Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse

[Correll]

Correct. Support for such programs could have been very high. Or they could have relatively weak majorities. Or they could have been somewhat unpopular, but with a strongly motivated minority supporting them against a less motivated majority.


I don't know. I've never looked into the support that policy had at that time period, historically.


But regardless, I was asked something good about Southern Whites, and I gave one example, ie they helped a lot, in defeating HItler and the Nazis.


Do you want to address that fact, or are you just here to bog the thread down in mindless partisan race baiting pap?

Still playing dumb huh??

Ok....let's say there was a policy in the south that made it legal for black folks to go around and lynch and murder white women -- for no other reason than them being white women....they even nick name the policy Jane Crow...and on the rare occasion that someone is arrested for it -- the legal system insures that person gets off...

Obviously, it won't take a genius to deduce that most of the south would be against that.....

However, that is EXACTLY what the policy was in the south in regards to black men women and children-- that you some how claim you don't know much about....

Do you think this man would blow up a church killing four beautiful little girls and not expect legal punishment because he thought the white supremacist policy of Jim Crow wasn't popular??
View attachment 291796

I don't know. Possibly. Or it could be that he thought that the "Invisible Empire" would have the power to protect him, even though most people were against the murder of children.


I suspect you don't know either. YOU are just assuming the worst, because of the hate in your heart.

It's ironic for someone supportive of the Con-federacy and the slavery of fellow humans to talk about the hate in others' hearts.

Only if you ignore the last 150 years of American history, where celebrating the valor of the Confederate fighting men, has been seen as harmless, even healthy regional pride, and understood to NOT be supporting the defeated institution of slavery.


It is not credible that you missed that, so why are you pretending to be unaware of it?

I would find it very hard to sleep at night celebrating the valor of con-federates who fought to enslave their fellow humans. Can we assume that you have no conscience tugging at YOU in that regard?

Normal people judge historical figures by the standards of their time. IT takes a very special person, to judge someone from another century by today's standards,


and an even more special person, to then have a hysterical hissy fit about it.

 

[Correll]

Exactly. Dimwingers deny their racist history.

Yea...200 years ago
We are not embracing the good ole days of slavery
You have to be Republican to do that

Shut your face anus.

Someone is turning all potty mouth

YOu fucktards do nothing but spew the most hateful slurs against good people, all day long and then are shocked when people respond to you, as you so richly deserve.


NOt only are you fucking assholes, but you are pussies about it.

Ah...and here we have the victimhood I've come to expect from you.

Fuck you.

 

[GreenBean]

So, what other groups, do you fight with them, over their heritage?


What gives you the right to attack this culture?


Do you realize that your actions, reveal that the concept of multiculturalism has completely failed?

Why would I accept a culture that enslaved, maimed, raped, lynched and murdered my ancestors.

Because otherwise, this nation is over. And the sooner you admit that you have no plan to live in peace with your fellow citizens, the sooner we can work on what to do about that.


All I am asking is that your side stop with the lies.

We live in peace now, I don't need to see statues and honor those who harmed black folks to do that.

What did I lie about?

You're a scholar and a Gentleman - But I suspect your knowledge of African American History is limited to what Big Brother has drilled into your head for the purpose of keeping you on the plantation. Do you know who the first slave holder in USA was ... a Black Man ... do you know that the Roots saga [Alex Haley] is pure fiction ... do you that slavers did not go ashore & capture Africans - too risky, they bought them mostly from moslems --- who still practice slavery today. Do you know the story of whipped William and how he was used to rile up Northern whites to fight against the south ? So far as the statues go --- I don't really care - that's just Big Brother trying to create issues to keep us at each others throats

I assume you are a dumb ass who read a meme about Anthony Johnston and didn't read further....the slave? John Casor...

He wasn't the first slave owner, he was "AMONG" the first to go to court and declare his indentured servant be deemed slave for life...


After that, all slaves brought here from Africa were no longer declared indentured servants but slaves for life or until the owner frees them....

Is this supposed to make slavery ok because you think a black person owning another black person makes it ok??

During the Nazi/Jewish holocaust, white folks murdered other white folks, did that make the holocaust not as bad??

Prior to the John Casor case they were on equal par with white slaves such as the Irish who were considered indentured after the Casor case they were just slaves / property and could not earn their freedom over time unlike other indentured servants. I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce, Brains aren't everything. In your case they're nothing. Now STFU and get back on the plantation dumb ass

 

[Correll]

Do you understand the crimes and inhumanity that was done by the Confederacy.

Do you understand the fucking stupidity of a Nazi analogy, and pretending that 12 percent is the same as fucking ZERO POINT TWO percent?

I mean, I was talking to RW. He is the fucking moron that made that comparison, and stood by it. And that is the conversation you jumped into. If you want to comment on his fucking stupid post, then address his fucking stupid post.


I am discussing the rest of this issue, in the rest of this thread. THIS bit, is about the stupid shit you people say, and me calling you on it.

If you don't want to discuss how fucking stupid you libs are, when you just use buzz words, with no understanding of what the words actually mean, because you are fucking retarded,

THEN DON'T.

What you fucking don't fucking underfuckingstand in this fuckingly fucked analogy, is that fucking bad actors don't fucking all fucking work the same fucking way. Just because fucking Nazis fucking dealt in fucking genocide while fucking slaveholders fucking enslaved people, doesn't fucking affuckingfect the fucking fact that fucking Germany doesn't fucking hang up fucking statues and fucking monuments trying to fucking dilute and fucking sanitize and fucking whitewash the fucking inhufuckingmanity of their own fucking past, as do the fucking UDC edifices. Fucking both of them lost their fucking wars, did they fucking not?

Goodness gracious, that is a specious comparison.

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

The analogy is flying over Purell's hood because he keeps trying to compare "the Nazis" with "the Confederates" instead of the real point of comparison, which is to compare "what the Lost Cause tried to do about the Confederacy's image" with "what Germany did NOT try to do with the Nazi image".

RW, said nothing about that. YOu are putting words in his mouth. HE made a very general analogy between the two, and several other leftards jumped in to defend it.


This is the first of this excuse for it, anyone has mentioned.



I just pointed out how fucking stupid what they said was.

 

[Leo123]

Normal people judge historical figures by the standards of their time. IT takes a very special person, to judge someone from another century by today's standards,


and an even more special person, to then have a hysterical hissy fit about it.

Yep, they don't teach real history in our public schools.

 

[Correll]

Correct. Support for such programs could have been very high. Or they could have relatively weak majorities. Or they could have been somewhat unpopular, but with a strongly motivated minority supporting them against a less motivated majority.


I don't know. I've never looked into the support that policy had at that time period, historically.


But regardless, I was asked something good about Southern Whites, and I gave one example, ie they helped a lot, in defeating HItler and the Nazis.


Do you want to address that fact, or are you just here to bog the thread down in mindless partisan race baiting pap?

Still playing dumb huh??

Ok....let's say there was a policy in the south that made it legal for black folks to go around and lynch and murder white women -- for no other reason than them being white women....they even nick name the policy Jane Crow...and on the rare occasion that someone is arrested for it -- the legal system insures that person gets off...

Obviously, it won't take a genius to deduce that most of the south would be against that.....

However, that is EXACTLY what the policy was in the south in regards to black men women and children-- that you some how claim you don't know much about....

Do you think this man would blow up a church killing four beautiful little girls and not expect legal punishment because he thought the white supremacist policy of Jim Crow wasn't popular??
View attachment 291796

I don't know. Possibly. Or it could be that he thought that the "Invisible Empire" would have the power to protect him, even though most people were against the murder of children.

I suspect you don't know either. YOU are just assuming the worst, because of the hate in your heart.

It's ironic for someone supportive of the Con-federacy and the slavery of fellow humans to talk about the hate in others' hearts.

Only if you ignore the last 150 years of American history, where celebrating the valor of the Confederate fighting men, has been seen as harmless, even healthy regional pride, and understood to NOT be supporting the defeated institution of slavery.

It is not credible that you missed that, so why are you pretending to be unaware of it?

Here he goes with the "seen as harmless" jive again, completely ignoring those who never saw it that way at all. Guess they just "don't count". Or maybe they only count three-fifths.

I'm talking about the actions of the nation as a whole. The policy was one of reconciliation. And was though successive administrations of both parties for generation after generation.


Who are you talking about, that should somehow count for more than everyone else? Especially the generation that fought and paid the price to defeat the Confederacy.

 

[Correll]

Conservatives have never been in favor of church bombings. Where did you get the idea they were?

The South has always been CONSERVATIVE.

As far as Alabama, they were certainly leftist for many years, going for the FDR Raw Deal 4 times in succession, voted for Wilson, Cox, Adlai E Stevenson, Al Smith, etc. All the liberal candidates.

Look at the Governors of Alabama.

You mean like George Wallace?

Exactly.

This George Wallace?

Nape. The George Wallace who was actually active in politics.

"I am having nothing to do with this so-called civil rights bill. The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., to figure out what to do with it."

But your quote from much later in his life is an inspiring reminder that people can change. Thanks for that.

He was elected governor after he said that. With his support coming from the rural poor southern whites.

 

[Pogo]

Because otherwise, this nation is over. And the sooner you admit that you have no plan to live in peace with your fellow citizens, the sooner we can work on what to do about that.

All I am asking is that your side stop with the lies.

We live in peace now, I don't need to see statues and honor those who harmed black folks to do that.

What did I lie about?

You're a scholar and a Gentleman - But I suspect your knowledge of African American History is limited to what Big Brother has drilled into your head for the purpose of keeping you on the plantation. Do you know who the first slave holder in USA was ... a Black Man ... do you know that the Roots saga [Alex Haley] is pure fiction ... do you that slavers did not go ashore & capture Africans - too risky, they bought them mostly from moslems --- who still practice slavery today. Do you know the story of whipped William and how he was used to rile up Northern whites to fight against the south ? So far as the statues go --- I don't really care - that's just Big Brother trying to create issues to keep us at each others throats

The first slave holder in America (not the U.S. yet) was John Rolfe in Jamestown....show us that he was a black man. And by the time the U.S. was created in 1776, there were hundreds if not thousands of slaveholders......how do YOU determine which one was "the first"? Eh?

Actually well before that was the colony attempted by the Spaniard Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526 which brought at least 100 enslaved Africans to what would eventually become South Carolina. That would be 495 years ago. They were the first African slaves, although six years prior his associates had taken some 70 Indian slaves.

According to my History Books the United States wasn't formed till 1776 - by that time the Spaniards were no longer in South Carolina. So far as the English go - there is a record of slaves being purchased from a dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, The first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies was an African man named Anthony Johnson

Nobody said the US existed in 1526, in fact you'll note my wording: "what would eventually become South Carolina".

You'll also note that the post I quoted referred to, again quoting, "America (not the U.S. yet)".

NOR did I allude to any "English".

As far as "the first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies", the colonies were all over North America and the Caribbean, and assuming we include Spain, France and Portugal who also had colonies in all those places, they all had slaves predating even my 1526 event.

 

[Correll]

Do you understand the fucking stupidity of a Nazi analogy, and pretending that 12 percent is the same as fucking ZERO POINT TWO percent?

I mean, I was talking to RW. He is the fucking moron that made that comparison, and stood by it. And that is the conversation you jumped into. If you want to comment on his fucking stupid post, then address his fucking stupid post.


I am discussing the rest of this issue, in the rest of this thread. THIS bit, is about the stupid shit you people say, and me calling you on it.

If you don't want to discuss how fucking stupid you libs are, when you just use buzz words, with no understanding of what the words actually mean, because you are fucking retarded,

THEN DON'T.

What you fucking don't fucking underfuckingstand in this fuckingly fucked analogy, is that fucking bad actors don't fucking all fucking work the same fucking way. Just because fucking Nazis fucking dealt in fucking genocide while fucking slaveholders fucking enslaved people, doesn't fucking affuckingfect the fucking fact that fucking Germany doesn't fucking hang up fucking statues and fucking monuments trying to fucking dilute and fucking sanitize and fucking whitewash the fucking inhufuckingmanity of their own fucking past, as do the fucking UDC edifices. Fucking both of them lost their fucking wars, did they fucking not?

Goodness gracious, that is a specious comparison.

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

Really? Only because of that?


1.What nations were the Confederacy splint into after the war?

2. What ethnic groups did the Confederacy commit genocide on?

3. What nations did the Confederacy try to conquer?

4. DId the Confederacy and the Nazis share economic policy?

5. What outside nations occupied the Confederacy after the war?

6. How much of the Industrial heartland of the Confederacy was destroyed by heavy bombing?

7. HOw many nations occupied majority Confederate ethnic territory at the beginning of the war?

8. How many over seas colonies were taken by foreign powers in the decades prior to the Civil War?

9. What large and powerful nations did the Confederacy have secret alliances with prior to the war?

10 How close were the Confederates to the Atomic Bomb, by the end of the war?



Please show how in each of these limited examples, that the Nazis and the Confederates were soooo fucking alike, and their situations were sooo fucking alike,

or admit that you were just talking shit.

You forgot to axe her when the Confederacy took over the airports.

If she answers these questions, which she won't, I'll be happy to bring up other questions, to further show how fucking stupid her analogy is.

 

[Pogo]

The poster with the geographical challenge is trying to float yet another dishonest argument, suggesting that the conflict might have been about who "had" slaves. It was not, of course --- it was about who could prohibit slavery. That was the whole point of secession --- control of the future power of the legality of slavery.

New Jersey had already abolished, like many states phasing out over time. West Virginia did the same, and even separated itself from the Confederate cause by seceding from the secession. The Confederacy's whole hangup was that they feared they would lose control over slavery and be forced to abandon it. But here's a poster who wants to distract to "where slaves existed" just like the other "leftist Alabama" klown who wants to make it about "George Washington".

I've seen nothing to indicate that that was his intent. Seems like something you pulled out of your ass.

Whelp --- read the post he started with and tell us what else he could have meant.

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

Doooooooooooon't think so since he specified not a "legacy" but the time period DURING the War.

He listed a series of states calling them "northern" states with slavery. Only one (NJ) was actually "northern", three of them were border states, and among them Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland, as well as DC, had all abolished slavery before the War ended, and that sole northern state of NJ had already done so decades earlier. So it's fairly clear both what his time frame and his purpose were.

Lies

Thank you for that concise summation of your post. I already dismissed it.

 

[GreenBean]

We live in peace now, I don't need to see statues and honor those who harmed black folks to do that.

What did I lie about?

You're a scholar and a Gentleman - But I suspect your knowledge of African American History is limited to what Big Brother has drilled into your head for the purpose of keeping you on the plantation. Do you know who the first slave holder in USA was ... a Black Man ... do you know that the Roots saga [Alex Haley] is pure fiction ... do you that slavers did not go ashore & capture Africans - too risky, they bought them mostly from moslems --- who still practice slavery today. Do you know the story of whipped William and how he was used to rile up Northern whites to fight against the south ? So far as the statues go --- I don't really care - that's just Big Brother trying to create issues to keep us at each others throats

The first slave holder in America (not the U.S. yet) was John Rolfe in Jamestown....show us that he was a black man. And by the time the U.S. was created in 1776, there were hundreds if not thousands of slaveholders......how do YOU determine which one was "the first"? Eh?

Actually well before that was the colony attempted by the Spaniard Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526 which brought at least 100 enslaved Africans to what would eventually become South Carolina. That would be 495 years ago. They were the first African slaves, although six years prior his associates had taken some 70 Indian slaves.

According to my History Books the United States wasn't formed till 1776 - by that time the Spaniards were no longer in South Carolina. So far as the English go - there is a record of slaves being purchased from a dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, The first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies was an African man named Anthony Johnson

Nobody said the US existed in 1526, in fact you'll note my wording: "what would eventually become South Carolina".

You'll also note that the post I quoted referred to, again quoting, "America (not the U.S. yet)".

NOR did I allude to any "English".

As far as "the first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies", the colonies were all over North America and the Caribbean, and assuming we include Spain, France and Portugal who also had colonies in all those places, they all had slaves predating even my 1526 event.

The topic was confederacy - so you were off topic - but I guess I can't blame a clown for acting like a clown I should just blame myself for going to the circus. Prior to Anthony Johnson / John Casor they were on equal par with other indentured servants and were not considered actual property - there was a legal distinction. Capice ? I enjoy reading your posts - seriously it's like going to a concert because If shit was music, you'd be an orchestra.

 

[Pogo]

Do you understand the fucking stupidity of a Nazi analogy, and pretending that 12 percent is the same as fucking ZERO POINT TWO percent?

I mean, I was talking to RW. He is the fucking moron that made that comparison, and stood by it. And that is the conversation you jumped into. If you want to comment on his fucking stupid post, then address his fucking stupid post.


I am discussing the rest of this issue, in the rest of this thread. THIS bit, is about the stupid shit you people say, and me calling you on it.

If you don't want to discuss how fucking stupid you libs are, when you just use buzz words, with no understanding of what the words actually mean, because you are fucking retarded,

THEN DON'T.

What you fucking don't fucking underfuckingstand in this fuckingly fucked analogy, is that fucking bad actors don't fucking all fucking work the same fucking way. Just because fucking Nazis fucking dealt in fucking genocide while fucking slaveholders fucking enslaved people, doesn't fucking affuckingfect the fucking fact that fucking Germany doesn't fucking hang up fucking statues and fucking monuments trying to fucking dilute and fucking sanitize and fucking whitewash the fucking inhufuckingmanity of their own fucking past, as do the fucking UDC edifices. Fucking both of them lost their fucking wars, did they fucking not?

Goodness gracious, that is a specious comparison.

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

The analogy is flying over Purell's hood because he keeps trying to compare "the Nazis" with "the Confederates" instead of the real point of comparison, which is to compare "what the Lost Cause tried to do about the Confederacy's image" with "what Germany did NOT try to do with the Nazi image".

The Confederates were all exonerated by President Johnson with very few exceptions- those who committed war crimes, as well as President Davis and General Lee.

And Lee and Davis were exonerated posthumously- Davis having his citizenship restored by Southern Honky Jimmy Carter.

--------------------------------------------------------------- And?

This has WHAT to do with the Lost Cause Cult?

But since you bring up Robert E.Lee, I think statues of him should be festooned with a placard reading, "General Lee specifically told us not to put this shit up, but we went ahead and did it anyway, which kinda demonstrates who has the agenda here".

What do you think? Too wordy?

 

[Pogo]

You're a scholar and a Gentleman - But I suspect your knowledge of African American History is limited to what Big Brother has drilled into your head for the purpose of keeping you on the plantation. Do you know who the first slave holder in USA was ... a Black Man ... do you know that the Roots saga [Alex Haley] is pure fiction ... do you that slavers did not go ashore & capture Africans - too risky, they bought them mostly from moslems --- who still practice slavery today. Do you know the story of whipped William and how he was used to rile up Northern whites to fight against the south ? So far as the statues go --- I don't really care - that's just Big Brother trying to create issues to keep us at each others throats

The first slave holder in America (not the U.S. yet) was John Rolfe in Jamestown....show us that he was a black man. And by the time the U.S. was created in 1776, there were hundreds if not thousands of slaveholders......how do YOU determine which one was "the first"? Eh?

Actually well before that was the colony attempted by the Spaniard Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526 which brought at least 100 enslaved Africans to what would eventually become South Carolina. That would be 495 years ago. They were the first African slaves, although six years prior his associates had taken some 70 Indian slaves.

According to my History Books the United States wasn't formed till 1776 - by that time the Spaniards were no longer in South Carolina. So far as the English go - there is a record of slaves being purchased from a dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, The first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies was an African man named Anthony Johnson

Nobody said the US existed in 1526, in fact you'll note my wording: "what would eventually become South Carolina".

You'll also note that the post I quoted referred to, again quoting, "America (not the U.S. yet)".

NOR did I allude to any "English".

As far as "the first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies", the colonies were all over North America and the Caribbean, and assuming we include Spain, France and Portugal who also had colonies in all those places, they all had slaves predating even my 1526 event.

The topic was confederacy - so you were off topic - but I guess I can't blame a clown for acting like a clown I should just blame myself for going to the circus. Prior to Anthony Johnson / John Casor they were on equal par with other indentured servants and were not considered actual property - there was a legal distinction. Capice ? I enjoy reading your posts - seriously it's like going to a concert because If shit was music, you'd be an orchestra.

Thank you. Whatever I'm paying you, double it.

 

[GreenBean]

The first slave holder in America (not the U.S. yet) was John Rolfe in Jamestown....show us that he was a black man. And by the time the U.S. was created in 1776, there were hundreds if not thousands of slaveholders......how do YOU determine which one was "the first"? Eh?

Actually well before that was the colony attempted by the Spaniard Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526 which brought at least 100 enslaved Africans to what would eventually become South Carolina. That would be 495 years ago. They were the first African slaves, although six years prior his associates had taken some 70 Indian slaves.

According to my History Books the United States wasn't formed till 1776 - by that time the Spaniards were no longer in South Carolina. So far as the English go - there is a record of slaves being purchased from a dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, The first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies was an African man named Anthony Johnson

Nobody said the US existed in 1526, in fact you'll note my wording: "what would eventually become South Carolina".

You'll also note that the post I quoted referred to, again quoting, "America (not the U.S. yet)".

NOR did I allude to any "English".

As far as "the first LEGAL slave owner in the colonies", the colonies were all over North America and the Caribbean, and assuming we include Spain, France and Portugal who also had colonies in all those places, they all had slaves predating even my 1526 event.

The topic was confederacy - so you were off topic - but I guess I can't blame a clown for acting like a clown I should just blame myself for going to the circus. Prior to Anthony Johnson / John Casor they were on equal par with other indentured servants and were not considered actual property - there was a legal distinction. Capice ? I enjoy reading your posts - seriously it's like going to a concert because If shit was music, you'd be an orchestra.

Thank you. Whatever I'm paying you, double it.

And the band played on ...................

 

[Street Juice]

Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse


"A North Carolina county removed a Confederate statue from a historic courthouse early on Wednesday, joining the handful of places around the state where such monuments have come down in recent years despite a law protecting them.

News outlets reported that a subdued crowd of several dozen people watched as the statue of a soldier was taken down overnight outside the historic Chatham county courthouse, where it had stood since 1907. By dawn, even the base was gone..."

Burning books will be next...

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

Thank you for bringing up Stone Mountain.

As a refresher, Stone Mountain outside Atlanta was where William J "Colonel Joe" Siimmons went up in a rented bus with some followers partly from the Leo Frank lynch mob to initiate the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the reincarnation of the original 1865 Klan that had disappeared by 1872. He did this on Thanksgiving evening 1915 under the Klan's first-ever burning cross, along with a bible, and unsheathed sword and an American flag, as an opportunistic scheme to capitalize on the then-sensational film "Birth of a Nation", based on a 1905 Lost Cause novel called "The Clansman".

A couple of years later the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the same group that erected the statue in the OP along with hundreds of others, initiated the idea of a giant stone carving into Stone Mountain celebrating the valiant Confederacy in battle. They hired a noted sculptor who was also a rabid Klanner to tackle the project. At the same time they erected a plaque on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, honoring that building as the birthplace of the (original) Klan.

That Klan sculptor disengaged in a dispute and left the project to be completed by others. He then went on to carve Mount Rushmore. His name was Gutzon Borglum. The Stone Mountain carving, site of many a Klan honorific ritual, is now the largest relief sculpture in the world. The original plan was to include an altar to the KKK on the request of Helen Plane, President of the Atlanta chapter of the UDC, who wrote to him: "I feel it is due to the KKK that saved us from Negro domination and carpetbag rule, that it be immortalized on Stone Mountain".

The plaque on the building in Tennessee was turned around backward thirty years ago as a way for the building and the town to "turn its back on" the Klan. And the only complainants to whine about that were the Klan themselves, who regularly came to Pulaski for the same reason, to celebrate what one of the apologists in this thread would call their "heritage".

Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He had been pardoned by the governor of Georgia on the governor's last day in office (who took his Jewish payout and fled the state). Outraged citizens--black and white--stormed the prison and hauled the vermin off to be hung as his just desserts.

 

[Street Juice]

Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse


"A North Carolina county removed a Confederate statue from a historic courthouse early on Wednesday, joining the handful of places around the state where such monuments have come down in recent years despite a law protecting them.

News outlets reported that a subdued crowd of several dozen people watched as the statue of a soldier was taken down overnight outside the historic Chatham county courthouse, where it had stood since 1907. By dawn, even the base was gone..."

Burning books will be next...

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

And Mt Rushmore.

Just mentioned that but the fact is there is no one represented on Rushmore that has anything to do with the Lost Cause. Of the four only Roosevelt was even alive during that campaign. Feel free to show us where TR went around fluffing the Confederacy. And of course if you can show us where Lincoln did that I'm really gonna be impressed.

The campaign isn't anti-Confederacy, it is anti-white.

 

[Pogo]

Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse


"A North Carolina county removed a Confederate statue from a historic courthouse early on Wednesday, joining the handful of places around the state where such monuments have come down in recent years despite a law protecting them.

News outlets reported that a subdued crowd of several dozen people watched as the statue of a soldier was taken down overnight outside the historic Chatham county courthouse, where it had stood since 1907. By dawn, even the base was gone..."

Burning books will be next...

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

Thank you for bringing up Stone Mountain.

As a refresher, Stone Mountain outside Atlanta was where William J "Colonel Joe" Siimmons went up in a rented bus with some followers partly from the Leo Frank lynch mob to initiate the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the reincarnation of the original 1865 Klan that had disappeared by 1872. He did this on Thanksgiving evening 1915 under the Klan's first-ever burning cross, along with a bible, and unsheathed sword and an American flag, as an opportunistic scheme to capitalize on the then-sensational film "Birth of a Nation", based on a 1905 Lost Cause novel called "The Clansman".

A couple of years later the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the same group that erected the statue in the OP along with hundreds of others, initiated the idea of a giant stone carving into Stone Mountain celebrating the valiant Confederacy in battle. They hired a noted sculptor who was also a rabid Klanner to tackle the project. At the same time they erected a plaque on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, honoring that building as the birthplace of the (original) Klan.

That Klan sculptor disengaged in a dispute and left the project to be completed by others. He then went on to carve Mount Rushmore. His name was Gutzon Borglum. The Stone Mountain carving, site of many a Klan honorific ritual, is now the largest relief sculpture in the world. The original plan was to include an altar to the KKK on the request of Helen Plane, President of the Atlanta chapter of the UDC, who wrote to him: "I feel it is due to the KKK that saved us from Negro domination and carpetbag rule, that it be immortalized on Stone Mountain".

The plaque on the building in Tennessee was turned around backward thirty years ago as a way for the building and the town to "turn its back on" the Klan. And the only complainants to whine about that were the Klan themselves, who regularly came to Pulaski for the same reason, to celebrate what one of the apologists in this thread would call their "heritage".

Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He had been pardoned by the governor of Georgia on the governor's last day in office (who took his Jewish payout and fled the state). Outraged citizens--black and white--stormed the prison and hauled the vermin off to be hung as his just desserts.

Oh? You were there in the pencil factory?

So let's see, that's 106 years ago and you were old enough to remember --- you're like 117 right? And you don't believe in "law"?

Frank was not "pardoned" by the way. You're about as deft at history as you are with picking an avatar.

 

[Pogo]

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

And Mt Rushmore.

Just mentioned that but the fact is there is no one represented on Rushmore that has anything to do with the Lost Cause. Of the four only Roosevelt was even alive during that campaign. Feel free to show us where TR went around fluffing the Confederacy. And of course if you can show us where Lincoln did that I'm really gonna be impressed.

The campaign isn't anti-Confederacy, it is anti-white.

Nape. It's anti-propaganda. Specifically Lost Cause propaganda.

 

[Pogo]

Do you understand the fucking stupidity of a Nazi analogy, and pretending that 12 percent is the same as fucking ZERO POINT TWO percent?

I mean, I was talking to RW. He is the fucking moron that made that comparison, and stood by it. And that is the conversation you jumped into. If you want to comment on his fucking stupid post, then address his fucking stupid post.


I am discussing the rest of this issue, in the rest of this thread. THIS bit, is about the stupid shit you people say, and me calling you on it.

If you don't want to discuss how fucking stupid you libs are, when you just use buzz words, with no understanding of what the words actually mean, because you are fucking retarded,

THEN DON'T.

What you fucking don't fucking underfuckingstand in this fuckingly fucked analogy, is that fucking bad actors don't fucking all fucking work the same fucking way. Just because fucking Nazis fucking dealt in fucking genocide while fucking slaveholders fucking enslaved people, doesn't fucking affuckingfect the fucking fact that fucking Germany doesn't fucking hang up fucking statues and fucking monuments trying to fucking dilute and fucking sanitize and fucking whitewash the fucking inhufuckingmanity of their own fucking past, as do the fucking UDC edifices. Fucking both of them lost their fucking wars, did they fucking not?

Goodness gracious, that is a specious comparison.

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

The analogy is flying over Purell's hood because he keeps trying to compare "the Nazis" with "the Confederates" instead of the real point of comparison, which is to compare "what the Lost Cause tried to do about the Confederacy's image" with "what Germany did NOT try to do with the Nazi image".

RW, said nothing about that. YOu are putting words in his mouth. HE made a very general analogy between the two, and several other leftards jumped in to defend it.

This is the first of this excuse for it, anyone has mentioned.

I just pointed out how fucking stupid what they said was.

Actually I first brought it up WAY way back, and that was ALWAYS the point.

 

[Street Juice]

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

Thank you for bringing up Stone Mountain.

As a refresher, Stone Mountain outside Atlanta was where William J "Colonel Joe" Siimmons went up in a rented bus with some followers partly from the Leo Frank lynch mob to initiate the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the reincarnation of the original 1865 Klan that had disappeared by 1872. He did this on Thanksgiving evening 1915 under the Klan's first-ever burning cross, along with a bible, and unsheathed sword and an American flag, as an opportunistic scheme to capitalize on the then-sensational film "Birth of a Nation", based on a 1905 Lost Cause novel called "The Clansman".

A couple of years later the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the same group that erected the statue in the OP along with hundreds of others, initiated the idea of a giant stone carving into Stone Mountain celebrating the valiant Confederacy in battle. They hired a noted sculptor who was also a rabid Klanner to tackle the project. At the same time they erected a plaque on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee, honoring that building as the birthplace of the (original) Klan.

That Klan sculptor disengaged in a dispute and left the project to be completed by others. He then went on to carve Mount Rushmore. His name was Gutzon Borglum. The Stone Mountain carving, site of many a Klan honorific ritual, is now the largest relief sculpture in the world. The original plan was to include an altar to the KKK on the request of Helen Plane, President of the Atlanta chapter of the UDC, who wrote to him: "I feel it is due to the KKK that saved us from Negro domination and carpetbag rule, that it be immortalized on Stone Mountain".

The plaque on the building in Tennessee was turned around backward thirty years ago as a way for the building and the town to "turn its back on" the Klan. And the only complainants to whine about that were the Klan themselves, who regularly came to Pulaski for the same reason, to celebrate what one of the apologists in this thread would call their "heritage".

Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He had been pardoned by the governor of Georgia on the governor's last day in office (who took his Jewish payout and fled the state). Outraged citizens--black and white--stormed the prison and hauled the vermin off to be hung as his just desserts.

Oh? You were there in the pencil factory?

So let's see, that's 106 years ago and you were old enough to remember --- you're like 117 right? And you don't believe in "law"?

Frank was not "pardoned" by the way until 1986. You're about as deft at history as you are with picking an avatar.

Why don't you go slam your head in a car door, ADL lover. Frank was a guilty Jew who tried to pin the murder and rape of a 14-year-old Catholic girl on a series of illiterate black men. And lost. He was set to escape justice and the good people of Georgia hung his worthless evil ass. Good for them.