Duke of Earl

World War I Monument Vandalized

262 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

:lol: Hilarious.

Well he is a...................

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guido2 said:

My feeling is....unless....we white folk all pack up and leave back to Europe or drink the purple Kool-Aid in stadiums across the nation....he will never be satisfied. 

I have never advocated that position. I don't mind if you disagree with things I write. Don't make sxxt up so you can disagree with that; it's as dishonest as pretending the Confederacy had any kind of virtues at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Guido2 said:

BTW. while yes, there were slaves in the south...who a property and an asset. were taken care of...food clothing etc....not well but they were...to keep the asset going...

I've heard of people who think the slaves actually had it "pretty good" and argued that they lived better here than they did in Africa, or than some free men did. That's a contemptible viewpoint, but it's one of the revisionist history things neon-Confederates trot out from time to time in their ongoing effort to rehabilitate that terrible state. I certainly hope you are not one of these people.

Things like the Confederacy can happen again if we do not keep in mind the evil that lay at the core of it. This is why I find defense of it both difficult to understand and easy to condemn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

I have never advocated that position. I don't mind if you disagree with things I write. Don't make sxxt up so you can disagree with that; it's as dishonest as pretending the Confederacy had any kind of virtues at all.

Not making anything up. I based my statement on observation and analysis of your posts. It is my opinion. Nothing more ....nothing less.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Guido2 said:

Not making anything up. I based my statement on observation and analysis of your posts. It is my opinion. Nothing more ....nothing less.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Try thinking harder next time.

I guess you're in the club with Smokey and Duke of people who try to excuse the Confederacy? I'm sorry to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Evil Yoda said:

Try thinking harder next time.

I guess you're in the club with Smokey and Duke of people who try to excuse the Confederacy? I'm sorry to hear that.

You have a lot of nerve to sit there and write a lie like that and then complain about someone else's honesty.  :o

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

Try thinking harder next time.

I guess you're in the club with Smokey and Duke of people who try to excuse the Confederacy? I'm sorry to hear that.

As I have said Yoda. I neither condemn nor condone the Confederacy.  I have no passion to defend either side.

I see it from purely an analytical evaluative position. I take positions on both sides based on what my brain says....not my heart or soul. 

I also do not try to ram square pegs into round holes as you do. By that I mean, I look at things as they were in the 1800's....not the 2000's. The standards as they were (right or wrong) were way different than they are now. I chose to put round pegs into round holes.....you do not .. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

Try thinking harder next time.

I guess you're in the club with Smokey and Duke of people who try to excuse the Confederacy? I'm sorry to hear that.

Why is it that when some of the folks here insist that they wish to honor the memory of some of their ancestors (who happened to be Confederate soldiers) that you (and some others) equate that with "excusing the Confederacy"?  In my world those are two completely different things.

It's as ridiculous as saying that a modern day German person who wishes to honor their late father or grandfather who was a German soldier in WW II is somehow "excusing Hitler". What is very true in both cases is that if you were a young man who lived in the area that was mustering an army (either the south in the 1860's or in Germany in the late 1930's) you became part of that army unless you were willing to abandon your home (which was a very hard choice to make, and pretty hard to accomplish if you had a family to leave behind).

Just as not all German soldiers were card carrying Nazis, not all Confederate soldiers were slave owners. They just ended up on the losing side. Need I remind you that American soldiers were on the losing side in Vietnam, and many people felt that our involvement in that conflict was evil. Would you chastise someone for honoring the memory of a Vietnam veteran because you felt they were soldiers on the wrong side of a conflict? 

Some people really need to put the civil war behind them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Papi said:

Why is it that when some of the folks here insist that they wish to honor the memory of some of their ancestors (who happened to be Confederate soldiers) that you (and some others) equate that with "excusing the Confederacy"?  In my world those are two completely different things.

It's as ridiculous as saying that a modern day German person who wishes to honor their late father or grandfather who was a German soldier in WW II is somehow "excusing Hitler". What is very true in both cases is that if you were a young man who lived in the area that was mustering an army (either the south in the 1860's or in Germany in the late 1930's) you became part of that army unless you were willing to abandon your home (which was a very hard choice to make, and pretty hard to accomplish if you had a family to leave behind).

Just as not all German soldiers were card carrying Nazis, not all Confederate soldiers were slave owners. They just ended up on the losing side. Need I remind you that American soldiers were on the losing side in Vietnam, and many people felt that our involvement in that conflict was evil. Would you chastise someone for honoring the memory of a Vietnam veteran because you felt they were soldiers on the wrong side of a conflict? 

Some people really need to put the civil war behind them. 

Good points Papi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 6:16 PM, Smokey 1 said:

If they were still US citizens and the states didn't actually secede why did Lincoln send troops south?

They were rebelling. As SCOTUS reused despite what they claimed they never really left the Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 7:58 PM, Smokey 1 said:

I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was placed on private property.  

So placing them in a round about is not OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 8:26 PM, Duke of Earl said:

What   you forget was,  North or South , they   were all Americans 

Yup becuase as Texas v White says they never left the union. We even paid thier pennsions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 9:11 PM, blowboatbethesda said:

I was watching a well documented show on AHC today about Lenin and Stalin. Despite hst2's  beloved comparison's of the current POTUS to Hitler, rest assured, Stalin made Hitler look like Mother Theresa. 

Gassing hundreds of millions of people is pretty bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

They were rebelling. As SCOTUS reused despite what they claimed they never really left the Union.

How did they rebel?

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 10:04 AM, Ode2Joy said:

Tyranny and tyrants, by definition, include those who support a cruel and oppressive government where cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control includes the subjugation of humans, including children, based on race, as one's personal property in perpetual slavery. 

In the CSA, such a "right" was guaranteed to slaveholders whose "property rights" to hold people as slaves was protected by the CSA's constitution as the one constitutional right that could never be amended or eliminated per that constitution.

Presidential assassination of a U.S. president was never and is never a right, legal, God-given, or otherwise.

I'm curious.  Do you hold James Earl Ray in a similar, favorable light of admiration? 

  

Unfortunately the CSA Constitution held no authority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

Unfortunately the CSA Constitution held no authority

It would have had they succeeded.  I think it's fortunate that they failed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 11:10 AM, Smokey 1 said:

Again with what is the stupidest argument about the war I ever heard.

Whether you want to think they seceded or not they were independent and did not take orders from Washington.  For all intents and purposes they were their own country. If not then why did Lincoln invade Virginia?

He went to suppress a rebellion and do his Constitutional duty. Similar to when we sent guys in to Mississippi to quash thier rebellion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jtowne-swim said:

Unfortunately the CSA Constitution held no authority

Yeah, the South never seceded and Lincoln didn't fight a war to re-unite the country.  It was all made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jtowne-swim said:

He went to suppress a rebellion and do his Constitutional duty. Similar to when we sent guys in to Mississippi to quash thier rebellion

What form did the rebellion take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 11:30 AM, Guido2 said:

Actually California is making noises about doing just that. 

 

California is not trying to leave the Union. Republican counties are trying to leave California and form a new state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 11:55 AM, Smokey 1 said:

Natural rights trump any agreement.

The right of self determination is independent of any other rights and it doesn't have a morality clause.  The reason for independence is irrelevant to the right.

There is no right for a State to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 0:00 PM, Smokey 1 said:

The decision to secede or not was obviously voted on.

Not by all relevant parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

So placing them in a round about is not OK?

Depends on who owns the property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

There is no right for a State to leave.

It is a natural right so yes there is a right for a state to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

They were rebelling. As SCOTUS reused despite what they claimed they never really left the Union.

Then there would have been no reason for a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now