Good News, At Least 160 confederate Monuments Were Finally Removed In 2020

[Pogo]

I stand by what I wrote. Not your attempts to twist my words. I don't know or care about any alleged cult or what they are alleged to have done or attempted to do.

I know you don't. You choose to remain ignorant, which is why it's lucky I'm here to fix that. For too many decades too many other people also chose to remain ignorant too.

Oh by the way there are copious records of what they did. It's not "alleged".

I wrote that the history books were written in the North and may tend to reflect Northern opinion rather than historical fact. At least that's what the Daughters of the Confederacy seemed to think and that histories should convey truth rather than fiction. And they attempted to avoid that where possible.

"History books were written in the North"? WTF does that mean? Are the contents a history book somehow determined by "where it's written"?? History is history, PERIOD. Doesn't matter where it's written. And again -- read this reeeeallll sllllooowww so it kicks in --- HISTORY IS NOT OPINION; IT IS FACT.

History books are written, wherever they're written, and offered for sale to schools. The *LOCAL* school boards, which is where the UDC comes in, decide which ones they will use. What the UDC did was to CLOUD that history under a haze of BULLSHIT about "happy slaves" and "noble causes" for a cause that was anything but.

Your video contained no evidence to the contrary.

My video LITERALLY BEGINS with that evidence. It is LITERALLY the first thing that plays, that is, assuming you actually play the video. You didn't, or YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.

Where exactly is it stated or implied that you have the option of deciding that a monument or other symbol commemorates or honors whatever you choose to imagine it does?

On the monument itself. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

For instance the obelisk monument to the "Battle of Liberty Place" cited earlier originally read:

McEnery and Penn having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored). United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.​

That's a reference to the Presidential election of 1876 where Hayes was installed by Congress on the condition that federal troops would be removed from the former Confederacy, thus allowing white supremacy.

In 1974 an additional inscription was added:

Although the "battle of Liberty Place" and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans.​

This of course is the blowback from the original intent, already demonstrating how the message had not aged well. Around this time the city moved the obelisk from its prominent perch at the foot of Canal Street for "construction", and a local sued the city to put it back there.

Know who that local was?

David Duke.

If a statue depicts a soldier how does that promote or honor slavery?

It doesn't, nor did anyone suggest it does. This is the price of your failure to pay attention while you swim in the soup of ignorance.

Monuments are placed in public places because the public (the community) think they belong there

Nope. NO community ever asked "we can haz propaganda transmitters?". It was the UDC (mostly) that foisted them on people, and the point you keep ignoring is that they DELIBERATELY put them in places where they couldn't be ignored simply by general passers-by (NOT museum patrons who sought them out) and especially couldn't be ignored by the people targeted by their message, i.e. the black people riding the streetcar along Canal Street; the drivers going from point A to point B that connect via Lee Circle, and so on.

Pictures of Presidents are impressed into coins. Does that make them "propaganda transmitters"?

In a way. It's an honorific, isn't it.

Does that mean we are morally obligated to deface all such coins no matter where they are found or who owns them?

Ignorami will go to great lengths, even stupid questions like this, to avoid getting anywhere near the truth.

No I am, and have, said that what is stated in the articles of secession is irrelevant to why the war was fought for the Confederacy, for the various States, and most certainly for the individuals who fought it.

So you confirm that you're purporting to speak for the Confederate states as to what their motivations were, even if it contradicts what THEY THEMSELVES WROTE.

Think about how fucked up that position is.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I stand by what I wrote. Not your attempts to twist my words. I don't know or care about any alleged cult or what they are alleged to have done or attempted to do.

I know you don't. You choose to remain ignorant, which is why it's lucky I'm here to fix that. For too many decades too many other people also chose to remain ignorant too.

Oh by the way there are copious records of what they did. It's not "alleged".

I wrote that the history books were written in the North and may tend to reflect Northern opinion rather than historical fact. At least that's what the Daughters of the Confederacy seemed to think and that histories should convey truth rather than fiction. And they attempted to avoid that where possib

"History books were written in the North"? WTF does that mean? Are the contents a history book somehow determined by "where it's written"?? History is history, PERIOD. Doesn't matter where it's written. And again -- read this reeeeallll sllllooowww so it kicks in --- HISTORY IS NOT OPINION; IT IS FACT.

History books are written, wherever they're written, and offered for sale to schools. The *LOCAL* school boards, which is where the UDC comes in, decide which ones they will use. What the UDC did was to CLOUD that history under a haze of BULLSHIT about "happy slaves" and "noble causes" for a cause that was anything but.

Your video contained no evidence to the contrary.

My video LITERALLY BEGINS with that evidence. It is LITERALLY the first thing that plays, that is, assuming you actually play the video. You didn't, or YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.

Where exactly is it stated or implied that you have the option of deciding that a monument or other symbol commemorates or honors whatever you choose to imagine it does?

For instance the obelisk monument to the "Battle of Liberty Place" cited earlier originally read:

McEnery and Penn having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored). United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.​

That's a reference to the Presidential election of 1876 where Hayes was installed by Congress on the condition that federal troops would be removed from the former Confederacy, thus allowing white supremacy.

In 1974 an additional inscription was added:

Although the "battle of Liberty Place" and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans.​

This of course is the blowback from the original intent, already demonstrating how the message had not aged well. Around this time the city moved the obelisk from its prominent perch at the foot of Canal Street for "construction", and a local sued the city to put it back there.

Know who that local was?

David Duke.

If a statue depicts a soldier how does that promote or honor slavery?

It doesn't, nor did anyone suggest it does. This is the price of your failure to pay attention while you swim in the soup of ignorance.

Monuments are placed in public places because the public (the community) think they belong there

Nope. NO community ever asked "we can haz propaganda transmitters?". It was the UDC (mostly) that foisted them on people, and the point you keep ignoring is that they DELIBERATELY put them in places where they couldn't be ignored simply by general passers-by (NOT museum patrons who sought them out) and especially couldn't be ignored by the people targeted by their message, i.e. the black people riding the streetcar along Canal Street; the drivers going from point A to point B that connect via Lee Circle, and so on.

Pictures of Presidents are impressed into coins. Does that make them "propaganda transmitters"?

In a way. It's an honorific, isn't it.

Does that mean we are morally obligated to deface all such coins no matter where they are found or who owns them?

Ignorami will go to great lengths, even stupid questions like this, to avoid getting anywhere near the truth.

No I am, and have, said that what is stated in the articles of secession is irrelevant to why the war was fought for the Confederacy, for the various States, and most certainly for the individuals who fought it.

On the monument itself. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
Untrue. There's a monument somewhere that states it was erected for whatever reason you imagine? I don't think so. Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery. The monument to honor our Vietnam KIAs has been defaced at least twice that I know of. How does that monument honor slavery?
Even the monument you use as an example dates from well after the Civil War and the Confederacy and slavery. It does however celebrate the removal of carpetbagger government wherein the Federal government appointed officials rather than allow free elections. If whites outnumbered blacks is that not white supremacy in popular vote? Maybe the people there thought so.

"History books were written in the North"? WTF does that mean? Are the contents a history book somehow determined by "where it's written"?? History is history, PERIOD. Doesn't matter where it's written. And again -- read this reeeeallll sllllooowww so it kicks in --- HISTORY IS NOT OPINION; IT IS FACT.

Bullshit. Is the history quoted at the very start of your linked video also fact no matter where it was written?
Actual history is indeed fact. What is written in history or even text books certainly may not be. Historians must choose what "facts" are indeed facts and presents only those facts that he considers relevant to the subject in his history. And that necessarily make it opinion to one extent or another.

The *LOCAL* school boards, which is where the UDC comes in,
Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?
Or that the DOC intended to further truth over fiction? You have stated-but not proven-otherwise.

Where exactly do you think a State wrote down why it waged war? You quoted one of several reasons they listed in the articles of secession for secession; not war. But-as you have pointed out in other threads- the States had already withdrawn from the Union and likely would gone their own way without war or even violence had they been allowed to do so.
No I don't claim to speak for for the Confederacy. I merely pointed out that you couldn't either.
Also wars are fought by individual people; not States and States cannot speak for the motivations of those fighting the a war. And neither can you although you try to make others believe otherwise. Which is nothing but an attempt to con people.

Nope. NO community ever asked "we can haz propaganda transmitters?". It was the UDC (mostly) that foisted them on people, and the point you keep ignoring is that they DELIBERATELY put them in places where they couldn't be ignored simply by general passers-by (NOT museum patrons who sought them out) and especially couldn't be ignored by the people targeted by their message, i.e. the black people riding the streetcar along Canal Street; the drivers going from point A to point B that connect via Lee Circle, and so on.

Bullshit. Local governments speak for the community and nothing gets built on public property without the approval of the government responsible for it. Advertising billboards are deliberately placed where people can see them. Pictures are on coins where they will be seen by many. Road signs work extra hard to be seen as do bathroom signs. Are all these things "propaganda transmitters"? I don't think so but believe what you like.

 

[Pogo]

Not that it's necessary to go digging into a blank post that handles quotes about as well as it handles the yuge and important battles at Stone Mountain, but I went ahead and harvested several points of absolute BULLSHIT that weren't here before. Let's start with the strawmen, all the points where 9thIDdoc couldn't handle the facts and so had to change them to something else, the mark of one who knows he can't win the argument.
Roll 'em.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

The monument to honor our Vietnam KIAs has been defaced at least twice that I know of. How does that monument honor slavery?

I DON'T KNOW, FUCKWIT. YOU TELL ME SINCE I DIDN'T SAY IT DOES. Once again, reeding comprehention.

Where exactly do you think a State wrote down why it waged war? You quoted one of several reasons they listed in the articles of secession for secession; not war.

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

So AGAIN, retard, when you sat here and tried to sell that lameass Lost Cause shit about "the Civil War wasn't about slavery", I pointed out that the individual states' articles of secession all specified Slavery -- SPECIFICALLY -- as their reasoning for SECESSION. Not their reasoning for war. Just because you WISH I had said that, doesn't make it reality. Understand??

But-as you have pointed out in other threads- the States had already withdrawn from the Union and likely would gone their own way without war or even violence had they been allowed to do so.

I have no way to know that and I didn't opine on it. Prove me wrong and show that quote.

No I don't claim to speak for for the Confederacy. I merely pointed out that you couldn't either.

BULLSHIT.
You sat here and claimed that you, a century and a half after the fact, somehow "knew better" than the states' own articles of SECESSION, published by the individual states AS THEY SECEDED, You sat here and asserted "I don't care what they said about themselves and their own actions, ***I*** will speak for their actions 160 years later".

Yet another display of dishonest hackery.

Also wars are fought by individual people; not States and States cannot speak for the motivations of those fighting the a war. And neither can you although you try to make others believe otherwise. Which is nothing but an attempt to con people.

Once again RETARD, articles of secession are not articles of war. You want to make them INTO that because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE POINT.

Even the monument you use as an example dates from well after the Civil War and the Confederacy and slavery.

NO SHIT DUMBASS, THEY ALL DATE FROM WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. This is an integral part of demonstrating what their purpose really was.

When the FUCK are you gonna put up monuments of a war--- BEFORE it happens??

It does however celebrate the removal of carpetbagger government wherein the Federal government appointed officials rather than allow free elections.

MORE failure of reading comprehension??
The free election had already happened and elected the biracial government --- the white supremacist group is who OVERTHREW that democratically-elected government and installed the all-white one. And that coup, BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, was what the monument celebrated.

You REALLY need a fucking reading teacher.

If whites outnumbered blacks is that not white supremacy in popular vote? Maybe the people there thought so.

That is NOT HOW VOTING WORKS, Dumbass. You don't elect a government based on who brings the most warm bodies to a fucking RIOT. And it wasn't a "riot", it was a COUP.

Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?

THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID ISN'T IT.

Or that the DOC intended to further truth over fiction? You have stated-but not proven-otherwise.

The "DOC"?
Are you trying to say the "UDC"? The DOC was wiped out at the famous Battle of Stone Mountain.
No Tonto, I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just posted here, that they pushed the fiction over the truth, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Bullshit. Local governments speak for the community and nothing gets built on public property without the approval of the government responsible for it.

Which is the SAME reason those local governments/communities HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM.

Advertising billboards are deliberately placed where people can see them. Pictures are on coins where they will be seen by many. Road signs work extra hard to be seen as do bathroom signs.

And you've just conceded the point of how propaganda works. Advertising **IS** propaganda. When you're shoveling propaganda, you put it in the most conspicuous place you can, to reach the most eyeballs. AND THAT'S WHAT THE UDC DID WITH ITS CAREFULLY-PLACED PROPAGANDA TRANSMITTERS, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY DID SO. Legitimate honorofics to a war or a battle or a soldier, are put at the battle site, or at the graveyard, or in a museum. Where people who see them would see them BECAUSE THEY SEEK THEM OUT, not because they happen to be going downtown shopping that day and not because they're forced to pass a propaganda transmitter simply to walk from point A to point B.

No wonder you tried to bury all this inside invisible quotes. I'd be ashamed too if I'd' sharted shit like this.

 

[Bezukhov]

I have no love or use for Confederate monuments, but for those who wish for them to remain I can sort of see your point, to a point. My complaint with leaving them for history's sake is that them sitting there all by their lonesome doesn't tell the whole story. Next to each Confederate monument honoring some treasonous slave owning Southerner we put up another. These new ones will remind everyone That the South Lost the War!! For example here we have a statue of Robert E. Lee, astride his horse and looking like the conquering hero. Next to it another monument, this new one celebrating Lee's surrender to U.S. Grant after Appomattox.

 

[Pogo]

I have no love or use for Confederate monuments, but for those who wish for them to remain I can sort of see your point, to a point. My complaint with leaving them for history's sake is that them sitting there all by their lonesome doesn't tell the whole story. Next to each Confederate monument honoring some treasonous slave owning Southerner we put up another. These new ones will remind everyone That the South Lost the War!! For example here we have a statue of Robert E. Lee, astride his horse and looking like the conquering hero. Next to it another monument, this new one celebrating Lee's surrender to U.S. Grant after Appomattox.

Exactly, these propaganda transmitters were put there expressly for that purpose, to re-tell the story of the War with extreme bias, i.e. to push the whole Lost Cause Cult. A perfect example cited, a statue of Robert E. Lee --- who specifically asked that such statues of himself should not exist --- in Rhode Island, which of course was as vital a strategic battle site as was Montana. Or even the Battle of Stone Mountain.

It's been proposed that such supplemental markers be placed alongside the original PTs. In my state the statuepologists actually passed a state law that prohibits/limits removing existing monuments, even if they sit on public property. I understand some other states have too though I don't know the details. In other words taking the disposition of public property ---- out of the hands of the public that owns those spaces. Such a supplemental marker could be used for those cases.

What they could also do is go, "OK if we can't remove it, we'll build a shed around it so it's invisible". Or put it under a tent. This of course could generate more passerby interest in what's being covered up, which could subvert the overreaching law. It would turn the marker into an obvious negative.

Such a disclaimer marker was used on the Battle of Liberty Place monument described in post 241 as a first step (1974) toward its eventual removal. Of course this also represents an additional expense, and the community involved would have a case to sue the state for those expenses, since the state law prevented them from a simple removal.

Such are the toxic wastes of entrenched propaganda.

 

[Bezukhov]

As for Stone Mountain a towering statue of William Tecumseh Sherman. It'll be huge, with glowing red eyes, and every couple of minutes it'll breath fire on the carvings there.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not that it's necessary to go digging into a blank post that handles quotes about as well as it handles the yuge and important battles at Stone Mountain, but I went ahead and harvested several points of absolute BULLSHIT that weren't here before. Let's start with the strawmen, all the points where 9thIDdoc couldn't handle the facts and so had to change them to something else, the mark of one who knows he can't win the argument.
Roll 'em.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

The monument to honor our Vietnam KIAs has been defaced at least twice that I know of. How does that monument honor slavery?

I DON'T KNOW, FUCKWIT. YOU TELL ME SINCE I DIDN'T SAY IT DOES. Once again, reeding comprehention.

Where exactly do you think a State wrote down why it waged war? You quoted one of several reasons they listed in the articles of secession for secession; not war.

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

So AGAIN, retard, when you sat here and tried to sell that lameass Lost Cause shit about "the Civil War wasn't about slavery", I pointed out that the individual states' articles of secession all specified Slavery -- SPECIFICALLY -- as their reasoning for SECESSION. Not their reasoning for war. Just because you WISH I had said that, doesn't make it reality. Understand??

But-as you have pointed out in other threads- the States had already withdrawn from the Union and likely would gone their own way without war or even violence had they been allowed to do so.

I have no way to know that and I didn't opine on it. Prove me wrong and show that quote.

No I don't claim to speak for for the Confederacy. I merely pointed out that you couldn't either.

BULLSHIT.
You sat here and claimed that you, a century and a half after the fact, somehow "knew better" than the states' own articles of SECESSION, published by the individual states AS THEY SECEDED, You sat here and asserted "I don't care what they said about themselves and their own actions, ***I*** will speak for their actions 160 years later".

Yet another display of dishonest hackery.

Also wars are fought by individual people; not States and States cannot speak for the motivations of those fighting the a war. And neither can you although you try to make others believe otherwise. Which is nothing but an attempt to con people.

Once again RETARD, articles of secession are not articles of war. You want to make them INTO that because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE POINT.

Even the monument you use as an example dates from well after the Civil War and the Confederacy and slavery.

NO SHIT DUMBASS, THEY ALL DATE FROM WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. This is an integral part of demonstrating what their purpose really was.

When the FUCK are you gonna put up monuments of a war--- BEFORE it happens??

It does however celebrate the removal of carpetbagger government wherein the Federal government appointed officials rather than allow free elections.

MORE failure of reading comprehension??
The free election had already happened and elected the biracial government --- the white supremacist group is who OVERTHREW that democratically-elected government and installed the all-white one. And that coup, BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, was what the monument celebrated.

You REALLY need a fucking reading teacher.

If whites outnumbered blacks is that not white supremacy in popular vote? Maybe the people there thought so.

That is NOT HOW VOTING WORKS, Dumbass. You don't elect a government based on who brings the most warm bodies to a fucking RIOT. And it wasn't a "riot", it was a COUP.

Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?

THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID ISN'T IT.

Or that the DOC intended to further truth over fiction? You have stated-but not proven-otherwise.

The "DOC"?
Are you trying to say the "UDC"? The DOC was wiped out at the famous Battle of Stone Mountain.
No Tonto, I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just posted here, that they pushed the fiction over the truth, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Bullshit. Local governments speak for the community and nothing gets built on public property without the approval of the government responsible for it.

Which is the SAME reason those local governments/communities HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM.

Advertising billboards are deliberately placed where people can see them. Pictures are on coins where they will be seen by many. Road signs work extra hard to be seen as do bathroom signs.

And you've just conceded the point of how propaganda works. Advertising **IS** propaganda. When you're shoveling propaganda, you put it in the most conspicuous place you can, to reach the most eyeballs. AND THAT'S WHAT THE UDC DID WITH ITS CAREFULLY-PLACED PROPAGANDA TRANSMITTERS, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY DID SO. Legitimate honorofics to a war or a battle or a soldier, are put at the battle site, or at the graveyard, or in a museum. Where people who see them would see them BECAUSE THEY SEEK THEM OUT, not because they happen to be going downtown shopping that day and not because they're forced to pass a propaganda transmitter simply to walk from point A to point B.

No wonder you tried to bury all this inside invisible quotes. I'd be ashamed too if I'd' sharted shit like this.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

Did I say you did? If you did not you most certainly implied it. Have you not claimed that the reason the South left Union was SLAVERY!!? Have you not objected to the Confederacy because of SLAVERY!!! ? Have you not claimed the Confederacy fought the war to protect SALVERY!!!? Have you not claimed that the Jim Crow laws and "systematic racism" and white supremacy are all strongly rooted in Slavery!!!?. Have you not claimed that monuments are "propaganda transmitters" that transmit propaganda related to SLAVERY!!!? No? If not what problem exactly do you have with monuments? And do you also claim that the Vietnam Memorial was not included 160 quoted in the OP?

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

My post, part of #239: No I am, and have, said that what is stated in the articles of secession is irrelevant to why the war was fought for the Confederacy, for the various States, and most certainly for the individuals who fought it. Do you now deny your claim that the articles of secession explained why the the Confederacy fought the Civil War as you earlier claimed?

 

[Pogo]

Not that it's necessary to go digging into a blank post that handles quotes about as well as it handles the yuge and important battles at Stone Mountain, but I went ahead and harvested several points of absolute BULLSHIT that weren't here before. Let's start with the strawmen, all the points where 9thIDdoc couldn't handle the facts and so had to change them to something else, the mark of one who knows he can't win the argument.
Roll 'em.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

The monument to honor our Vietnam KIAs has been defaced at least twice that I know of. How does that monument honor slavery?

I DON'T KNOW, FUCKWIT. YOU TELL ME SINCE I DIDN'T SAY IT DOES. Once again, reeding comprehention.

Where exactly do you think a State wrote down why it waged war? You quoted one of several reasons they listed in the articles of secession for secession; not war.

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

So AGAIN, retard, when you sat here and tried to sell that lameass Lost Cause shit about "the Civil War wasn't about slavery", I pointed out that the individual states' articles of secession all specified Slavery -- SPECIFICALLY -- as their reasoning for SECESSION. Not their reasoning for war. Just because you WISH I had said that, doesn't make it reality. Understand??

But-as you have pointed out in other threads- the States had already withdrawn from the Union and likely would gone their own way without war or even violence had they been allowed to do so.

I have no way to know that and I didn't opine on it. Prove me wrong and show that quote.

No I don't claim to speak for for the Confederacy. I merely pointed out that you couldn't either.

BULLSHIT.
You sat here and claimed that you, a century and a half after the fact, somehow "knew better" than the states' own articles of SECESSION, published by the individual states AS THEY SECEDED, You sat here and asserted "I don't care what they said about themselves and their own actions, ***I*** will speak for their actions 160 years later".

Yet another display of dishonest hackery.

Also wars are fought by individual people; not States and States cannot speak for the motivations of those fighting the a war. And neither can you although you try to make others believe otherwise. Which is nothing but an attempt to con people.

Once again RETARD, articles of secession are not articles of war. You want to make them INTO that because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE POINT.

Even the monument you use as an example dates from well after the Civil War and the Confederacy and slavery.

NO SHIT DUMBASS, THEY ALL DATE FROM WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. This is an integral part of demonstrating what their purpose really was.

When the FUCK are you gonna put up monuments of a war--- BEFORE it happens??

It does however celebrate the removal of carpetbagger government wherein the Federal government appointed officials rather than allow free elections.

MORE failure of reading comprehension??
The free election had already happened and elected the biracial government --- the white supremacist group is who OVERTHREW that democratically-elected government and installed the all-white one. And that coup, BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, was what the monument celebrated.

You REALLY need a fucking reading teacher.

If whites outnumbered blacks is that not white supremacy in popular vote? Maybe the people there thought so.

That is NOT HOW VOTING WORKS, Dumbass. You don't elect a government based on who brings the most warm bodies to a fucking RIOT. And it wasn't a "riot", it was a COUP.

Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?

THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID ISN'T IT.

Or that the DOC intended to further truth over fiction? You have stated-but not proven-otherwise.

The "DOC"?
Are you trying to say the "UDC"? The DOC was wiped out at the famous Battle of Stone Mountain.
No Tonto, I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just posted here, that they pushed the fiction over the truth, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Bullshit. Local governments speak for the community and nothing gets built on public property without the approval of the government responsible for it.

Which is the SAME reason those local governments/communities HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM.

Advertising billboards are deliberately placed where people can see them. Pictures are on coins where they will be seen by many. Road signs work extra hard to be seen as do bathroom signs.

And you've just conceded the point of how propaganda works. Advertising **IS** propaganda. When you're shoveling propaganda, you put it in the most conspicuous place you can, to reach the most eyeballs. AND THAT'S WHAT THE UDC DID WITH ITS CAREFULLY-PLACED PROPAGANDA TRANSMITTERS, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY DID SO. Legitimate honorofics to a war or a battle or a soldier, are put at the battle site, or at the graveyard, or in a museum. Where people who see them would see them BECAUSE THEY SEEK THEM OUT, not because they happen to be going downtown shopping that day and not because they're forced to pass a propaganda transmitter simply to walk from point A to point B.

No wonder you tried to bury all this inside invisible quotes. I'd be ashamed too if I'd' sharted shit like this.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

Did I say you did? If you did not you most certainly implied it. Have you not claimed that the reason the South left Union was SLAVERY!!? Have you not objected to the Confederacy because of SLAVERY!!! ? Have you not claimed the Confederacy fought the war to protect SALVERY!!!? Have you not claimed that the Jim Crow laws and "systematic racism" and white supremacy are all strongly rooted in Slavery!!!?. Have you not claimed that monuments are "propaganda transmitters" that transmit propaganda related to SLAVERY!!!? No? If not what problem exactly do you have with monuments? And do you also claim that the Vietnam Memorial was not included 160 quoted in the OP?

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

My post, part of #239: No I am, and have, said that what is stated in the articles of secession is irrelevant to why the war was fought for the Confederacy, for the various States, and most certainly for the individuals who fought it. Do you now deny your claim that the articles of secession explained why the the Confederacy fought the Civil War as you earlier claimed?

 

[Polishprince]

I have a lot of southerners in my family. One of my brothers, and several cousins live in the Land of Cotton. For these people to be marginalized after all of the suffering they endured during the War of Northern Aggression is a disgrace.

The idea of reconstruction was reconciliation and bringing the southerners back into the union. Not the War of Extermination that modern libs imagine.

 

[Pogo]

I have a lot of southerners in my family. One of my brothers, and several cousins live in the Land of Cotton. For these people to be marginalized after all of the suffering they endured during the War of Northern Aggression is a disgrace.

So do I, most of my family. And of course I'm sitting in the South right now. For some yahoo to conclude somehow we're being "marginalized" out of community propaganda reform that never had anything to do with us reveals a stunning ignorance of what the words on the page here, mean.

However, if you wanna talk "marginalization" how about lumping the entire "South" into "the land of cotton". How about lumping the entire "South" into some kind of monolithic not just agriculture (there ain't no cotton anywhere near this part of the South) but some sort of universal acquiescence to the whole idea of secession, which IN NO WAY was ever a universal. THERE's your cynical marginalization.

The idea of reconstruction was reconciliation and bringing the southerners back into the union. Not the War of Extermination that modern libs imagine.

No idea wtf this is even talking about

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not that it's necessary to go digging into a blank post that handles quotes about as well as it handles the yuge and important battles at Stone Mountain, but I went ahead and harvested several points of absolute BULLSHIT that weren't here before. Let's start with the strawmen, all the points where 9thIDdoc couldn't handle the facts and so had to change them to something else, the mark of one who knows he can't win the argument.
Roll 'em.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

The monument to honor our Vietnam KIAs has been defaced at least twice that I know of. How does that monument honor slavery?

I DON'T KNOW, FUCKWIT. YOU TELL ME SINCE I DIDN'T SAY IT DOES. Once again, reeding comprehention.

Where exactly do you think a State wrote down why it waged war? You quoted one of several reasons they listed in the articles of secession for secession; not war.

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

So AGAIN, retard, when you sat here and tried to sell that lameass Lost Cause shit about "the Civil War wasn't about slavery", I pointed out that the individual states' articles of secession all specified Slavery -- SPECIFICALLY -- as their reasoning for SECESSION. Not their reasoning for war. Just because you WISH I had said that, doesn't make it reality. Understand??

But-as you have pointed out in other threads- the States had already withdrawn from the Union and likely would gone their own way without war or even violence had they been allowed to do so.

I have no way to know that and I didn't opine on it. Prove me wrong and show that quote.

No I don't claim to speak for for the Confederacy. I merely pointed out that you couldn't either.

BULLSHIT.
You sat here and claimed that you, a century and a half after the fact, somehow "knew better" than the states' own articles of SECESSION, published by the individual states AS THEY SECEDED, You sat here and asserted "I don't care what they said about themselves and their own actions, ***I*** will speak for their actions 160 years later".

Yet another display of dishonest hackery.

Also wars are fought by individual people; not States and States cannot speak for the motivations of those fighting the a war. And neither can you although you try to make others believe otherwise. Which is nothing but an attempt to con people.

Once again RETARD, articles of secession are not articles of war. You want to make them INTO that because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE POINT.

Even the monument you use as an example dates from well after the Civil War and the Confederacy and slavery.

NO SHIT DUMBASS, THEY ALL DATE FROM WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. This is an integral part of demonstrating what their purpose really was.

When the FUCK are you gonna put up monuments of a war--- BEFORE it happens??

It does however celebrate the removal of carpetbagger government wherein the Federal government appointed officials rather than allow free elections.

MORE failure of reading comprehension??
The free election had already happened and elected the biracial government --- the white supremacist group is who OVERTHREW that democratically-elected government and installed the all-white one. And that coup, BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, was what the monument celebrated.

You REALLY need a fucking reading teacher.

If whites outnumbered blacks is that not white supremacy in popular vote? Maybe the people there thought so.

That is NOT HOW VOTING WORKS, Dumbass. You don't elect a government based on who brings the most warm bodies to a fucking RIOT. And it wasn't a "riot", it was a COUP.

Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?

THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID ISN'T IT.

Or that the DOC intended to further truth over fiction? You have stated-but not proven-otherwise.

The "DOC"?
Are you trying to say the "UDC"? The DOC was wiped out at the famous Battle of Stone Mountain.
No Tonto, I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just posted here, that they pushed the fiction over the truth, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Bullshit. Local governments speak for the community and nothing gets built on public property without the approval of the government responsible for it.

Which is the SAME reason those local governments/communities HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM.

Advertising billboards are deliberately placed where people can see them. Pictures are on coins where they will be seen by many. Road signs work extra hard to be seen as do bathroom signs.

And you've just conceded the point of how propaganda works. Advertising **IS** propaganda. When you're shoveling propaganda, you put it in the most conspicuous place you can, to reach the most eyeballs. AND THAT'S WHAT THE UDC DID WITH ITS CAREFULLY-PLACED PROPAGANDA TRANSMITTERS, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY DID SO. Legitimate honorofics to a war or a battle or a soldier, are put at the battle site, or at the graveyard, or in a museum. Where people who see them would see them BECAUSE THEY SEEK THEM OUT, not because they happen to be going downtown shopping that day and not because they're forced to pass a propaganda transmitter simply to walk from point A to point B.

No wonder you tried to bury all this inside invisible quotes. I'd be ashamed too if I'd' sharted shit like this.

The free election had already happened and elected the biracial government --- the white supremacist group is who OVERTHREW that democratically-elected government and installed the all-white one. And that coup, BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, was what the monument celebrated.

Really? You make me wonder if you read your own posts. Seems to me that it actually says no such thing. Are you aware that carpet bagger governments were appointed by the federal government; not elected? Which was probably why it was referred to a usurper government and that was reason for a monument celebrating the return of self government.

Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?
THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID ISN'T IT.

Yes it is but then you try to attribute it to some nefarious plot by The Daughters of the Confederacy. Can't have it both ways. Which is it?

No Tonto, I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just posted here, that they pushed the fiction over the truth, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

I am well aware of that but so far that is based on nothing more than your say-so. No proof; no evidence just your own home grown hot air. That was my point.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not that it's necessary to go digging into a blank post that handles quotes about as well as it handles the yuge and important battles at Stone Mountain, but I went ahead and harvested several points of absolute BULLSHIT that weren't here before. Let's start with the strawmen, all the points where 9thIDdoc couldn't handle the facts and so had to change them to something else, the mark of one who knows he can't win the argument.
Roll 'em.

Nor do I think that any significant portion of the monuments that were defaced or torn down in any way honored slavery.

NOR DID I SAY that's what they were doing. GO LEARN HOW TO READ. You can't handle the backstory, so you just make up your own.

The monument to honor our Vietnam KIAs has been defaced at least twice that I know of. How does that monument honor slavery?

I DON'T KNOW, FUCKWIT. YOU TELL ME SINCE I DIDN'T SAY IT DOES. Once again, reeding comprehention.

Where exactly do you think a State wrote down why it waged war? You quoted one of several reasons they listed in the articles of secession for secession; not war.

Once AGAIN DUMBASS, I never opined on "why anybody waged war". I'm not posting about war here. AT ALL. What I *DID* post, yet another point that you CAN'T HANDLE, was those various states' articles of Secession. "Articles of Secession" means, strangely enough, ARTICLES OF SECESSION". It does not, and can not, mean "articles of war". You keep changing what I post into something it never was because you CAN'T HANDLE what it was.

So AGAIN, retard, when you sat here and tried to sell that lameass Lost Cause shit about "the Civil War wasn't about slavery", I pointed out that the individual states' articles of secession all specified Slavery -- SPECIFICALLY -- as their reasoning for SECESSION. Not their reasoning for war. Just because you WISH I had said that, doesn't make it reality. Understand??

But-as you have pointed out in other threads- the States had already withdrawn from the Union and likely would gone their own way without war or even violence had they been allowed to do so.

I have no way to know that and I didn't opine on it. Prove me wrong and show that quote.

No I don't claim to speak for for the Confederacy. I merely pointed out that you couldn't either.

BULLSHIT.
You sat here and claimed that you, a century and a half after the fact, somehow "knew better" than the states' own articles of SECESSION, published by the individual states AS THEY SECEDED, You sat here and asserted "I don't care what they said about themselves and their own actions, ***I*** will speak for their actions 160 years later".

Yet another display of dishonest hackery.

Also wars are fought by individual people; not States and States cannot speak for the motivations of those fighting the a war. And neither can you although you try to make others believe otherwise. Which is nothing but an attempt to con people.

Once again RETARD, articles of secession are not articles of war. You want to make them INTO that because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE POINT.

Even the monument you use as an example dates from well after the Civil War and the Confederacy and slavery.

NO SHIT DUMBASS, THEY ALL DATE FROM WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. This is an integral part of demonstrating what their purpose really was.

When the FUCK are you gonna put up monuments of a war--- BEFORE it happens??

It does however celebrate the removal of carpetbagger government wherein the Federal government appointed officials rather than allow free elections.

MORE failure of reading comprehension??
The free election had already happened and elected the biracial government --- the white supremacist group is who OVERTHREW that democratically-elected government and installed the all-white one. And that coup, BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS, was what the monument celebrated.

You REALLY need a fucking reading teacher.

If whites outnumbered blacks is that not white supremacy in popular vote? Maybe the people there thought so.

That is NOT HOW VOTING WORKS, Dumbass. You don't elect a government based on who brings the most warm bodies to a fucking RIOT. And it wasn't a "riot", it was a COUP.

Are you unaware that the decisions rest with school board; not the Daughters of the Confederacy?

THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK I JUST SAID ISN'T IT.

Or that the DOC intended to further truth over fiction? You have stated-but not proven-otherwise.

The "DOC"?
Are you trying to say the "UDC"? The DOC was wiped out at the famous Battle of Stone Mountain.
No Tonto, I said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just posted here, that they pushed the fiction over the truth, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Bullshit. Local governments speak for the community and nothing gets built on public property without the approval of the government responsible for it.

Which is the SAME reason those local governments/communities HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM.

Advertising billboards are deliberately placed where people can see them. Pictures are on coins where they will be seen by many. Road signs work extra hard to be seen as do bathroom signs.

And you've just conceded the point of how propaganda works. Advertising **IS** propaganda. When you're shoveling propaganda, you put it in the most conspicuous place you can, to reach the most eyeballs. AND THAT'S WHAT THE UDC DID WITH ITS CAREFULLY-PLACED PROPAGANDA TRANSMITTERS, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY DID SO. Legitimate honorofics to a war or a battle or a soldier, are put at the battle site, or at the graveyard, or in a museum. Where people who see them would see them BECAUSE THEY SEEK THEM OUT, not because they happen to be going downtown shopping that day and not because they're forced to pass a propaganda transmitter simply to walk from point A to point B.

No wonder you tried to bury all this inside invisible quotes. I'd be ashamed too if I'd' sharted shit like this.

Which is the SAME reason those local governments/communities HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THEM.

Someone said otherwise? But a mob of rioters does not constitute a government. Were all those 160 claimed in the OP removed or defaced by government and were all on public property? Inquiring minds wonder.

And you've just conceded the point of how propaganda works. Advertising **IS** propaganda. When you're shoveling propaganda, you put it in the most conspicuous place you can, to reach the most eyeballs. AND THAT'S WHAT THE UDC DID WITH ITS CAREFULLY-PLACED PROPAGANDA TRANSMITTERS, AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY DID SO. Legitimate honorofics to a war or a battle or a soldier, are put at the battle site, or at the graveyard, or in a museum. Where people who see them would see them BECAUSE THEY SEEK THEM OUT, not because they happen to be going downtown shopping that day and not because they're forced to pass a propaganda transmitter simply to walk from point A to point B.

Idiotic. I do indeed concede that a monument can suggest a message that could be considered propaganda. I also concede that the same is true of the of human speech, the written word, pictures and engraving as well as a few other things. "Can" and "do" are two entirely different things. A car can be used for transport or used to run over a neighbor. The simple existence of a car does not prove it will do either.
Ever actually see a monument run over and molest passing shoppers?

 

[martybegan]

The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) propaganda propagation served exactly the same purpose as the UDTR (United Daughters of the Third Reich) did when they ran around Germany, Poland, Belgium, Norway and Russia putting up Hitler statues to the "noble" cause of Naziism and how the Jews were "happy with their lot".

--- Except of course that the UDTR never existed and wouldn't be tolerated.

If all you have is the Nazi angle, you got nothing.

What I have is a SIMPLE --- at least I thought it was simple --- example that even you could follow. If I refer to Nazi Germany, presumably I don't need to explain what that is. You should know.

Now imagine some history-revisionist group running around erecting statues in PUBLIC PLACES broadcasting all about the "noble cause" of the Third Reich and how it and its thugs were really a good thing that Jews and Poles and Czechs and Russians (etc etc etc) really didn't mind at all.

--- WHAT kind of reception would that action likely receive?

Suppose those monuments had been erected, hundreds of them all over Europe, and there was a contemporaty movement to take them down or at least move them out of public/municipal spaces... WHICH side would you be on?

Do the math.

The comparison is dead on it's start. Again, if you have to to Godwin to make your point, you lost.

A Civil War doesn't equate to a foreign war. Slavery doesn't equate to what the Nazis did. doing so is idiotic.

DING what are three assertions I never made for 600 Alex

How telling --- and how pathetic --- that you need to run away by mischaracterizing what I posted here.
As I called it already ---- FEAR. You can't deal with it. Wimp.

More typical pogo posting. No actual content when countered, just the mewling of a beta tard.

 

[Pogo]

The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) propaganda propagation served exactly the same purpose as the UDTR (United Daughters of the Third Reich) did when they ran around Germany, Poland, Belgium, Norway and Russia putting up Hitler statues to the "noble" cause of Naziism and how the Jews were "happy with their lot".

--- Except of course that the UDTR never existed and wouldn't be tolerated.

If all you have is the Nazi angle, you got nothing.

What I have is a SIMPLE --- at least I thought it was simple --- example that even you could follow. If I refer to Nazi Germany, presumably I don't need to explain what that is. You should know.

Now imagine some history-revisionist group running around erecting statues in PUBLIC PLACES broadcasting all about the "noble cause" of the Third Reich and how it and its thugs were really a good thing that Jews and Poles and Czechs and Russians (etc etc etc) really didn't mind at all.

--- WHAT kind of reception would that action likely receive?

Suppose those monuments had been erected, hundreds of them all over Europe, and there was a contemporaty movement to take them down or at least move them out of public/municipal spaces... WHICH side would you be on?

Do the math.

The comparison is dead on it's start. Again, if you have to to Godwin to make your point, you lost.

A Civil War doesn't equate to a foreign war. Slavery doesn't equate to what the Nazis did. doing so is idiotic.

DING what are three assertions I never made for 600 Alex

How telling --- and how pathetic --- that you need to run away by mischaracterizing what I posted here.
As I called it already ---- FEAR. You can't deal with it. Wimp.

More typical pogo posting. No actual content when countered, just the mewling of a beta tard.

"No actual content" applies to the clueless post I quoted, wherein somebody --- oh look, that was you --- tried to set up strawmen of three assertions I never made. And I called your ass on it. Because it's the mark of the unprepared.

Should you come to the fray actually prepared, you'll get your money's worth. This shit ain't it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Has this ended racism yet?

Still waiting on the crybaby shit stains to reply.

Any day now...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) propaganda propagation served exactly the same purpose as the UDTR (United Daughters of the Third Reich) did when they ran around Germany, Poland, Belgium, Norway and Russia putting up Hitler statues to the "noble" cause of Naziism and how the Jews were "happy with their lot".

--- Except of course that the UDTR never existed and wouldn't be tolerated.

If all you have is the Nazi angle, you got nothing.

What I have is a SIMPLE --- at least I thought it was simple --- example that even you could follow. If I refer to Nazi Germany, presumably I don't need to explain what that is. You should know.

Now imagine some history-revisionist group running around erecting statues in PUBLIC PLACES broadcasting all about the "noble cause" of the Third Reich and how it and its thugs were really a good thing that Jews and Poles and Czechs and Russians (etc etc etc) really didn't mind at all.

--- WHAT kind of reception would that action likely receive?

Suppose those monuments had been erected, hundreds of them all over Europe, and there was a contemporaty movement to take them down or at least move them out of public/municipal spaces... WHICH side would you be on?

Do the math.

The comparison is dead on it's start. Again, if you have to to Godwin to make your point, you lost.

A Civil War doesn't equate to a foreign war. Slavery doesn't equate to what the Nazis did. doing so is idiotic.

DING what are three assertions I never made for 600 Alex

How telling --- and how pathetic --- that you need to run away by mischaracterizing what I posted here.
As I called it already ---- FEAR. You can't deal with it. Wimp.

More typical pogo posting. No actual content when countered, just the mewling of a beta tard.

He is the reason they installed the ignore function. I suggest you use it. I do.

 

[Pogo]

Has this ended racism yet?

Still waiting on the crybaby shit stains to reply.

Any day now...

If it did it would be a happy coincidence. None of this was intended to "end racism", wasn't even about racism, and it's dishonest to sit here and pretend that's where we are.

It's about revisionist history propafuckingganda. Versus Reality.

 

[Pogo]

The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) propaganda propagation served exactly the same purpose as the UDTR (United Daughters of the Third Reich) did when they ran around Germany, Poland, Belgium, Norway and Russia putting up Hitler statues to the "noble" cause of Naziism and how the Jews were "happy with their lot".

--- Except of course that the UDTR never existed and wouldn't be tolerated.

If all you have is the Nazi angle, you got nothing.

What I have is a SIMPLE --- at least I thought it was simple --- example that even you could follow. If I refer to Nazi Germany, presumably I don't need to explain what that is. You should know.

Now imagine some history-revisionist group running around erecting statues in PUBLIC PLACES broadcasting all about the "noble cause" of the Third Reich and how it and its thugs were really a good thing that Jews and Poles and Czechs and Russians (etc etc etc) really didn't mind at all.

--- WHAT kind of reception would that action likely receive?

Suppose those monuments had been erected, hundreds of them all over Europe, and there was a contemporaty movement to take them down or at least move them out of public/municipal spaces... WHICH side would you be on?

Do the math.

The comparison is dead on it's start. Again, if you have to to Godwin to make your point, you lost.

A Civil War doesn't equate to a foreign war. Slavery doesn't equate to what the Nazis did. doing so is idiotic.

DING what are three assertions I never made for 600 Alex

How telling --- and how pathetic --- that you need to run away by mischaracterizing what I posted here.
As I called it already ---- FEAR. You can't deal with it. Wimp.

More typical pogo posting. No actual content when countered, just the mewling of a beta tard.

He is the reason they installed the ignore function. I suggest you use it. I do.

​

 

[martybegan]

The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) propaganda propagation served exactly the same purpose as the UDTR (United Daughters of the Third Reich) did when they ran around Germany, Poland, Belgium, Norway and Russia putting up Hitler statues to the "noble" cause of Naziism and how the Jews were "happy with their lot".

--- Except of course that the UDTR never existed and wouldn't be tolerated.

If all you have is the Nazi angle, you got nothing.

What I have is a SIMPLE --- at least I thought it was simple --- example that even you could follow. If I refer to Nazi Germany, presumably I don't need to explain what that is. You should know.

Now imagine some history-revisionist group running around erecting statues in PUBLIC PLACES broadcasting all about the "noble cause" of the Third Reich and how it and its thugs were really a good thing that Jews and Poles and Czechs and Russians (etc etc etc) really didn't mind at all.

--- WHAT kind of reception would that action likely receive?

Suppose those monuments had been erected, hundreds of them all over Europe, and there was a contemporaty movement to take them down or at least move them out of public/municipal spaces... WHICH side would you be on?

Do the math.

The comparison is dead on it's start. Again, if you have to to Godwin to make your point, you lost.

A Civil War doesn't equate to a foreign war. Slavery doesn't equate to what the Nazis did. doing so is idiotic.

DING what are three assertions I never made for 600 Alex

How telling --- and how pathetic --- that you need to run away by mischaracterizing what I posted here.
As I called it already ---- FEAR. You can't deal with it. Wimp.

More typical pogo posting. No actual content when countered, just the mewling of a beta tard.

"No actual content" applies to the clueless post I quoted, wherein somebody --- oh look, that was you --- tried to set up strawmen of three assertions I never made. And I called your ass on it. Because it's the mark of the unprepared.

Should you come to the fray actually prepared, you'll get your money's worth. This shit ain't it.

Prepared for what? All you do is lock into one chickenshit point in someone's post and then refuse to let go of it like some retarded cocker-spaniel.

 

[Pogo]

The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) propaganda propagation served exactly the same purpose as the UDTR (United Daughters of the Third Reich) did when they ran around Germany, Poland, Belgium, Norway and Russia putting up Hitler statues to the "noble" cause of Naziism and how the Jews were "happy with their lot".

--- Except of course that the UDTR never existed and wouldn't be tolerated.

If all you have is the Nazi angle, you got nothing.

What I have is a SIMPLE --- at least I thought it was simple --- example that even you could follow. If I refer to Nazi Germany, presumably I don't need to explain what that is. You should know.

Now imagine some history-revisionist group running around erecting statues in PUBLIC PLACES broadcasting all about the "noble cause" of the Third Reich and how it and its thugs were really a good thing that Jews and Poles and Czechs and Russians (etc etc etc) really didn't mind at all.

--- WHAT kind of reception would that action likely receive?

Suppose those monuments had been erected, hundreds of them all over Europe, and there was a contemporaty movement to take them down or at least move them out of public/municipal spaces... WHICH side would you be on?

Do the math.

The comparison is dead on it's start. Again, if you have to to Godwin to make your point, you lost.

A Civil War doesn't equate to a foreign war. Slavery doesn't equate to what the Nazis did. doing so is idiotic.

DING what are three assertions I never made for 600 Alex

How telling --- and how pathetic --- that you need to run away by mischaracterizing what I posted here.
As I called it already ---- FEAR. You can't deal with it. Wimp.

More typical pogo posting. No actual content when countered, just the mewling of a beta tard.

"No actual content" applies to the clueless post I quoted, wherein somebody --- oh look, that was you --- tried to set up strawmen of three assertions I never made. And I called your ass on it. Because it's the mark of the unprepared.

Should you come to the fray actually prepared, you'll get your money's worth. This shit ain't it.

Prepared for what? All you do is lock into one chickenshit point in someone's post and then refuse to let go of it like some retarded cocker-spaniel.

Hey, when you plop fallacy turds and call them chocolate, I'll immediately point out the ingredient label.

Don't like it? Then don't plop those fallacies in the first place. AGAIN --- misrepresenting the point is the mark of those who CAN'T HANDLE the point. And to cut to the chase, it is by definition dishonest.