"Cuz no one could write something, change the words a little," 🤦♂️ Riiiight, so pretty much, revisionist bullshit to the point that you can just write in your own imaginary take on everything. Lincoln was an AliEn iNvaDeR! Those plantation owners were pure angels!!! Which Southern state has DENIED their own Letter of secession??? NONE, of course. Get real.
Moving goalposts and hindsight. Each Confederate state only wrote a paragraph or two for secession, but 'I'll be damned' if they didn't all manage to fit in the whining about being denied people as property. 🤔 Such a mystery. kek
"History is actually much easier to whitewash..." Every single letter of secession authored by each Confederate state, says they were butt-hurt over not being allowed to keep people as property. Each state just re-worded the complaint, and placed it in different parts of their letter. No one "white washed" that. It's not a narrative created in a book. You can read them yourself.
"...it had nothing to do with slaves..." Strange, then, that every single state in the Confederacy managed to include the denied ownership of people as a grievance. This isn't hidden knowledge. You can read the letters of secession yourself; they were written by the losers, not the winners. Maybe people are "waking up" a little too hard.
Not only that, but the Confederacy wrote their letters of secession. Each Confederate state wrote one. Each letter contained the ownership of people as the intention and complained about the Federal government's restriction of their lol "private property" (people). Only the wording changed from letter to letter. No historian created a narrative; the Confederacy told us exactly what their problem was, in writing. Revisionism is a blue pill, 100%.
As you know, every lie contains a little truth. Fortunately for truth-seekers, the Confederate states managed to include their grievance and desire to own people in every single letter of secession, with only variance in the choice of words. Imagine the laziness required to believe revisionism after the Confederacy made their intentions so clear in such a small amount of writing.
Makes sense to me! Dave is right.
Cool! Thanks!
About real and fake stories: My opinion is that, if it doesn't happen right in front of my face in real life, it can be fake. Anything coming through media (any media, from newspapers to the internet) can absolutely be part of "the movie".
You must find the narratives to be a bit uncanny. I'm sorry your acquaintance is suffering. Do his alleged abusers have a verifiable background that connects them to government, corruption or some position of power?
Raff came out of Midlothian, Virginia, but ran through Ohio after the murder. I found it odd that one Ohio cop came back to instruct the other Ohio cop to stop speaking to Raff. I've never seen them stop a suspect from providing MORE evidence before. That was unusual.
Most of the details are at 10:00 and 13:00.
He goes by "Raff", but his parents were Jan Ralph and Virginia Ralph. Here's a UN photo credited to Jan Ralph:
Here are a few related news articles:
https://people.com/crime/virginia-man-allegedly-admits-killing-parents/
Yep. I believe that's possible. If true, he will sway millions of fans. Thanks to Gilmour's wife, Waters received a double cancel: he refused to promote war by not "supporting" Ukraine and they also smeared him as an antisemite.
"Yet another example of don't get to know your heros," Ah, dude... so true. It's even worse with my other favorite: David Byrne of Talking Heads. One-hundred and fifty percent far left nutter. I wish I had never read a single page about it or listened to a single interview.
Oh brother.
Communism was a side bar, not the point of the post. It's already in the comments. I've listened to Floyd my entire life, since the crib: I'm not a communist either. "Witch hunt" indeed.
"Never heard David say that." I did: straight up. No, I can't dig it back up for you. As I recall, it was during one of those family vlog things he's been doing for a couple years on Facebook and YouTube. You could start there, if you want.
"I didn't know commies did charity work." I knew commie fat cats often live high on the hog while the alleged beneficiaries of the communism go without the necessities of life, so the hypocrisy isn't much of a surprise to me. By the way, where did the money from the guitar auction "charity" go? Oh, right: 21 million dollars, straight to the climate change agenda. That was his big charity guitar auction.
Right. The communism and hypocrisy were side topics, not the point of the post.
Uhhh, thanks... I'm not confused about the lyrics, though. The song isn't about communism; David Gilmour is an admitted communist (that was the discussion you might have seen here). Anthony Moore also helped on the song, but I don't know anything about him.
A year or two ago, Gilmour publicly stated that he's a "communist". I love all of his music, but he's the same as Waters in that regard. They're also both stinking rich, making the whole premise pretty silly.
It's on the first album I ever bought as a kid, so I'm kinda attached to it, too. However, critics....
I didn't say a material replacement necessarily offers equal or superior properties. I said compromises can be made in design and circumstances for material use can change. Those changes aren't restricted to engineering expectations. Sometimes, a material becomes more expensive than it's worth, for example, and a compromise is made. The material can also become the target of government regulation, making it less useful for an application. When those circumstances become adverse enough, nobody wants the stuff and its value becomes zero. Please see asbestos and DDT.
There are many, many other examples, including those that fell out of use due only to changes in technology. If, for example, our technology moves on from electrons to particles or radiation that aren't affected by electrical conductivity (which is taking place), the demand for gold as a conductor will eventually drop nearly to zero.
"My industry is not consumer based." There's always a consumer somewhere in business or there's no business. Manufacturers are also consumers.
"...the uses are determined by the material properties..." Those aren't immutable circumstances. Applications don't imply inherent value. Needs change. Materials can become outmoded, even just by their cost when a reasonable material compromise exists. Materials or certain material applications can even be outlawed. If nobody wants a thing, the thing becomes valueless.
"I am saying it has no physical applications..." Bitcoin has a physical application in helping to destroy central banks and the results could be plenty "permanent".
"I like gold, silver and copper...", "I am not a crypto naysayer..." Good choice. It would be unwise to treat financial instruments as the local sports team. I would say it's an example of tribalism, programmed into the public's behavior through mass media.
"The difference is that gold and silver have actual uses..." Bitcoin has an "actual" use: it's a weapon.
Nothing has inherent, immutable value, including precious metals. It's just consumer interest (including industrial consumers). Metals are interchangeable in applications, with compromise in their properties. "...intrinsic and extrinsic..." is just a way of insinuating inherent value where none truly exists. All the "...intrinsic and extrinsic..." talk truly amounts to is an academic discussion about consumer interest.
Either people (and industry) want a thing or they don't; that is the only source of value in anything, gold included. Material applications are just another form of consumer interest and they are not immutable.
Is the Constitution fake too??? How about the Bill of Rights? Maybe it is. Maybe I'm entitled to everything you own, including your person. Are you sure you want to play a game that dumb?