
2. Assuming that you cannot resolve your issues through the system in place, the only other choice becomes revolution and rebellion. At this point, your ability to win that freedom via force becomes the recourse - might makes right, under the circumstances of the time. So the American colonies won their war, which proves that they had the right to wage it to begin with. The South failed, which proves they did not have the right to begin with.
However, #2 is pretty obviously not ethically satisfactory - but it is the practical reality.
The first is the key though - the South was not some minority that was oppressed - quite the opposite in fact, where the South had political power far greater than their actual population warranted, and hence the succession of compromises and accommodations the North made throughout the first half of the 19th century. It was not the denial of fair say in their governance that pushed the south to rebel, but rather the realization that their over-representation would not protect their Peculiar Institution forever in the face of the continued expansion of the non-slave-holding states.