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

[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.

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

 

[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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

 

[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.

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

When you actually respond instead of just chickenshitting a miniscule point of a post, then I will quote you.

You never take a position, you just drive by critique someone else's using nitpicking.

 

[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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

When you actually respond instead of just chickenshitting a miniscule point of a post, then I will quote you.

You never take a position, you just drive by critique someone else's using nitpicking.

And there it is ----------------- crickets.

Oh and this time it's a ploppage of "so what if I made shit up, it doesn't matter".

I'm afraid it does.

Back onto Ignore you go. You're wasting everybody's time including your own.

 

[Correll]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

At least 160 Confederate monuments were finally removed in 2020

‘Exposing children to anything that falsely promotes the idea of white superiority and Black inferiority is dehumanizing,’ said a spokesperson from the SPLC.

americanindependent.com

You are very brave, fighting a war that other men won over a century before you were born.

Funny, those men had no problem with those monuments.

 

[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.

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

When you actually respond instead of just chickenshitting a miniscule point of a post, then I will quote you.

You never take a position, you just drive by critique someone else's using nitpicking.

And there it is ----------------- crickets.

Oh and this time it's a ploppage of "so what if I made shit up, it doesn't matter".

I'm afraid it does.

Back onto Ignore you go. You're wasting everybody's time including your own.

Make an actual point, take an actual position, until then, keep responding with your usual drivel and upping my post count.

Om nom nom nom,.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

Whatcha gonna do? Run away and hide like a lil bitch? I quote and refute you frequently and, at best, the most you do is whine and change the subject.

 

[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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

Whatcha gonna do? Run away and hide like a lil bitch? I quote and refute you frequently and, at best, the most you do is whine and change the subject.

Yet another demonstration of why reading comprehension is so crucial.

The above post ISN'T EVEN ADDRESSED TO YOU, and is about assertions that YOU DIDN'T MAKE. Why in the wide world of Blue Fuck would I be demanding quotes from YOU when you didn't make the assertion? Are you retarded, or is Marty your sock? Or are you his?

If you really need to nose into other people's convos, what happened up there is that Marty made a series of bullshit assertions of shit I never posted, I challenged him to quote any of them KNOWING he can't do it, and now he's paying the price for dishonesty.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

Whatcha gonna do? Run away and hide like a lil bitch? I quote and refute you frequently and, at best, the most you do is whine and change the subject.

Yet another demonstration of why reading comprehension is so crucial.

The above post ISN'T EVEN ADDRESSED TO YOU, and is about assertions that YOU DIDN'T MAKE. Why in the wide world of Blue Fuck would I be demanding quotes from YOU when you didn't make the assertion? Are you retarded, or is Marty your sock? Or are you his?

If you really need to nose into other people's convos, what happened up there is that Marty made a series of bullshit assertions of shit I never posted, I challenged him to quote any of them KNOWING he can't do it, and now he's paying the price for dishonesty.

You are fooling yourself if you think you can have a private conversation on a public forum. Opinions are posted for the public to read and consider. If you want private conversation use private communication. My point was and is that since you often refuse to answer questions or respond to challenges why do you think you can expect someone to answer yours'? That-by the way-is a question.

 

[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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

Whatcha gonna do? Run away and hide like a lil bitch? I quote and refute you frequently and, at best, the most you do is whine and change the subject.

Yet another demonstration of why reading comprehension is so crucial.

The above post ISN'T EVEN ADDRESSED TO YOU, and is about assertions that YOU DIDN'T MAKE. Why in the wide world of Blue Fuck would I be demanding quotes from YOU when you didn't make the assertion? Are you retarded, or is Marty your sock? Or are you his?

If you really need to nose into other people's convos, what happened up there is that Marty made a series of bullshit assertions of shit I never posted, I challenged him to quote any of them KNOWING he can't do it, and now he's paying the price for dishonesty.

You are fooling yourself if you think you can have a private conversation on a public forum. Opinions are posted for the public to read and consider. If you want private conversation use private communication. My point was and is that since you often refuse to answer questions or respond to challenges why do you think you can expect someone to answer yours'? That-by the way-is a question.

And this by the way is an answer. Nowhere did I use the word "private". I said that the exchange was between myself and Marty, because HE dropped several false claims.

Did you get that? HE dropped several false claims, not "YOU" dropped several false claims.

Therefore it's on HIM to back them up, not you. You just back up your own claims.

Shall I draw this out in stick figures or what?

 

[9thIDdoc]

I was talking to you about your not backing up your own false claims. If you ignore questions and fail to back up claims what makes you think anyone else has some kind of duty to answer yours? Your attempt to change the subject is noted and this is a repeat of the question.

 

[Pogo]

I was talking to you about your not backing up your own false claims. If you ignore questions and fail to back up claims what makes you think anyone else has some kind of duty to answer yours? Your attempt to change the subject is noted and this is a repeat of the question.

I haven't made any false claims, or been charged with any. When I make a claim --- I back it up.

So you admit you're charging in to a conversation between two other people -- one that doesn't involve Numero Uno --- and trying to change the subject THEY'RE talking about. A frank confession.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I was talking to you about your not backing up your own false claims. If you ignore questions and fail to back up claims what makes you think anyone else has some kind of duty to answer yours? Your attempt to change the subject is noted and this is a repeat of the question.

I haven't made any false claims, or been charged with any. When I make a claim --- I back it up.

So you admit you're charging in to a conversation between two other people -- one that doesn't involve Numero Uno --- and trying to change the subject THEY'RE talking about. A frank confession.

Your posts:
"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. 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.. 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.

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.

I love this attempt at double talk where both you and your posted "evidence" refute your own argument: 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. Then in the very next sentence you call history written in a text book you disagree with BULLSHIT and then try to somehow blame the UDC while at the same time admitting that they did not buy the text book. When are you going to back up this series of obvious contradictions? Ever? I've been looking forward to the attempt. I just love a good laugh. So which is it fact or bullshit?

Unanswered:

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?
No back up or answer:
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.

 

[themirrorthief]

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

When you actually respond instead of just chickenshitting a miniscule point of a post, then I will quote you.

You never take a position, you just drive by critique someone else's using nitpicking.

And there it is ----------------- crickets.

Oh and this time it's a ploppage of "so what if I made shit up, it doesn't matter".

I'm afraid it does.

Back onto Ignore you go. You're wasting everybody's time including your own.

Make an actual point, take an actual position, until then, keep responding with your usual drivel and upping my post count.

Om nom nom nom,.

the confederacy was made up of life long democrats...btw more dems than republicans voted against the civil rights act

 

[Pogo]

the confederacy [sic] was made up of life long democrats [sic] ...btw more dems [sic] than republicans [sic] voted against the civil rights act [sic]

You're REALLY not good at trolling with bullshit -- we've done this one to death. Which is why you come waddling in here trying to plant the same seeds again. Obviously you're not worth the time explaining it all so here's a page where somebody else laid out the same thing. You want to get into the nuts and bolts, start a thread on it. It's off topic here, as this thread has nothing to do with political parties.

And speaking of political parties, the Confederacy never had any. Some historians hold that that omission contributed to its failure. In the last election before that war the Democratic candidate came in dead last in a field of four, pulling exactly the same number of electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy as Lincoln did (zero) After those results were in he went on a media blitz to try to talk the South out of secession and when that failed, advised Lincoln on aggressively fighting them. BESIDES WHICH it would have been impossible for anyone over 30 to be a "life long Democrat" since the party hadn't even existed that long. Of course, actually knowing that would have required knowing what you're talking about rather than posting from the Cult of Ignorance. Fucking binary-bot.

Also off topic as this thread ain't about any of that either. Actually your post contains the same amount of points relative to the topic as Lincoln and Douglas combined got electoral votes from the South --- zero.

 

[Pogo]

Let's see if I can get through this without internet going down AGAIN....

Then in the very next sentence you call history written in a text book you disagree with BULLSHIT and then try to somehow blame the UDC while at the same time admitting that they did not buy the text book.

NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THE UDC "BOUGHT" TEXTBOOKS. Not me, not my video, not any history I've ever seen. Where do you come UP with this shit?? They didn't "buy" them --- they SCREENED them, like a church imprimatur if you know what that is. You either used their approved revisionist books, or they would make life hard for you. Gangster tactics.

What I said was that HISTORY is fact, not necessarily a heavily revised history BOOK. That would be like saying "YouTube is fact" and then holding up a Pregger Ewe or Whittle Bill video. You can write a book, you can record a video, you can give a speech --- doesn't mean you're dealing with FACTS. Hell we've got a dumbass on this board, we call him Special Ed, who has books on Amazon right now. Special Ed sits on this board trying to tell us, among other things, that Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party 28 years after his own death. And he's got books too. They get one-star reviews only because Amazon does not provide for negative-number stars.

What the UDC did was act as a censor for EXISTING books. You wanted to sell your history textbook in the South, you had to sanitize it in the way the UDC wanted that history revised, just as they were revising the same history with the monuments in the topic of this thread.

Moreover you admitted this later in this same post:

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.

If you're "well aware of that" why are you arguing against yourself? Besides which I pointed out to you AT LEAST THREE TIMES that video referring to the sanitized bullshit content of those books. I drew your attention to the fact that it was literally the FIRST thing in that video, which showed us that you didn't even click it.

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.

We haven't discussed "why the war was fought for the Confederacy" but as for the individuals, those fighting for the CSA, they were coerced, not fighting for their own interests. They were drafted, they deserted in massive numbers, and those were hunted down and hanged, and they formed a resistance all over the Confederacy (Searcy County Arkansas; Texas hill country; northeast Georgia moutains; East Tennessee; Winston County Alabama, the "Free State of Jones" in Mississippi) as well as "home guards" who would fend off ANY army from EITHER side. The Civil War was as is always the case in war stirred up by the Haves using the Have-Nots to do their battle for them while the Haves sat on their fat asses plotting to stay rich. Those Haves were despised by the common subsistence farmer populace who derived no benefit from Slavery. An entire state-sized section of northwest Virginia seceded from its own state in protest. Another state sized section of East Tennessee (right over the mountains from where I sit) where the referendum on secession said NO by 95%, would have done the same thing if not for the presence of Confederate troops preventing it.

So don't give me this bullshit about "individuals fighting for themselves". Those individuals were fighting for somebody else's agenda, and they were forced into it.

I can't do any more of this until my internet stops going down. It's dropped five times today already.[/QUOTE]

 

[9thIDdoc]

Let's see if I can get through this without internet going down AGAIN....

Then in the very next sentence you call history written in a text book you disagree with BULLSHIT and then try to somehow blame the UDC while at the same time admitting that they did not buy the text book.

NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THE UDC "BOUGHT" TEXTBOOKS. Not me, not my video, not any history I've ever seen. Where do you come UP with this shit?? They didn't "buy" them --- they SCREENED them, like a church imprimatur if you know what that is. You either used their approved revisionist books, or they would make life hard for you. Gangster tactics.

What I said was that HISTORY is fact, not necessarily a heavily revised history BOOK. That would be like saying "YouTube is fact" and then holding up a Pregger Ewe or Whittle Bill video. You can write a book, you can record a video, you can give a speech --- doesn't mean you're dealing with FACTS. Hell we've got a dumbass on this board, we call him Special Ed, who has books on Amazon right now. Special Ed sits on this board trying to tell us, among other things, that Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party 28 years after his own death. And he's got books too. They get one-star reviews only because Amazon does not provide for negative-number stars.

What the UDC did was act as a censor for EXISTING books. You wanted to sell your history textbook in the South, you had to sanitize it in the way the UDC wanted that history revised, just as they were revising the same history with the monuments in the topic of this thread.

Moreover you admitted this later in this same post:

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.

If you're "well aware of that" why are you arguing against yourself? Besides which I pointed out to you AT LEAST THREE TIMES that video referring to the sanitized bullshit content of those books. I drew your attention to the fact that it was literally the FIRST thing in that video, which showed us that you didn't even click it.

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.

We haven't discussed "why the war was fought for the Confederacy" but as for the individuals, those fighting for the CSA, they were coerced, not fighting for their own interests. They were drafted, they deserted in massive numbers, and those were hunted down and hanged, and they formed a resistance all over the Confederacy (Searcy County Arkansas; Texas hill country; northeast Georgia moutains; East Tennessee; Winston County Alabama, the "Free State of Jones" in Mississippi) as well as "home guards" who would fend off ANY army from EITHER side. The Civil War was as is always the case in war stirred up by the Haves using the Have-Nots to do their battle for them while the Haves sat on their fat asses plotting to stay rich. Those Haves were despised by the common subsistence farmer populace who derived no benefit from Slavery. An entire state-sized section of northwest Virginia seceded from its own state in protest. Another state sized section of East Tennessee (right over the mountains from where I sit) where the referendum on secession said NO by 95%, would have done the same thing if not for the presence of Confederate troops preventing it.

So don't give me this bullshit about "individuals fighting for themselves". Those individuals were fighting for somebody else's agenda, and they were forced into it.

I can't do any more of this until my internet stops going down. It's dropped five times today already.

[/QUOTE]
NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THE UDC "BOUGHT" TEXTBOOKS. Not me, not my video, not any history I've ever seen.
And neither did I and I did in fact note that you stated that you did not. Of course that is entirely beside the point. The point is that you have provided no proof or evidence of your claims about the UDC. Zero. ZIP. Nada. And certainly no proof that they in any way tried to revise history or spread propaganda. How exactly did they force any school or school board to use the books they favored.? For someone who claims to always back up his claims can you not at least provide a little evidence?

What I said was that HISTORY is fact, not necessarily a heavily revised history BOOK.
Bullshit. What you said was:
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. 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..
So history is fact no matter where it's written? Except now you want to claim that maybe it isn't if the book it's written in has been revised? Would you like to maybe add a few more "exceptions". Maybe you'd like to explain how it is that historians and the books they write often disagree on some points if what they write is all fact. Back up your claim.

We haven't discussed "why the war was fought for the Confederacy
Untrue. I wrote "...irrelevant to why the war was fought for the Confederacy,..." and you promptly relied that a portion of the articles of scission explained it. And you then got irate and claimed I was calling the Confederate government liars which was totally untrue.

What you write about individuals that fought for the South is largely some of your own bullshit. Yes, some troops on both sides were drafted, some deserters were shot or hung on both sides, some parts of the country, groups, and certainly Individuals fought on the other side from their neighbors friends and relatives. I don't know-and you have not presented evidence- that this was more true of one side than the other. The most brilliant general of either side was a ranking Union officer who resigned his commission to return to, and fight for the South, and he was not the only Union officer to do so. They weren't drafted. But at least the Confederate army never fired on and killed civilians during draft riots. There was a movement in NYC to secede also. Once again you claim historical fact without the first shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[dudmuck]

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.

Again, all you do is nit-pick, then go on a run on paragraph belch-fest.

Then your next step is simple and always has been.

Just fucking QUOTE ME where I made ANY of the bullshit strawman points you hallucinated, and you can prove me wrong, right here right now. Could have done it yesterday if you had anything.

When you actually respond instead of just chickenshitting a miniscule point of a post, then I will quote you.

You never take a position, you just drive by critique someone else's using nitpicking.

And there it is ----------------- crickets.

Oh and this time it's a ploppage of "so what if I made shit up, it doesn't matter".

I'm afraid it does.

Back onto Ignore you go. You're wasting everybody's time including your own.

Make an actual point, take an actual position, until then, keep responding with your usual drivel and upping my post count.

Om nom nom nom,.

the confederacy was made up of life long democrats...btw more dems than republicans voted against the civil rights act

 

[Wyatt earp]

Perhaps, but they likely comprise a small contingent of those who voted for Trump overall. I only know 1 or 2 Trump supporters in real life that care about this sort of thing.

The ones in this thread who care about it are almost all Trunpsters.

History buffs are all trumpeters?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Perhaps, but they likely comprise a small contingent of those who voted for Trump overall. I only know 1 or 2 Trump supporters in real life that care about this sort of thing.

The ones in this thread who care about it are almost all Trunpsters.

History buffs are all trumpeters?

Not really. Trumpsters are often uneducated and just like confederate statues.

Sucks for you all, huh?