Ah... those fun-loving white supremacists....

[jillian]

Two arrested in graffiti attack on Long Island synagogue

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sunday, September 2nd 2007, 6:21 PM

A member of a white supremacist group and a teenage accomplice were arrested on charges of scrawling swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti on the side of a synagogue and on a school bus, a school and a house, police said Sunday.

Swastikas and Jewish slurs scrawled in red spray paint were found Saturday on the Reconstructionist Synagogue of the North Shore in Plandome, on a school bus parked at Roslyn High School and on a Roslyn Estates home, police said. Graffiti also was found at a nearby elementary school.

Police on Saturday arrested John Rocissano, 20, and Matthew Felicetti, 17, in all four incidents. Rocissano, of Manhasset, and Felicetti, of Floral Park, were to be arraigned Sunday on several counts of aggravated harassment and criminal mischief.

Police didn’t know who their lawyers were, and their home telephone numbers were unlisted.

Rocissano admitted being a member of the National Alliance, a white supremacist group that has been in decline since the 2002 death of its founder, William Pierce, said Detective Sgt. Gary Shapiro, of the Nassau County police bias crimes unit.

MORE

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...two_arrested_in_graffiti_attack_on_long_.html

 

[Ninja]

Do they know what most White supremacists think of those greasy, spaghetti-brained wop-dagos?

 

[jillian]

Like most white supremacist types, they apparently aren't very bright.

 

[onedomino]

The National Alliance is like a chronic disease that just won't go away.

 

[Avatar4321]

They never are bright. No racist is.

 

[Waterrescuedude]

They never are bright. No racist is.

But they have every right to be a racist until the start breaking laws. Which these guys did of course. But if they want to think I hate "pick a race or religion" Then they have that right. That is what is called freedom of speech. I think racism has gone on for a long long time and doubt that it will ever be fully stopped. OK take for example african americans they are no longer slaves are no longer segregated. And have a "black history month" Where is white history month or hispanic history month or chinese history month???? Or any other race. Yes they got their freedom but I don't think they deserve a black history month without a history month for every other race. But they still think that their shit doesn't stink and that the world owes them everything. Actually there are alot of blacks who are racist and call whites "crackers" and other things. anyways got off track. You know there are ancestors suing decendants of plantation owners???? Saying you owe my family money. This is like 150 years later and they wont drop it. FUCK THAT THEY WERE NOT THE SLAVES THEY DON"T DESERVE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

But they have every right to be a racist until the start breaking laws. Which these guys did of course. But if they want to think I hate "pick a race or religion" Then they have that right. That is what is called freedom of speech. I think racism has gone on for a long long time and doubt that it will ever be fully stopped. OK take for example african americans they are no longer slaves are no longer segregated. And have a "black history month" Where is white history month or hispanic history month or chinese history month???? Or any other race. Yes they got their freedom but I don't think they deserve a black history month without a history month for every other race. But they still think that their shit doesn't stink and that the world owes them everything. Actually there are alot of blacks who are racist and call whites "crackers" and other things. anyways got off track. You know there are ancestors suing decendants of plantation owners???? Saying you owe my family money. This is like 150 years later and they wont drop it. FUCK THAT THEY WERE NOT THE SLAVES THEY DON"T DESERVE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just today, I was speaking to my 8th grade class about 'Civil War' and causes. Like most they thought cause was 'slavery', not states rights and the right of secession. So we addressed 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', and where it was spot on and where, less so. Then surprise, we spoke of slavery today, especially the sex slaves. They hadn't a clue. After prolong discussion, they are more then ready to dig into the 1850's and 60's.

 

[lieberalism]

Just today, I was speaking to my 8th grade class about 'Civil War' and causes. Like most they thought cause was 'slavery', not states rights and the right of secession. So we addressed 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', and where it was spot on and where, less so. Then surprise, we spoke of slavery today, especially the sex slaves. They hadn't a clue. After prolong discussion, they are more then ready to dig into the 1850's and 60's.

lol you teach 8th graders in real life that slavery wasnt the cause of the civil war and you actually keep your job? that is fucking awesome!

 

[Annie]

lol you teach 8th graders in real life that slavery wasnt the cause of the civil war and you actually keep your job? that is fucking awesome!

Yes. There are reasons you should be gone, as you promised. Get on meds and come back.

 

[lieberalism]

Yes. There are reasons you should be gone, as you promised. Get on meds and come back.

Why not stick to the issue?

I am curious why you are allowed to teach kids that slavery wasnt the cause of the civil war, when it is. The southern states left the union over their belief that slavery was an issue for the states and should be allowed in any new states. It wasn't a general "state vs federal" issue, but for one specific issue, slavery.

a (presumably) white woman deciding what parts are accurate and which are not in a book written by an actual slave in the 1800s is pretty funny.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just today, I was speaking to my 8th grade class about 'Civil War' and causes. Like most they thought cause was 'slavery', not states rights and the right of secession. So we addressed 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', and where it was spot on and where, less so. Then surprise, we spoke of slavery today, especially the sex slaves. They hadn't a clue. After prolong discussion, they are more then ready to dig into the 1850's and 60's.

States rights may have been the excuse, but the cause was Slavery, THAT was the State right that the South fought over mostly. Granted taxation was a small issue also. Read the declarations of Succession, just about every one STATES in the body the "right" they were leaving over was the RIGHT to keep slaves, even though Lincoln was not going to remove that "right", even though Congress and the Courts had protected that "right" every single time it came up.

Th Civil War was all about slavery. The South made it about that not the North. The South realized with Lincoln's election that in 12 to 20 years they may have lost the votes in Congress and may have lost the Judges in the Supreme Court to protect slavery. The majority of whites in the south couldn't be sold on that though, so the excuse was that somehow, even though every law in the south was enforced in the North, including returning slaves, the Southern leaders proclaimed their States rights were in jeapordy.

The facts are clear, the States rights of the South were not in peril at all. The only real complaint they had was that the industrial North wanted to tax the Southern Agricultural States as if they were Industrial also, and even that could have been worked out and was NOT listed as a cause for leaving the Union.

You do a disservice to your students when you dismiss slavery as the root cause of the war. States rights was the cry, BUT the right they were fighting over was the right to slavery.

 

[Gunny]

lol you teach 8th graders in real life that slavery wasnt the cause of the civil war and you actually keep your job? that is fucking awesome!

Probably anyone with an education knows slavery was one of many symptoms, not "the" cause of the US Civil War, so why shouldn't she keep her job?

 

[Gunny]

States rights may have been the excuse, but the cause was Slavery, THAT was the State right that the South fought over mostly. Granted taxation was a small issue also. Read the declarations of Succession, just about every one STATES in the body the "right" they were leaving over was the RIGHT to keep slaves, even though Lincoln was not going to remove that "right", even though Congress and the Courts had protected that "right" every single time it came up.

Th Civil War was all about slavery. The South made it about that not the North. The South realized with Lincoln's election that in 12 to 20 years they may have lost the votes in Congress and may have lost the Judges in the Supreme Court to protect slavery. The majority of whites in the south couldn't be sold on that though, so the excuse was that somehow, even though every law in the south was enforced in the North, including returning slaves, the Southern leaders proclaimed their States rights were in jeapordy.

The facts are clear, the States rights of the South were not in peril at all. The only real complaint they had was that the industrial North wanted to tax the Southern Agricultural States as if they were Industrial also, and even that could have been worked out and was NOT listed as a cause for leaving the Union.

You do a disservice to your students when you dismiss slavery as the root cause of the war. States rights was the cry, BUT the right they were fighting over was the right to slavery.

The root causes of the Civil War, if you want to nail it down, were power and money. That revisionist crap that the noble white Yankees were out to free the oppressed black man is just that ... crap.

It was a power struggle between yankee industry and Southern agriculture for control of the government and laws favorable to their respective industries. Depriving the South of slaves was merely a means to breaking the Southern machine.

You do a disservice to yourself by not being able to see past the superficial sales job put on to try and make the cause a righteous one. As if that hasn't happened more than once.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The root causes of the Civil War, if you want to nail it down, were power and money. That revisionist crap that the noble white Yankees were out to free the oppressed black man is just that ... crap.

It was a power struggle between yankee industry and Southern agriculture for control of the government and laws favorable to their respective industries. Depriving the South of slaves was merely a means to breaking the Southern machine.

You do a disservice to yourself by not being able to see past the superficial sales job put on to try and make the cause a righteous one. As if that hasn't happened more than once.

Absolute horse shit. The North had no intention of doing anything about Slavery. BUT the South's leaders were afraid that was what was going to happen. READ the succession articles in every State that left the Union. Just about everyone lists Slavery as the "State" Right they were afraid of losing.

Pretending it was otherwise is a joke. I never said anything was Noble or good about the Civil War or the North. Those are your words, meant to distract from the fact that the issue that brought the South to war was slavery. An issue they made up. Their rights were in fact protected and had been in every case brought before the Supreme Court and the Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

South Carolina's Succession article...

http://www.geocities.com/civilwarstudy101/scarolina.html

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue

and this..

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

read it and then tell me how THIS STATE did not claim that slavery was the issue.

 

[Annie]

What was the Missouri Compromise about? The Wilmot Proviso? Get a grip guys and study up. It wasn't slavery.

The fugitive slave law added to the problems, but wasn't in and of itself, causative.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What was the Missouri Compromise about? The Wilmot Proviso? Get a grip guys and study up. It wasn't slavery.

The fugitive slave law added to the problems, but wasn't in and of itself, causative.

The issue was slavery. The homestead act was oppossed by the south because it encouraged people to get land that did NOT require slaves to run. The South fought tooth and nail to ensure for every non slave state a slave state would be added, thats what caused the break, they knew that was going to be lost.

But the proof is in the articles of succession, read them. just about every State that left the Union lists as the reason SLAVERY. I posted the first State to leaves articles, did you read them?

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0833427.html

Read it, the Missouri Compromise is ALL about slavery. And it was replaced in 1854.

And its replacement also was all about slavery, The Kansas-Nebraska act.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0827030.html

And then we have the Wilmot Proviso. Again all about slavery and it was never passed, it in fact lead to the Kansas-Nebraska act language.

http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/ps-wilmotproviso.html

In all the acts the message was clear, the South wanted to ensure slavery was protected, that nothing would occur to threaten slavery. The Wilmot proviso resulted in threats of States leaving the Union every time it was brought up.

Might want to try again, this time with some information that supports your claim that Slavery was not the issue.

 

[trobinett]

What was the Missouri Compromise about? The Wilmot Proviso? Get a grip guys and study up. It wasn't slavery.

The fugitive slave law added to the problems, but wasn't in and of itself, causative.

Sorry "K", but your wrong on this one, should have done more "homework".

The "Missouri Compromise" is ALL about compromise, and was just another attempt by the North to "misdirect" the Congress. Its true, weather you want to believe it or not.

Slavery, repeat after me, SLAVERLY, and cheap labor, THAT is what the Civil War was about.

Sure, States rights figured into it, as Slavery was part of it, but, take away the w-i-d-e gap about slavery, and the Civil war would of never happened.

 

[jillian]

Of course it was about slavery... it went to the heart of the economy on which the southern states were dependent. The states' rights issue was just a means by which they attempted to preserve the status quo. If the federal government had been more sympathetic on the issue, then they would have rejected the states' rights argument in favor of one more beneficial.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course it was about slavery... it went to the heart of the economy on which the southern states were dependent. The states' rights issue was just a means by which they attempted to preserve the status quo. If the federal government had been more sympathetic on the issue, then they would have rejected the states' rights argument in favor of one more beneficial.

The Federal Government upheld and protected slavery and runaway issues right up until the war started. Every Federal case ended with affirmation that the Southern States had the right to demand the Northern States return runaways. Every act of Congress ended with affirmation that Slavery would continue in the South for any foreseeable future. In 1854 the Missouri Compromise was thrown out and the Kansas Nebraska act implemented, authorizing ANY state to join the Union as a slave state if the voters so chose.

The only threat to the Slavery issue was in the minds of the Politicians in the South. They knew with the election of Lincoln they may one day lose the votes in Congress and possibly in the Courts to force acceptance of Slavery on the North. Lincoln publicly announced he would take NO action what so ever regarding Slavery before he was even Inaugurated. He didn't have the power to do anything anyway. The President doesn't have that power. The Senate ensured no Legislative action could occur until and unless more free States were added.

South Carolina had been threatening succession since the 1820's. And was thwarted every time. South Carolina started the war. Until they fired on Fort Sumnter Lincoln had not even ask for troops to be raised. He wanted a peaceful solution to the issue. The idea that the North was the aggressor is patently false. The South forced armed conflict. Lincoln allowed 7 States to leave the Union and actively raise troops for months with no action, he hadn't even ask for an increase in the woefully small military. All while the South raided Federal armories and raised troops for war.