It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:50 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 9:10 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:51 pm
Posts: 6604
Sorry, you can't be the Party of Lincoln and defend the Confederacy.
SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/furious ... nfederacy/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:10 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 17936
Location: Koloburbia
Conservatives, for the most part, can be divided up into Economic Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and Crazy Conservatives. It is primarily the social conservatives who would be the defenders of the Confederacy. Economic conservatives would be someone like Brackite or Cinepro. Social Conservatives would be someone like Majax. Crazy Conservatives would be someone like ... well ... someone who might be restricted to a lower kingdom forum.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:22 pm 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:29 pm
Posts: 913
Location: California
As someone who believes the confederates were right, I don't see how this has anything to do with the Republican party today. There are plenty of black conservatives who are not RINOs and would be considered in lock step with many of my views, Allen West, Herman Kaine, Larry Elder, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas.

As much as I would have liked to have convinced Robert E. Lee not to go into Gettysburg to but to just hang back defend the sacred soil and saw the south have an independent nation, I know that's not going to happen now. Most of us will be lucky to keep 60% of our hard fought earnings this year from going down the welfare hole.

The Republican party is a coalition of workers who are getting hammered and cheated by US tax law. It's a movement that will continue to pick up converts as people of all races experience the same abuse.

_________________
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”

This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:10 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:51 pm
Posts: 6604
Maxine Waters wrote:
As someone who believes the confederates were right, I don't see how this has anything to do with the Republican party today. There are plenty of black conservatives who are not RINOs and would be considered in lock step with many of my views, Allen West, Herman Kaine, Larry Elder, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas.

As much as I would have liked to have convinced Robert E. Lee not to go into Gettysburg to but to just hang back defend the sacred soil and saw the south have an independent nation, I know that's not going to happen now. Most of us will be lucky to keep 60% of our hard fought earnings this year from going down the welfare hole.

The Republican party is a coalition of workers who are getting hammered and cheated by US tax law. It's a movement that will continue to pick up converts as people of all races experience the same abuse.


Glad to see you're for insurrection and slavery. Don't you think it passed time to put away your white sheet?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:24 am 
God

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 4144
Location: California
Maxine Waters wrote:
As someone who believes the confederates were right, I don't see how this has anything to do with the Republican party today. There are plenty of black conservatives who are not RINOs and would be considered in lock step with many of my views, Allen West, Herman Kaine, Larry Elder, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas.

All of those you named are willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate idiots, as far as I am concerned -- especially the last two.

_________________
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:33 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12042
I can't speak to Allen West, Herman Kaine, or Ben Carson, but Larry Elder and Clarence Thomas absolutely are not pro-confederacy.

Furthermore, the notion that people are paying 40% of their income in taxes for welfare is is far off reality that it's pathetic that the assertion is made with a straight face.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11953
Location: On the imaginary axis
Maxine Waters wrote:
I would have liked to have convinced Robert E. Lee not to go into Gettysburg to but to just hang back defend the sacred soil and saw the south have an independent nation,


Er, what?

You think that the winning strategy for the south would have been to wait passively for the Union to build up its armies from its immensely superior reserves of manufacturing and manpower, and then try to fend them off? The strategy Lee was actually engaged in at the time of the Gettysburg battle (swift thrust to threaten Washington and force negotiations while the south had the initiative) was dead flat wrong? OK ...

Fortunately neither Majax nor myself had command responsibility at that time.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:18 am 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:29 pm
Posts: 913
Location: California
Chap wrote:
Maxine Waters wrote:
I would have liked to have convinced Robert E. Lee not to go into Gettysburg to but to just hang back defend the sacred soil and saw the south have an independent nation,


Er, what?

You think that the winning strategy for the south would have been to wait passively for the Union to build up its armies from its immensely superior reserves of manufacturing and manpower, and then try to fend them off? The strategy Lee was actually engaged in at the time of the Gettysburg battle (swift thrust to threaten Washington and force negotiations while the south had the initiative) was dead flat wrong? OK ...

Fortunately neither Majax nor myself had command responsibility at that time.


As long as the north was on the offensive trying to march south, the rebels were driving them back. West point taught the generals to engage in charges that simply didn't work as guns and artillery were able to fire more rapidly.

_________________
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”

This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:21 am 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:29 pm
Posts: 913
Location: California
Quote:
I can't speak to Allen West, Herman Kaine, or Ben Carson, but Larry Elder and Clarence Thomas absolutely are not pro-confederacy.


I didn't say any of them were pro-confederacy. The civil war is over. I'm proud to have every single one of those men in my party. They're working people who desire to keep their earnings and their birthright as citizens of this country just like me.

_________________
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”

This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
The south was right? You believe it is OK to own another human?

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11953
Location: On the imaginary axis
Maxine Waters wrote:
I would have liked to have convinced Robert E. Lee not to go into Gettysburg to but to just hang back defend the sacred soil and saw the south have an independent nation,


Chap wrote:

Er, what?

You think that the winning strategy for the south would have been to wait passively for the Union to build up its armies from its immensely superior reserves of manufacturing and manpower, and then try to fend them off? The strategy Lee was actually engaged in at the time of the Gettysburg battle (swift thrust to threaten Washington and force negotiations while the south had the initiative) was dead flat wrong? OK ...

Fortunately neither Majax nor myself had command responsibility at that time.


Maxine Waters wrote:
As long as the north was on the offensive trying to march south, the rebels were driving them back. West point taught the generals to engage in charges that simply didn't work as guns and artillery were able to fire more rapidly.


Certainly Lee's conviction that the Union forces on the ridge had been weakened enough to make a frontal attack a winning strategy proved to be mistaken. And this decision was taken in the face of direct advice from his second in command, Longstreet, who was well aware of the problems involved in such an assault:

Quote:
[Lee] rode over after sunrise and gave his orders. His plan was to assault the enemy's left centre by a column to be composed of McLaws's and Hood's divisions reinforced by Pickett's brigades. I thought that it would not do; [...] that the column would have to march a mile under concentrating battery fire, and a thousand yards under long-range musketry; that the conditions were different from those in the days of Napoleon, when field batteries had a range of six hundred yards and musketry about sixty yards. [...] Opinion was then expressed that the fifteen thousand men who could make successful assault over that field had never been arrayed for battle; but he was impatient of listening, and tired of talking, and nothing was left but to proceed.


Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America, (Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott, 1896), pp.386-387

Longstreet's whole book repays a close reading; for years after the Civil War, Longstreet was used as a receptacle for much of the blame that should have fallen on Lee - who was however regarded by many as beyond any possibility of criticism.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11953
Location: On the imaginary axis
Majax wrote:
As someone who believes the confederates were right


SteelHead wrote:
The south was right? You believe it is OK to own another human?


Yup. That's the point.

Try imaging what would have happened if the notion of 'states' rights' had led to the institution of slavery continuing within the United States after the 1860s. The idea that the US might have entered the 20th century with a large part of its territory still buying and selling human beings like cattle is simply inconceivable.

Well, at any rate I hope it is.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:15 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12042
Chap wrote:
Majax wrote:
As someone who believes the confederates were right


SteelHead wrote:
The south was right? You believe it is OK to own another human?


Yup. That's the point.

Try imaging what would have happened if the notion of 'states' rights' had led to the institution of slavery continuing within the United States after the 1860s. The idea that the US might have entered the 20th century with a large part of its territory still buying and selling human beings like cattle is simply inconceivable.

Well, at any rate I hope it is.

State rights calls functioned in the antebellum South much in the same way it in the Jim Crow South or, more recently, among anti-gay marriage groups after Obergerfell vs. Hodges. In fact, the modern Republican party's tendency to argue for local control when they lack power and firm distant control when they have it embodies the Old South's approach to politics in the period preceding the civil war. Sans the opportunists, the ideologues never would've had enough clout to take action. If nationalism better preserved slavery, then nationalism would've been the argument of the day. It's been a long time since I read a lot of primary sources on this, but I remember clearly that this wasn't even subtle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:22 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12042
W.E.B. Du Bois wrote this piece in 1928 on Robert E. Lee shortly after the period when a lot of the confederate monuments leading to discontent this moment were going up. It seems appropriate here:

http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-du ... ert-e-lee/

Quote:
Each year on the 19th of January there is renewed effort to canonize Robert E. Lee, the greatest confederate general. His personal comeliness, his aristocratic birth and his military prowess all call for the verdict of greatness and genius. But one thing–one terrible fact–militates against this and that is the inescapable truth that Robert E. Lee led a bloody war to perpetuate slavery. Copperheads like the New York Times may magisterially declare: “of course, he never fought for slavery.” Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. He followed Virginia not because he particularly loved slavery (although he certainly did not hate it), but because he did not have the moral courage to stand against his family and his clan. Lee hesitated and hung his head in shame because he was asked to lead armies against human progress and Christian decency and did not dare refuse. He surrendered not to Grant, but to Negro Emancipation.

Today we can best perpetuate his memory and his nobler traits not by falsifying his moral debacle, but by explaining it to the young white south. What Lee did in 1861, other Lees are doing in 1928. They lack the moral courage to stand up for justice to the Negro because of the overwhelming public opinion of their social environment. Their fathers in the past have condoned lynching and mob violence, just as today they acquiesce in the disfranchisement of educated and worthy black citizens, provide wretchedly inadequate public schools for Negro children and endorse a public treatment of sickness, poverty and crime which disgraces civilization.

It is the punishment of the South that its Robert Lees and Jefferson Davises will always be tall, handsome and well-born. That their courage will be physical and not moral. That their leadership will be weak compliance with public opinion and never costly and unswerving revolt for justice and right. it is ridiculous to seek to excuse Robert Lee as the most formidable agency this nation ever raised to make 4 million human beings goods instead of men. Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel–not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pm
Posts: 7641
Location: What does the fox say?
It is past time for the romanticized lost cause myth to be tossed on the trash pile of history. Living in TX I am surrounded by misinformed folk who might otherwise mean well, but overlook the glaring fact that the civil war was indeed at its heart about the right to enslave another human.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:53 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12042
If you are being generous with the definition of welfare, safety net programs consume about 10% of the federal budget. If you are irrationally generous with Ajax and assume he is in the upper tax bracket via his optometrist salary and investments, but has a really bad accountant, maybe - maybe - he's paying an effective tax rate of 25% on his gains. Personal taxes like this aren't the entirety of the federal budget, but for sake of argument let's assume it is.

That would work out to 2.5% of his income going to federal welfare being super favorable to him every step of the way. LA add-ons would be negligible. He estimated 40% of his income going to welfare. In fact, he estimated that for "most of us" when I had to assume he's very affluent in order to get a number that high. That's how up in the night he is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 11953
Location: On the imaginary axis
Quote:
Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel–not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.


Alas, I wish that was not true - Lee is, superficially at least, a very attractive character, with some admirable characteristics. But it is true, and there is no escape from it.

I think it was Alfred Douglas (was it?) who remarked that in his experience the experience of slave-owning made people he knew decidedly worse than they had been before they owned a slave. Slave-owning was a curse to the poor enslaved and degraded blacks themselves, certainly - but it also did horrible, deep and lasting harm to the white society that enslaved them.

And that harm is still evident today.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:43 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:51 pm
Posts: 6604
Maxine Waters wrote:

As long as the north was on the offensive trying to march south, the rebels were driving them back. West point taught the generals to engage in charges that simply didn't work as guns and artillery were able to fire more rapidly.


Grant took control of the Mississippi River and Sherman divided the south along its east-west axis. The US Navy stopped the south from exporting its one economic crop, cotton. At best Gettysburg was a delaying action. The south was never going to win the Civil War in the long run.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:57 am 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:12 am
Posts: 5863
Location: Arizona
Maxine Waters wrote:
There are plenty of black conservatives who are not RINOs and would be considered in lock step with many of my views, Allen West, Herman Kaine, Larry Elder, Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas.


So, do you now have that list for us of all of the Republicans, and pointing out to us on that list which ones are the RINOs and which ones are true and real Republicans???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13365
One would think the globalists would be more concerned about what is happening in India, right now, where there are more slaves literally enslaved, right now, than were ever imported over 300 years to America. It seems to me a statue is more important than real people. :/

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Republicans who defend the Confederacy
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:21 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12042
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
One would think the globalists would be more concerned about what is happening in India, right now, where there are more slaves literally enslaved, right now, than were ever imported over 300 years to America. It seems to me a statue is more important than real people. :/

- Doc

It's impossible to be concerned about more than one thing at a time, so good point. That's why all bad things must be ignored to concentrate on the one worst thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doctor CamNC4Me and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group