What are some debatable accounts of history? - Page 9

On February 10 2011 16:40 gongryong wrote:
The Dead Beatle

Interesting obscure stuff.

On February 10 2011 15:45 Torte de Lini wrote:
Also, why has no one noted the constant lie that Obama wasn't born in the U.S or that he's a Muslim. I can't stand it when I hear people say this and it's still a common stupid lie people believe.

On February 10 2011 16:37 DMBJonesy wrote:
The civil war was very much about slavery, to deny that is baffling. States rights was also a huge concern; it was mostly slavery/tariffs that lead the south to support state rights so vehemently.

On February 10 2011 16:47 SonuvBob wrote:

Stop posting dumb shit. This thread is for things that are actually debatable.

But at least that time you posted evidence. :p

On February 10 2011 16:52 gongryong wrote:


For sure. Have you read it? Do it at night for maximum effect :p

On February 10 2011 16:54 DTK-m2 wrote:


Started reading some of it. It's currently night time here. Still think it's dumb shit.

On February 10 2011 16:57 frequency wrote:


Well I'm busy cranking the entire Beatles discography at the moment, feels good man.

It's really one of the stupidest things ever though, it's laughable to think that they could find someone as talented as McCartney in the blink of an eye, and I very much doubt that any of them would have continued to make music as a group without Paul.

On February 10 2011 16:07 mcc wrote:

How are you getting those numbers, what do the stand for, that's the question. You can blame Hitler for tens of millions of deaths and even more, you can blame Stalin similarly. But what are you actually counting.

On February 10 2011 17:04 Alexhandr wrote:
Why... do people... still... refute the moon landing...? There... is a fucking flag... on the moon. Why is there a fucking flag on the moon? Because we put that fucking flag on the fucking moon. Shit's real, son. Shit's been real. There's also foot prints on the fucking moon. We also have fucking moon rocks... that came from the fucking moon. Now I'm going to calm down and quit fucking cussing...

On February 10 2011 17:09 SonuvBob wrote:

Not to mention these guys!

On February 10 2011 17:09 Elegy wrote:
If you view the Civil War as a result of slavery, it's not slavery itself called into question but the rights of states and the right of the federal government to abolish that "particular institution". Thus the war was fought in a broader sense of states' rights with slavery provided the underlying basis or the catalyst for states' rights to evolve into an issue where blood would be shed. Likewise, you could argue quite convincingly that religion played a huge role in the Civil War, especially when considering how deep division over prohibition in the 1830s-40s was in terms of different Christian denominations. The social division over prohibition in this time equaled and perhaps outweighed the question of slavery for a good period of time leading up to the Civil War (1850s slavery takes the lead).

You'll find that, in virtually all cases, the Democrats of Jackson were primarily Roman Catholics and German Lutherans, whereas the Whigs were mostly Protestants, namely Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists. Indeed, the Presbyterian Church even split into two, northern and southern, with the Northern branch advocating that slavery was "Un-Christian" and an affront to the principles of the faith, whereas the Southern branch pulled out Biblical endorsements of slavery as their own justification.

John Noonan actually wrote that, in the context of Northern Protestant ministers being the leaders of the abolitionist movement, the civil war could be interpreted in having a religious element to it, something that is often forgotten .

On this note, a historical misconception is that the Founders of the US were firm advocates of the separation of church and state in the modern sense. For them, there were no qualms about hiring Protestant (Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterians mostly) missionaries to spread Christian values in the "unsettled" lands of the US, with a famous court case coming out of this as the result of federal appointment of missionaries (Worcester v. Georgia. although its primarily an issue of tribal sovereignty). Likewise, it wasn't until 1834 that the Congregational Church in Massachusetts was (along with all others in the state) finally disestablished by the removal of all tax dollars for the support of religious establishments. Indeed, there was a common pervading sense (as seen in the Protestant domination of the public school system, morality, legal code in the form of penitentiaries) that the US, despite its legal separation of church and state, was nonetheless a Protestant, and by that primarily Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc, nation.

Tocqueville missed a lot of things when he wrote his book and was rather naive towards the obvious influence religion had on America's "first political institution".

Anyways, I'm rambling, but my point is that the modern conception of the separation of church and state didn't exist (or wasn't practiced) in the early years of the US compared to how we tend to envision it today.

On February 10 2011 17:04 Alexhandr wrote:
Why... do people... still... refute the moon landing...? There... is a fucking flag... on the moon. Why is there a fucking flag on the moon? Because we put that fucking flag on the fucking moon. Shit's real, son. Shit's been real. There's also foot prints on the fucking moon. We also have fucking moon rocks... that came from the fucking moon. Now I'm going to calm down and quit fucking cussing...

On February 10 2011 17:12 Q.E.D. wrote:


All very possible to do AFTER the 1969 moon landing

On February 10 2011 17:12 Q.E.D. wrote:


All very possible to do AFTER the 1969 moon landing

On February 10 2011 17:15 Nightfall.589 wrote:


And all very possible to do during the 1969 moon landing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which you've yet to provide.

On February 10 2011 17:01 speedphlux wrote:

My point was to discriminate your usage of the word "small" next to the Gulag.
The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Cultural Revolution, the Gulag ... whatever the names and numbers that stand behind those things - they're not small.
It's a fact that the Gulag has been longest running of all of these, so its numbers are understandably higher then the rest. Well, that might not be true for the Cultural Revolution thou. Numbers there vary from 200,000 to 200,000,000.

One thing that pisses me off, in the post-WWII is that no Soviet general or leader was trialed from the Katyn Massacre. Not that that was their only crime at that time thou.