Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Thought about whether to post this link in Politics or in Locker Room and decided on Politics because political issues such as how much a State spends on education come up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/0 ... d=webmail2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Delaware #34!

Of the states the site ranked in its top five for education, four of them were also in the top 10 for "Total Current Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Day Schools per Student,"

No Kidding.

If Washington State could FLUSH the Eastern half of the state down the toilet nothing would hold this Great State back....

South Carolina teacher uses Rush Limbaugh in 3rd grade curriculum

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ar/375633/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going to assume they're toward the bottom of the list...

Skjellyfetti wrote:South Carolina teacher uses Rush Limbaugh in 3rd grade curriculum

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ar/375633/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going to assume they're toward the bottom of the list...

Low 40s.

Meanwhile, California is 39?

Skjellyfetti wrote:South Carolina teacher uses Rush Limbaugh in 3rd grade curriculum

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ar/375633/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going to assume they're toward the bottom of the list...

As you'll recall, the war was preceded by the brutal, centuries-long enslavement of black people, as well as the secession of numerous states, like South Carolina, that hoped to perpetuate slavery and white supremacy forever more.

Oh for fucks sake.

Ibanez wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:South Carolina teacher uses Rush Limbaugh in 3rd grade curriculum

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ar/375633/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going to assume they're toward the bottom of the list...

As you'll recall, the war was preceded by the brutal, centuries-long enslavement of black people, as well as the secession of numerous states, like South Carolina, that hoped to perpetuate slavery and white supremacy forever more.

Oh for fucks sake.

What do you have a problem with there? It's true.

Maybe South Carolinians should read things like this instead... written by the father of South Carolina secession.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/calhoun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kansas is used as a poster child by Democrats for all that is wrong with Republican policies but according to this their school system ranking was 5th while their spending ranking was 34th.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote:


Oh for fucks sake.

What do you have a problem with there? It's true.

Maybe South Carolinians should read things like this instead... written by the father of South Carolina secession.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/calhoun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's the White Supremacy line. It's the disassociating the North from slavery. It's the disassociating the fact that the Civil War was unpopular in the North. It's the fact that roughly 1% of Americans that owned slaves and because they owned slaves, that means everyone was a slave owning, black person loathing, white supremacists. Out of the 5.5 million southerners, only approx. 320K of them owned slaves (and those are numbers from the Census). I saw a stat a while ago that 98% of Texans that fought never owned slaves. That is the truth. History LOVES to lump all the Southerners in as one, slave holding group when in fact, the slave holding was a population minority yet the political majority.

You have to be absolutely ignorant to think of the approx. 400k dead and wounded Confederates, were fighting to keep slaves they never knew, owned or had any connection to. Same goes with all those Union soldiers. You and Jon may call it revisionist, but it's the truth. Poor, yeoman farmers, dock workers, day laborers like my 4x Great Grandfather were not fighting to keep blacks enslaved. Countless letters and diaries prove that.


When the south, producing almost 75% of all US exports leaves, it's understandable to go fighting for them. The causes were Slavery/Economics. End of fucking story.

The South should never had seceded. I've stated that many times. But there's apart of our history which isn't taught properly. It all gets white-washed as, "The south wanted to keep slaves, so they left." In the simplest definition, that's true. But when you go deep and see that the North wasn't following laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, you see a pattern forming that's more robust than, " I'm a gonna keep my negroes." When you see that the abolitionist movement was quite small, but with powerful sponsors you get better idea of the culture. When you read (if you're even taught!) about the race riots in the North, Maryland being occupied by the Army, Lincoln advocating the transfer of blacks to Panama or Africa, Lincoln shutting down/imprisoning northern newspapers and people critical of him, NYC wanting to secede, Lincoln stating his white supremacist views on blacks, The fact that getting Congress to abolish slavery was difficult, the lie that the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. Oh it freed slaves in the 10 states the US was losing control over, but allowed slavery to remain in the Border and Northern states where it still existed. Hell, the Europeans ran articles on that folly.

How about the fact that in 1861, Congress passed the 13th Amendment that would legalize and perpetuate slavery?! History books never tell you that. They don't tell you that Congress tried to do what it could to avoid war.

The fact that Lincoln had difficulty in gaining passage of the amendment towards the closing months of the war and after his Emancipation Proclamation had been in effect 12 full months, is illustrative. There was still a reasonably large body of the northern people, or at least their elected representatives, that were either indifferent towards, or directly opposed to, freeing the slaves

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



So forgive me, if I think a blanket statement like the one I quoted, is a tad ridiculous.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote:


Oh for fucks sake.

What do you have a problem with there? It's true.

Maybe South Carolinians should read things like this instead... written by the father of South Carolina secession.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/calhoun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And for the record, Rush Limbaugh as a teachers aide is beyond comical. But, living in Summerville, I totally see it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote:


Oh for fucks sake.

What do you have a problem with there? It's true.

Maybe South Carolinians should read things like this instead... written by the father of South Carolina secession.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/calhoun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aren't you from Alabama, #49?

Ibanez wrote:But when you go deep and see that the North wasn't following laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, you see a pattern forming that's more robust than, " I'm a gonna keep my negroes."

Can you provide a little more detail on how the North not following the Fugitive Slave Act impacted this? My perspective is that the Act was a huge imposition on the rights of northern states with potential parallels to modern issues such as gay marriage (what if the Feds required a conservative state to recognize a gay marriage certificate from another state). I also found it ironic and hypocritical that the southern states would crow about state's rights but had no problem imposing their beliefs on other states. I'm willing to read and learn if my perspective is wrong.

Chizzang wrote:If Washington State could FLUSH the Eastern half of the state down the toilet nothing would hold this Great State back....

Cheney school district is ranked amongst the top public schools in the nation. And I'll have you know that the Harvard of the Palouse is the fastest growing school in the state and ranked 60 in directional universities. So yeah...so you can go suck a hipster fatty while we should off your power supply and feed apples, potatoes, and wine to the rest of the world.

ASUG8 wrote:
Aren't you from Alabama, #49?

Yup. And, that's what forms the basis of a lot of my political positions.

I am from Alabama... but, I didn't attend public schools... though, public school was used as a threat if I ever didn't receive great grades: "No Cs on your next report card or you're going to Jefferson Davis!"

Private schools in Montgomery were all formed after integration. White families that could afford to took their kids out of public schools and put them in private schools.

And, Alabama has been cutting funding for public schools ever since. And, that's why they have the #49 ranking.

Skjellyfetti wrote:South Carolina teacher uses Rush Limbaugh in 3rd grade curriculum

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ar/375633/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going to assume they're toward the bottom of the list...

Well, the book won him the author of the year from the Children's Book Council and the Every Child a Reader Foundation, but I'm sure those organizations are just a bunch of obscure far right-wing bible thumping gun nuts, right?

And, for Ibanez : sorry I can't go into this too much more at the moment.

But, I wasn't saying (and I don't think the article was saying) that most Confederate troops were fighting to keep slavery intact. I certainly don't believe that. Like you, I had many ancestors that fought for the South and none of them owned slaves.

But, the people that actually made the decision for secession and made the decision to go to war DID overwhelmingly own slaves. Slavery was given as a primary motivation for secession by almost all the states.

And, it was the "cornerstone" of the new nation according to their Vice President

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

When I talk about the South fighting for slavery - I'm not talking about the foot soldiers. I'm talking about the men in power who were slaveholders and drummed up support to fight their war. And, I also don't think the primary motivation of the North was to free the slaves. But, the primary motivation of the secession of the Southern states was to keep slavery and secure it in perpetuity.

Skjellyfetti wrote:What do you have a problem with there? It's true.

Maybe South Carolinians should read things like this instead... written by the father of South Carolina secession.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/fitz/COURSES/calhoun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's third grade reading material, Jelly?

Rush's books are written for kids.

Skjellyfetti wrote:And, for Ibanez : sorry I can't go into this too much more at the moment.

But, I wasn't saying (and I don't think the article was saying) that most Confederate troops were fighting to keep slavery intact. I certainly don't believe that. Like you, I had many ancestors that fought for the South and none of them owned slaves.

But, the people that actually made the decision for secession and made the decision to go to war DID overwhelmingly own slaves. Slavery was given as a primary motivation for secession by almost all the states.

And, it was the "cornerstone" of the new nation according to their Vice President

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

When I talk about the South fighting for slavery - I'm not talking about the foot soldiers. I'm talking about the men in power who were slaveholders and drummed up support to fight their war. And, I also don't think the primary motivation of the North was to free the slaves. But, the primary motivation of the secession of the Southern states was to keep slavery and secure it in perpetuity.

And of course, there were no wealthy interests pulling strings in the North. Nope, all of it was the action of a real-life, comic-book hero, Abraham Lincoln.

Pwns wrote: And of course, there were no wealthy interests pulling strings in the North. Nope, all of it was the action of a real-life, comic-book hero, Abraham Lincoln.

Did I say anything close to that? I specifically said that I don't believe the abolition of slavery was the primary motivation of the North.

War is never waged for pure reasons. I don't think the North was wholly right. But, the "Lost Cause" myth that still pervades in the South needs to be eradicated.

Skjellyfetti wrote:And, for Ibanez : sorry I can't go into this too much more at the moment.

But, I wasn't saying (and I don't think the article was saying) that most Confederate troops were fighting to keep slavery intact. I certainly don't believe that. Like you, I had many ancestors that fought for the South and none of them owned slaves.

But, the people that actually made the decision for secession and made the decision to go to war DID overwhelmingly own slaves. Slavery was given as a primary motivation for secession by almost all the states.

And, it was the "cornerstone" of the new nation according to their Vice President

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

When I talk about the South fighting for slavery - I'm not talking about the foot soldiers. I'm talking about the men in power who were slaveholders and drummed up support to fight their war. And, I also don't think the primary motivation of the North was to free the slaves. But, the primary motivation of the secession of the Southern states was to keep slavery and secure it in perpetuity.

I understand and agree with you (as it seems you agree with me). The Political Majority was the population minority in terms of slave ownership. FWIW, Lincoln said many times that blacks were not equal to whites. It was a common idea back in the 1800s. That's who they were.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote: And of course, there were no wealthy interests pulling strings in the North. Nope, all of it was the action of a real-life, comic-book hero, Abraham Lincoln.

Did I say anything close to that? I specifically said that I don't believe the abolition of slavery was the primary motivation of the North.

War is never waged for pure reasons. I don't think the North was wholly right. But, the "Lost Cause" myth that still pervades in the South needs to be eradicated.

"Lost Cause" is so full of shit. I'm proud to be from the south and from South Carolina but secession was such a bad play. Now, if they had freed the slaves and then seceded, that'd be an interesting discussion. If these hicks that want to live in a confederacy actually read the laws, they'd secede from that!

UNI88 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:But when you go deep and see that the North wasn't following laws like the Fugitive Slave Act, you see a pattern forming that's more robust than, " I'm a gonna keep my negroes."

Can you provide a little more detail on how the North not following the Fugitive Slave Act impacted this? My perspective is that the Act was a huge imposition on the rights of northern states with potential parallels to modern issues such as gay marriage (what if the Feds required a conservative state to recognize a gay marriage certificate from another state). I also found it ironic and hypocritical that the southern states would crow about state's rights but had no problem imposing their beliefs on other states. I'm willing to read and learn if my perspective is wrong.

I see it this way: A southern slave owner would perceive, the free states, by failing to returned escaped slaves, as circumnavigating the law and imposing their will on the states. It is rather hypocritical of them, but hey, thems the breaks.

You draw an interesting parallel. Here's another one. In 1860, Democrats were convinced that the election of Lincoln would ruin the country, destroy everything our fathers had built and incite slave rebellions. Fast Forward to 2008. Republicans felt the same way with the election of Barack Obama.

We should change the name from the "War of Northern Aggression" to the "War that just won't shut up"

OL FU wrote:We should change the name from the "War of Northern Aggression" to the "War that just won't shut up"

I like it. Let's run it by hebdog.