Southern/Retarded

didn't sadic grow up in brooklyn? there are tons of neighborhood pubs in NYC.

 

Sure there are. There are tons here too.

 

You really don't know shit about this if those are the places you listed.

 

Apple, I don't consider you a black person. You white.

 

Agreed, so all things considered, it's not really correct to say one region has greater poverty than onother until you clarify how you're dividing up the regions. So we've made a huge circle and arrived at....my original point.

Indusrty can't survive without agriculture. And when your ecomnomy has been built around it...you don't just 'decide' to become an industrial society. You are really trying to simplify an issue that's just not that simple.

WTF are you talking about?? There was great debate from the Constitution's signing of what sovereignty the states would be giving up....hell, it goes on today. Read The Federalist Papers, it is a series of essays about this very topic. The States Rights proponents believed, and correctly I think, that the parties to the agreement we know as the Constitution, were entering into a contract with each other, to forfeit, SOME of their state sovereignty in order to function as a greater whole. BUT...the rights not relegated to a federal government (and during that time the states kept most), still belonged to the states. And since the Southern states felt like they were getting shafted (which, let's face it...they were), they decided to assert their sovereign right to leave the union. Legal scholars typically agree that the right to secede from the Union was not prohibited in the original contract, so contrary to your assertion, the Southern States sovereignty was recognized and is to this day. So the Union invaded the Southern states for exercising their legal rights. I would call that an agressive action. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, it is.(see above)

To this point, you are right, I should probably have just let sadic make an ass of himself. He really didn't need my help, but I just have very little tolerance for dumbasses.

The absurdity of the third sentance contradicts the first, and makes my point for me...you don't choose your heritage, it is what it is.

Look mag, I have respect for you and I believe you typically post well-thought posts most of the time. You very seldom are argumentative, and don't seem to post crap with any ulterior motives. I also realize this thread has gone way beyond MAC and cheese. But, as a proud southerner, I get a little tired of loud-mouth jackasses trying to run down our culture. And I will defend my heritage.

 

Your point being that you divided up the regions to suit your argument rather than doing so fairly? Was that it? Because "only this and this, oh, and you get WVa so I can skew the numbers" doesn't really work.

Since you stated it in a few sentences yourself, it sounds like you want to just write it off. No, the entire nation wasn't agricultural. The south was, and there was a fair portion in the north, but certainly, it does seem that about 1/3 of total revenue did "just decide" to go do it. The free market, it really does work that way. Ingenuity beats status quo.

debate? giving up? That doesn't sound like sovereignty, that sounds like hoping for it. Meanwhile, there's no doubting the sovereignty of the union. Individual sovereignty? Sure. CSA? No.

Agreed. However, the Constitution didn't say anything about forming a rivaling nation, drawn basically across party lines, and without the general consent of the people. Both sides interfered with the voting process, though I'd say that the southern states' exercise of having basically only slave-owning land owners vote was past rationality. The people overall were not consulted.

Agreed. The Tariff acts of 1828, 1832 were unfair to the southern states. However, slavery was universally unfair. One wrong doesn't absolve another, but realistically, the acts were trying to force a hand that needed to be forced.

I can't say the US troops should've remained in South Carolina, though the US intention was to keep the Union together. I can't blame them. But pretending that there was only one side that was agressive? Pretending the south, politically, wasn't pulling the same shit? Both sides obviously screwed up every step of the way, right from the turn of the century. Southern states were threatening secession at every step that someone attempted to work against slavery, and were holding up western expansion.
Calling it "war of northern agression" suggests that the south did absolutely nothing. In other words, it shows that you have more of a strengthened tie to defending something than being rational.
it's like pretending 'state's rights' was about anything other than the obvious.

So you're competing with him? Just fucking with you. Overall, I don't get why macaroni and cheese would be so revered, and/or poverty so celebrated, but I don't actually see any of it happening.

So tell me about the rest of your heritage, then. What identifies you racially? That's the thing I find absurd. It's not like every 'proud southerner' was magically created out of thin air somewhere in Georgia in 1855. You came from somewhere. Somewhere with a great heritage, somewhere with a heritage that was probably once ruled by Romans, sacked by Vikings, and probably saw the French defeated. Somewhere where something actually significant in history happened.

Something where a forefather of your own blood sacrificed for his entire life to buy a few seats on a treacherous boat ride to give his family a bit better life and/or escape religious persecution.

That's heritage to me. Where I was born is a small part of how I identify my own heritage, and how I sided on a five year civil war 140 years ago isn't, to me. That five years is a knot in the wood compared to thousands.

And that's what I'm saying there with the Madonna thing. Of course it's ridiculous - it's supposed to be ridiculous. Here's a person who started out a greasy Italian mix, like sadic, and who just up and decided to become British, and now that's what she is.

I'm just showing you, as I tried to show Fred in one of the fifty other N-S threads started this week, that the whole "you've gotta be tolerant to my heritage and my land" doesn't work without being tolerant of the differences between yourself and others. It just shows that bias in you and makes you look unable to accept anyone from north of you.

Obnoxious people are obnoxious. People who are stupid enough to tell you how you should be doing something are stupid. Defining that person, any person, with a bias of your own isn't their issue. Trust me, I've met some awfully stupid, obnoxious Yankees. And I've met some Rednecks to beat all. But they're going to be stupid no matter where they're from.

But specifically toward sadic, sure. He earned that.

blah. Whatever. I think I'm done, before kozel comes back to tell me that "we've been over this" again

 

:1piss2: :1piss:

 

Are we still talking about Macaroni Cheese? I got to a post that said "open a box" and skipped the rest of the thread. When you make it from scratch - what do you do? I think I make mine entirely different. I have a feeling we've gone past the macaroni issue - but eh.

 

Pretty much true. Deep fried anything is influenced by the african slaves, who did most of the cooking on the plantations.

 

Lobsters.
Long ago, lobsters were so plentiful that Native Americans used them to fertilize their fields and to bait their hooks for fishing. In colonial times, lobsters were considered "poverty food." They were harvested from tidal pools and served to children, to prisoners, and to indentured servants, who exchanged their passage to America for seven years of service to their sponsors. In Massachusetts, some of the servants finally rebelled. They had it put into their contracts that they would not be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.