Mobile Alabama Removes Statue of Confederate Without Notice

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

I don't really care about your suspicions at this point. Confederates fought to continue the subjugation of another race. Fought for the right to keep people as property with no legal protections. Fought for the right to legally whip, maim, lynch, rape, brand, and burn other human beings among other atrocities.

I think every single bit of that was PURE EVIL sent straight up from Hell.

Your rejection of nuance and complexity, is just you justifying your modern day bullying and racism.


The stated reasons for the staues are not what you claim.

There are nuances and complexities to be considered when fighting for the right to legally own, whip, maim, lynch, rape, brand, and burn other human beings among other atrocities?

No.

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that the issues were more complex than that, is not credible.


I believe that you are stupid. But, you are not THAT stupid.


So, stop your lying.



YOur goal is to justify your modern day bullying and being an asshole.

I call out bigot and racists when I see them. I lump slavery apologists in with bigots and racists.

You are looking for any justification to honor people who fought for slavery. Fortunately, your kind is in the minority.

I think your position is fucked up.

you can support not destroying or removing these statues without being a slavery apologist or a racist.

Those are associations made in your addled little mind.

The libs know that. THey just pretend to be too stupid to know that, to give themselves a lame ass excuse for being assholes to people they don't like.

Some of them do know that, but using doublethink they pretend they don't.

 

[Faun]

[QU

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?

So? Where did I ever say Lincoln gave a shit about blacks?

You made a claim as to the motives of those who were supporting Lincoln's push to eventually end slavery, in the context of it leading the South to secede and fight to break away from the nation.

I pointed out that Lincoln's stated justification for the War, did not match your description of the events.


And asked if you thought that meant LIncoln was lying.


Instead of answering me, you dodged.

And still, I said nothing about Lincoln. Lincoln played both sides of the coin. Sometimes being empathetic towards blacks, other times being apathetic towards them. He ultimately used them to help him win the war. He was not who I was talking about when I said

 

[Correll]

[QU

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?

So? Where did I ever say Lincoln gave a shit about blacks?

You made a claim as to the motives of those who were supporting Lincoln's push to eventually end slavery, in the context of it leading the South to secede and fight to break away from the nation.

I pointed out that Lincoln's stated justification for the War, did not match your description of the events.


And asked if you thought that meant LIncoln was lying.


Instead of answering me, you dodged.

And still, I said nothing about Lincoln. Lincoln played both sides of the coin. Sometimes being empathetic towards blacks, other times being apathetic towards them. He ultimately used them to help him win the war. He was not who I was talking about when I said

Lincoln was the leader of the people you were talking about. He crafted the justification for war, and his anti-slavery platform was the solid policy of anti-slavery motive that you were referring to in your post.


That you are now pretending that Lincoln's actions and words are not relevant to your post, is just sophism and gas lighting.


Leading back to my earlier point. Your pretense of outrage over events that occurred several generations before you were born, are not credible.



YOu are just using them, to give a veneer of justification for your modern day bullying of your enemies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery.

Did you figure that out all by yourself?

"Slavery is an abomination that affronts almighty God and cannot be sanctioned by a Christian nation." - Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

You see, you Bolshevik thugs are as ignorant as you are evil. I don't expect a Chinese national like you to know American history, you know only what your rulers feed you, and most of that is lies. BUT the Americans who pulled down his statue are ignorant turds who had zero knowledge of the man nor the complexities of a war that ended 156 years ago.

Slavery was morally reprehensible

So is the Communism you promote, for exactly the same reason. Both deny the god given right of people to determine their own destiny and success in life.

to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

And Americans went to war and ended slavery. So fuck off with your hate mongering.

You're fucking deranged, Fruitcake.

View attachment 357246​

Learn something, you ignorant ChiCom bastard.

https://www.amazon.com/Life-Stonewall-Jackson-Esten-Cooke/dp/1582182515&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Might as well link the whole thing.

Secession Documents: Mississippi — Civil Discourse

Might as well link the whole thing

Sure. It just goes on to list their grievances that are all based on slavery like they said.

You are failing to make a point. I get the feeling you think the emotional impact of crying SLAVERY, will somehow distract from the fact that you were caught only pretending to be outraged about your primary compliants.


Hint: NO one is being fooled.

You are failing to make a point. I get the feeling you think the emotional impact of crying SLAVERY, will somehow distract from the fact that you were caught only pretending to be outraged about your primary compliants.


Hint: NO one is being fooled

LOL...
I've made my point repeatedly. It's you who cannot respond.
You obviously hold these supremacist confederates in high enough regard to continue arguing as intently as you have.

Why do you argue for the continued veneration of avowed white supremacists who went to war with your country to preserve their economic windfall created by the subjugation and exploitation of black folks?

Why do you continue to support placing these men in a position of prominence within our culture and society?
What virtues do these men represent that cause you to hold them in such regard?

I've repeatedly answered those questions and yet you ignore my answers and keep repeating your same questions. Thus admitting that they were never actually questions.



YOu have confirmed my point. YOu don't care about dialog, all you are here to do is cry "Slavery" and "Wacism" in the hopes of inflaming hate and racism.

YOu have confirmed my point. YOu don't care about dialog, all you are here to do is cry "Slavery" and "Wacism" in the hopes of inflaming hate and racism.

Sorry, you've parsed and hedged but never answered.

I've pointed out repeatedly that the sole reason for the civil war was indeed rooted firmly in racism.

Why do you support the continued veneration of these men?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.

LOL...
I told you why at the time.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of removal of monuments as there are no monuments to such, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.

Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.

LOL...
I have no enemies, dope.
You're projecting your own feelings onto me and my posts. It's you who sees me as an enemy and it is you who feels under attack because you sympathize with the supremacist confederacy.

I've only presented facts.
The confederacy were self avowed white supremacists.
Their primary reason for seccession and the war was the preservation of slavery.

Why do you support the veneration of such men?
Do you sympathize with their cause?

I don't sympathize with them. They lost. What I don't like is people today deciding the peace terms made by the actual participants long ago are now null and void. They were made US Citizens again, most were completely rehabilitated. They were allowed to mourn their loss as they saw fit. We have no right to change those parameters.

Plus part of me refuses to let the mob dictate how things are done. Fuck anyone who decides to take the law into their own hands in this situation and make our choices for us by violence.

And fuck you for supporting them, you cowardly little shit.

Then it seems to me the Native Americans have the right to tear down statues of every European colonizer, and to dynamite Mt. Rushmore. Whites broke nearly every single agreement they signed with the Native Americans. Cowardly, lying little shits.

So either way, the statues get torn down.

You prepared for the possibility that we might fight back? YOu sure you want to go down that path?

Go for it Gramps. Statues are still coming down.

But we are still here. YOu give any thought to what your bullying will lead to?

But we are still here. YOu give any thought to what your bullying will lead to?

Freudian slip?
Who's "we"? White supremacists?
Doesn't matter. We all knew anyway. You just have no courage of your convictions to just say so. If you can't speak freely on an anonymous internet board, you obviously dont have what it takes to do anything in the streets.

It will lead to more harsh words on an internet board. Fringe types know their place. You pussies have been steamrolled by BLM. You did nothing. Just like the previous generation in the 60's did nothing and were steamrolled. You will do nothing but bitch.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

I don't really care about your suspicions at this point. Confederates fought to continue the subjugation of another race. Fought for the right to keep people as property with no legal protections. Fought for the right to legally whip, maim, lynch, rape, brand, and burn other human beings among other atrocities.

I think every single bit of that was PURE EVIL sent straight up from Hell.

Your rejection of nuance and complexity, is just you justifying your modern day bullying and racism.


The stated reasons for the staues are not what you claim.

There are nuances and complexities to be considered when fighting for the right to legally own, whip, maim, lynch, rape, brand, and burn other human beings among other atrocities?

No.

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that the issues were more complex than that, is not credible.


I believe that you are stupid. But, you are not THAT stupid.


So, stop your lying.



YOur goal is to justify your modern day bullying and being an asshole.

YOur goal is to justify your modern day bullying and being an asshole.

^ White supremacist is feeling bullied.

 

[Faun]

[QU

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?

So? Where did I ever say Lincoln gave a shit about blacks?

You made a claim as to the motives of those who were supporting Lincoln's push to eventually end slavery, in the context of it leading the South to secede and fight to break away from the nation.

I pointed out that Lincoln's stated justification for the War, did not match your description of the events.


And asked if you thought that meant LIncoln was lying.


Instead of answering me, you dodged.

And still, I said nothing about Lincoln. Lincoln played both sides of the coin. Sometimes being empathetic towards blacks, other times being apathetic towards them. He ultimately used them to help him win the war. He was not who I was talking about when I said

Lincoln was the leader of the people you were talking about. He crafted the justification for war, and his anti-slavery platform was the solid policy of anti-slavery motive that you were referring to in your post.


That you are now pretending that Lincoln's actions and words are not relevant to your post, is just sophism and gas lighting.


Leading back to my earlier point. Your pretense of outrage over events that occurred several generations before you were born, are not credible.



YOu are just using them, to give a veneer of justification for your modern day bullying of your enemies.

Idiot, Lincoln was the leader of the Republican party after he became president. He was not the leader of the abolitionist movement. The south had already begun seceding before he was even sworn in and the abolitionist movement had begun long before he became president. Though he himself was against slavery, until he ended slavery to help win the war, he didn't even seek to end slavery; but only to contain it from spreading.

So no, I was not speaking of Lincoln, you brain-dead racist piece of shit.

If you're going to speak about history, I highly recommend you learn it first before you post about it.

 

[Faun]

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery.

Did you figure that out all by yourself?

"Slavery is an abomination that affronts almighty God and cannot be sanctioned by a Christian nation." - Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

You see, you Bolshevik thugs are as ignorant as you are evil. I don't expect a Chinese national like you to know American history, you know only what your rulers feed you, and most of that is lies. BUT the Americans who pulled down his statue are ignorant turds who had zero knowledge of the man nor the complexities of a war that ended 156 years ago.

Slavery was morally reprehensible

So is the Communism you promote, for exactly the same reason. Both deny the god given right of people to determine their own destiny and success in life.

to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

And Americans went to war and ended slavery. So fuck off with your hate mongering.

You're fucking deranged, Fruitcake.

View attachment 357246​

Learn something, you ignorant ChiCom bastard.

Robot Check

LOL

You're fucking deranged, Fruitcake.

First you make up a fake quote... and now in a failed attempt to show it wasn't fake, you post a fake link which takes one to....

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Might as well link the whole thing.

Secession Documents: Mississippi — Civil Discourse

Might as well link the whole thing

Sure. It just goes on to list their grievances that are all based on slavery like they said.

You are failing to make a point. I get the feeling you think the emotional impact of crying SLAVERY, will somehow distract from the fact that you were caught only pretending to be outraged about your primary compliants.


Hint: NO one is being fooled.

You are failing to make a point. I get the feeling you think the emotional impact of crying SLAVERY, will somehow distract from the fact that you were caught only pretending to be outraged about your primary compliants.


Hint: NO one is being fooled

LOL...
I've made my point repeatedly. It's you who cannot respond.
You obviously hold these supremacist confederates in high enough regard to continue arguing as intently as you have.

Why do you argue for the continued veneration of avowed white supremacists who went to war with your country to preserve their economic windfall created by the subjugation and exploitation of black folks?

Why do you continue to support placing these men in a position of prominence within our culture and society?
What virtues do these men represent that cause you to hold them in such regard?

I've repeatedly answered those questions and yet you ignore my answers and keep repeating your same questions. Thus admitting that they were never actually questions.



YOu have confirmed my point. YOu don't care about dialog, all you are here to do is cry "Slavery" and "Wacism" in the hopes of inflaming hate and racism.

YOu have confirmed my point. YOu don't care about dialog, all you are here to do is cry "Slavery" and "Wacism" in the hopes of inflaming hate and racism.

Sorry, you've parsed and hedged but never answered.

I've pointed out repeatedly that the sole reason for the civil war was indeed rooted firmly in racism.

Why do you support the continued veneration of these men?

I've answered that question repeatedly. YOur dishonest pretense that I have not, is you trying to gaslight me and to use the "question" as a form of a propaganda smear.


You are a race baiting asshole.



All you are here to do is cry "Slavery" and "Wacism" in the hopes of inflaming hate and racism.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.

LOL...
I told you why at the time.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of removal of monuments as there are no monuments to such, dope.

Except if it is irrelevant, then why did you spend so much time using those accusations as a reason for taking down the monuments?

When you admitted that you did not care, about something that was so central to your defense of your position,


you lost the debate.


YOu can't walk it back now.


THe only question(s) now is, what is your real reason for wanting to be a dick to these people.


And marty answered that. It is about gaining and using power against your enemies.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.

LOL...
I told you why at the time.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of removal of monuments as there are no monuments to such, dope.

Except if it is irrelevant, then why did you spend so much time using those accusations as a reason for taking down the monuments?

When you admitted that you did not care, about something that was so central to your defense of your position,


you lost the debate.


YOu can't walk it back now.


THe only question(s) now is, what is your real reason for wanting to be a dick to these people.


And marty answered that. It is about gaining and using power against your enemies.

Except if it is irrelevant, then why did you spend so much time using those accusations as a reason for taking down the monuments?

You are truly retarded, sir.
It's lterally been shown to you as simply as possible many times.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.

Dude. YOu pretended to be so upset over "wasism" and "Wp shit" one moment, and then when confronted on it minutes later, you didn't care at all.

You lost the debate right there.


It is obvious that your stated reasons for your position are completely bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.

As Marty said, this is about you people gaining and exercising power against your enemies TODAY, and all your moral grandstanding is just grade a bullshit.

LOL...
I have no enemies, dope.
You're projecting your own feelings onto me and my posts. It's you who sees me as an enemy and it is you who feels under attack because you sympathize with the supremacist confederacy.

I've only presented facts.
The confederacy were self avowed white supremacists.
Their primary reason for seccession and the war was the preservation of slavery.

Why do you support the veneration of such men?
Do you sympathize with their cause?

I don't sympathize with them. They lost. What I don't like is people today deciding the peace terms made by the actual participants long ago are now null and void. They were made US Citizens again, most were completely rehabilitated. They were allowed to mourn their loss as they saw fit. We have no right to change those parameters.

Plus part of me refuses to let the mob dictate how things are done. Fuck anyone who decides to take the law into their own hands in this situation and make our choices for us by violence.

And fuck you for supporting them, you cowardly little shit.

Then it seems to me the Native Americans have the right to tear down statues of every European colonizer, and to dynamite Mt. Rushmore. Whites broke nearly every single agreement they signed with the Native Americans. Cowardly, lying little shits.

So either way, the statues get torn down.

You prepared for the possibility that we might fight back? YOu sure you want to go down that path?

Go for it Gramps. Statues are still coming down.

But we are still here. YOu give any thought to what your bullying will lead to?

But we are still here. YOu give any thought to what your bullying will lead to?

Freudian slip?
Who's "we"? White supremacists?
Doesn't matter. We all knew anyway. You just have no courage of your convictions to just say so. If you can't speak freely on an anonymous internet board, you obviously dont have what it takes to do anything in the streets.

It will lead to more harsh words on an internet board. Fringe types know their place. You pussies have been steamrolled by BLM. You did nothing. Just like the previous generation in the 60's did nothing and were steamrolled. You will do nothing but bitch.

The post I was responding to, was not talking about WSs, you stupid fucking asshole.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.

LOL...
I told you why at the time.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of removal of monuments as there are no monuments to such, dope.

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that the monuments are to the military service of the men in question, instead of your butt hurt fag feelings about their politics,


is not credible.



You might be stupid, but you are not a drooling fucking retard as stupid as you are pretending to be.


No, you are more a dishonest race baiting asshole.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.

LOL...
I told you why at the time.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of removal of monuments as there are no monuments to such, dope.

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that the monuments are to the military service of the men in question, instead of your butt hurt fag feelings about their politics,


is not credible.



You might be stupid, but you are not a drooling fucking retard as stupid as you are pretending to be.


No, you are more a dishonest race baiting asshole.

Uff....
Yes! Their military service against the US for the explicitly stated purposes of defending their right to white superiorty over blacks, dope.

It not my "butt hurt fag fellings over their politics", dope. It was their stated mission.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

I don't really care about your suspicions at this point. Confederates fought to continue the subjugation of another race. Fought for the right to keep people as property with no legal protections. Fought for the right to legally whip, maim, lynch, rape, brand, and burn other human beings among other atrocities.

I think every single bit of that was PURE EVIL sent straight up from Hell.

Your rejection of nuance and complexity, is just you justifying your modern day bullying and racism.


The stated reasons for the staues are not what you claim.

There are nuances and complexities to be considered when fighting for the right to legally own, whip, maim, lynch, rape, brand, and burn other human beings among other atrocities?

No.

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that the issues were more complex than that, is not credible.


I believe that you are stupid. But, you are not THAT stupid.


So, stop your lying.



YOur goal is to justify your modern day bullying and being an asshole.

YOur goal is to justify your modern day bullying and being an asshole.

^ White supremacist is feeling bullied.

I was clearly discussing your sides's behavior in relation to the Southerns who support the statues.


But you know that. Instead you pretending to be fucking stupid, so you could cry "Wasist" like a retarded child.


Demonstrating my point. YOu fucking cowardly asshole.

 

[Correll]

[QU

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?

So? Where did I ever say Lincoln gave a shit about blacks?

You made a claim as to the motives of those who were supporting Lincoln's push to eventually end slavery, in the context of it leading the South to secede and fight to break away from the nation.

I pointed out that Lincoln's stated justification for the War, did not match your description of the events.


And asked if you thought that meant LIncoln was lying.


Instead of answering me, you dodged.

And still, I said nothing about Lincoln. Lincoln played both sides of the coin. Sometimes being empathetic towards blacks, other times being apathetic towards them. He ultimately used them to help him win the war. He was not who I was talking about when I said

Lincoln was the leader of the people you were talking about. He crafted the justification for war, and his anti-slavery platform was the solid policy of anti-slavery motive that you were referring to in your post.


That you are now pretending that Lincoln's actions and words are not relevant to your post, is just sophism and gas lighting.


Leading back to my earlier point. Your pretense of outrage over events that occurred several generations before you were born, are not credible.



YOu are just using them, to give a veneer of justification for your modern day bullying of your enemies.

Idiot, Lincoln was the leader of the Republican party after he became president. He was not the leader of the abolitionist movement. The south had already begun seceding before he was even sworn in and the abolitionist movement had begun long before he became president. Though he himself was against slavery, until he ended slavery to help win the war, he didn't even seek to end slavery; but only to contain it from spreading.

So no, I was not speaking of Lincoln, you brain-dead racist piece of shit.

If you're going to speak about history, I highly recommend you learn it first before you post about it.

Your denial is too stupid to dignify with a detailed response.


You are just a gas lighting troll, crying "Wacist" like a retarded child. Who is also a fag. Fuck off an die, loser.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?

You don't mention murder as being Evil. Why is that? Serial killings yes, murder no....



Is Murder not evil?

Yes murder is evil. Lynching is murder. Serial killings are murder. If I kill my husband because he talked too much when I wanted quiet time, that would be murder.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, dotard.

I'm not. I just don't trust your pretense of outrage. Hutch was talking a good game about Wacism, and then suddenly admitted that he didn't really care about that, when it was someone else doing the wacism.



I think that you are crafting your position, like Hutch, not based on your real feelings, but on how to give your self excuses to be an ashole to your enemies.

No. I really do think slavery is PURE EVIL straight up from Hell. Everything I have said supports that position.

The person who enslaves another person has STOLEN their life, and most times their children's lives well. And we only get one life, there are no do-overs.

People are not property. Evil is evil always. Does not matter who does it, or when the did it, or if other people thought it was okay at the time.

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.


So, I'm not convinced by your pretend outrage over "sins" for 5 generations before you were born.


I think you are a bully, cloaking your bullying in a thin veneer of moralistic bullshit.


I mean, I made that point already, and all you did was talk some more smack, without addressing my point.


Do you realize that your demagoguery supports my suspicion?

Yeah, like I said, Hutch was talking a good game too. Until suddenly went it was shown that "his" side was guilt of the same "sins", then suddenly, he did not care at all.

LOL...
I told you why at the time.
It's irrelevant to the discussion of removal of monuments as there are no monuments to such, dope.

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand that the monuments are to the military service of the men in question, instead of your butt hurt fag feelings about their politics,


is not credible.



You might be stupid, but you are not a drooling fucking retard as stupid as you are pretending to be.


No, you are more a dishonest race baiting asshole.

Uff....
Yes! Their military service against the US for the explicitly stated purposes of defending their right to white superiorty over blacks, dope.

It not my "butt hurt fag fellings over their politics", dope. It was their stated mission.

They fought to defend their homeland from what you admitted you agree was an illegal foreign invasion.

That you cannot respect that, because you disagree with them politically, over 150 years after the fact, is you being intellectually and emotionally stunted.


AND, you've demonstrated that you don't really care about the whole WP thing, because it did not bother you when it was pointed out in relation to others of that time.



So, all that, is just you having a hissy fit to justify your bullying today.



You are a troll and a liar.