Leftards Beware When Assaulting Trump Fans

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

There ARE good people who don't want to purge symbolic historic plaques and statues.. I'm one of them.. I'm basically PRO-CHOICE on everything.. Because freedom and liberty only survive in a country that knows the value of tolerance...

My opinion on Civil War monuments is that it seems out of character for a country to commemorate statues/monuments to the defeated enemy in wartime. We did, but it's always been strange to me. That aside, do we absorb history better from monuments or books? I'd hope it's the latter.

We live in the age of instantaneous digital information. Books should be obsolete at this point, but they're not. Unfortunately, we've managed to clutter our digital creation with advertisement-driven anecdotal, emotional crap because we've made accountability obsolete with political correctness. Feelings before fact. Intolerance of tolerance.

 

[flacaltenn]

My opinion on Civil War monuments is that it seems out of character for a country to commemorate statues/monuments to the defeated enemy in wartime. We did, but it's always been strange to me. That aside, do we absorb history better from monuments or books? I'd hope it's the latter.

I think the diff here is that "enemy" was American also.. Bloodiest war for American deaths STILL.. And the object of that war was to save the Union... Not totally obliterate the half that did not prevail in the Secession..

Both sides had to die to make the Union stronger and whole again....

The valuable message those symbols, plaques, monuments represent is to resolve that this country never becomes that divided again... Think that has any use today???

Should we end up there again -- and the Secession clock is approaching midnight from BOTH useless, aging and inept parties --- there's gonna be a losing side AGAIN... Maybe we should teach our kids what the damage can be....

 

[OKTexas]

They're already rewriting the books.

.

How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?

Zero, don'cha know everything that happened over the last 240 years is all because of slavery, no amount of reform can erase that. Don't believe me, just ask Im2.

Slavery, on this continent, actually goes back a little over twice that long (494 years TBE). But I didn't learn that from a statue. I doubt there is such a statue and if there is you'd have to be in a specific spot in rural South Carolina to see it. History books, on the other hand, go anywhere.

Well smart ass if you want to go beyond our country as we know it, natives raided other tribes and took slaves almost from mans earliest occupation of this continent. Build yourself a statue to that.

Irrelevant. You cited a period of time half as long as it really is and I corrected it. Moreover we're talking specifically about transAtlantic slavery, which is a whole different animal from the slavery practiced for millennia on every continent in antiquity where people became spoils of war between neighboring tribes. Specifically this was the practice if importing people from an entirely different continent (and language and culture and flora and fauna), coupled with the marketing tool of this ethnocentric propaganda that they were "savages" ergo not really human, so it was OK, which we call "racism". Added to which, also unlike for lack of a better term 'traditional' slavery, they and their progeny were held to be slaves for life, specifically on account of that race. So you're trying to equate apples with kumquats here.

The final point there was that there exists, and would not be expected to exist, no "statue" or monument to tell us about Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón bringing the first captive Africans here in 1526. That's found, AGAIN, in the history books, because HISTORY BOOKS ARE WHERE HISTORY FUCKING LIVES. If we had to depend on some intrepid soul setting up a marker on the Pee Dee River to find out about this it would be obscure to the point of nonexistence.

But just for the sake of argument let's imagine there is such a marker explaining the story of San Miguel de Guadape. Now imagine somebody tears it down. Does it suddenly become never-known? Does it induce some weird mass amnesia?

Wow, 1526, that was quite a while before the first American colony was founded. Any more strawmen you want to throw out?

.

 

[Votto]

You be looking down the barrel of a 9mm with hollow points.

Trump Supporter Draws Gun In Self-Defense After Politically Motivated Attack

They forgot to wait till the government takes all the guns.

LMAO!

 

[flacaltenn]

That aside, do we absorb history better from monuments or books? I'd hope it's the latter.

The folks WHO NEED to read the books are not gonna get there without some inspiration of seeing history they don't understand.. Being at particular place that's historic is the best sales pitch for acquiring that knowledge..

Aint gonna happen any other way for the folks who need to learn the most...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You actually want to ignore abounding resources available whenever you want them --- and then blame THE UNREAD BOOKS? Or do you want to blame ME --- for what, not reading it aloud to you?

No.,. I'm blaming and flaming you about concocting a silly assertion that "Most people know the history" and then proposing a ludicrous solution "to read books"... That doesn't set the awareness of history in the minds of 90% of America....


You got nothing.. Better to argue RETAINING or HIDING the public tributes to the past than make up silly assertions and depend America to read books when more than half of our public school kids are FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE and totally uninterested about history...

Even this tempest about "monuments and symbols" does more for History Appreciation week than PURGING those symbols...

WHERE did I post "most people know their history"? Got a quote? I seem to remember some wag contending that statues represent history and contradicting that silly assertion because obviously THEY DON'T. If you have to invent strawmen to knock down then you're playing with yourself.

History is recorded in history books, not statues, not monuments and not message boards or Googly Images. That's an irrefutable fact. And NOBODY is tearing down those history books, hence they ARE available for anyone interested. Your red herring canard about "what people come out of school knowing" is also IRRELEVANT to that.

History IS NOT recorded in statues, PERIOD. Address the topic actually presented and quit inventing new ones, K?

I believe you were talking about me. I never said statues were a history lesson, I said they were history, as in a reflection of our past. You can't tell me a painting of Abraham Lincoln is not history even though he was a historic figure.

A real American will not pick and choose what part of history should be learned, represented, or hidden. Tearing down those figures is anarchy of the left. Yeah......I know....I know....the left believes they own the entire country, and no dissent allowed. But the truth is we are a country of different people with different views.

This time it's statues, next time it will be books. They even wanted to remove George Washington. First they came after the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I said nothing.............

I honestly don't remember which of y'all said it, it's been rerun like a jukebox record several times. And I don't remember it being phrased as "statues are a history LESSON", that would actually be more accurate. The refrain I do remember is "removing statues is removing history", which it clearly and demonstrably is not.

Moreover neither "books" nor "George Washington" has any relevance to the Lost Cause propaganda, which is entirely what the monument moving is about. Except for of course those books that were directly rewritten and/or censored by that propaganda committee, which we already explored. Those books have presumably been supplanted, I don't know, but they were after all schoolbooks so not really relevant to true historical research anyway. That is to say, anyone who wants to know what really went down in the Civil War has plentiful resources to find out whether they reflect that propaganda or not.

As for "George Washington", who provably died long before the Civil War, there's just no way to leap there. As they say in Maine, you can't get there from here. So that's just a strawman made out of genuine canard.

When I said removing history, you were the one that equated it to history lessons, not me. Anything representing the past is history, including statues. So I stand by my original comment, removing the statues are removing history.

It's all relevant because we also know the history of the Democrats. They don't stop at point A where they started. If successful, they move to point B. When successful at point B, they move to point C and so on. So I see the statues as point A. Or maybe point A started before the statues.

The End of History Education in Elementary Schools? | Perspectives on History | AHA

 

[Pogo]

How many statues have to be removed before slavery never happened?

Zero, don'cha know everything that happened over the last 240 years is all because of slavery, no amount of reform can erase that. Don't believe me, just ask Im2.

Slavery, on this continent, actually goes back a little over twice that long (494 years TBE). But I didn't learn that from a statue. I doubt there is such a statue and if there is you'd have to be in a specific spot in rural South Carolina to see it. History books, on the other hand, go anywhere.

Well smart ass if you want to go beyond our country as we know it, natives raided other tribes and took slaves almost from mans earliest occupation of this continent. Build yourself a statue to that.

Irrelevant. You cited a period of time half as long as it really is and I corrected it. Moreover we're talking specifically about transAtlantic slavery, which is a whole different animal from the slavery practiced for millennia on every continent in antiquity where people became spoils of war between neighboring tribes. Specifically this was the practice if importing people from an entirely different continent (and language and culture and flora and fauna), coupled with the marketing tool of this ethnocentric propaganda that they were "savages" ergo not really human, so it was OK, which we call "racism". Added to which, also unlike for lack of a better term 'traditional' slavery, they and their progeny were held to be slaves for life, specifically on account of that race. So you're trying to equate apples with kumquats here.

The final point there was that there exists, and would not be expected to exist, no "statue" or monument to tell us about Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón bringing the first captive Africans here in 1526. That's found, AGAIN, in the history books, because HISTORY BOOKS ARE WHERE HISTORY FUCKING LIVES. If we had to depend on some intrepid soul setting up a marker on the Pee Dee River to find out about this it would be obscure to the point of nonexistence.

But just for the sake of argument let's imagine there is such a marker explaining the story of San Miguel de Guadape. Now imagine somebody tears it down. Does it suddenly become never-known? Does it induce some weird mass amnesia?

Wow, 1526, that was quite a while before the first American colony was founded. Any more strawmen you want to throw out?

.

Yes it was, which is also irrelevant. The citation was "slavery on this continent". That's a geographical term, not a political one. Slavery on this continent in no way began with the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I think the diff here is that "enemy" was American also

Agreed. It's a unique situation.

The valuable message those symbols, plaques, monuments represent is to resolve that this country never becomes that divided again... Think that has any use today???

No. It's worse. We've managed to completely dehumanize our political enemies. We downgrade their very existence akin to characters in video games. The real consequences of a civil war are not real to us. Until they are. Then it will be some dark fucking days.

Should we end up there again -- and the Secession clock is approaching midnight from BOTH useless, aging and inept parties --- there's gonna be a losing side AGAIN... Maybe we should teach our kids what the damage can be....

Maybe something or someone (else) can convince us to stop being selfish dicks to each other. I'm skeptical.

 

[Pogo]

You actually want to ignore abounding resources available whenever you want them --- and then blame THE UNREAD BOOKS? Or do you want to blame ME --- for what, not reading it aloud to you?

No.,. I'm blaming and flaming you about concocting a silly assertion that "Most people know the history" and then proposing a ludicrous solution "to read books"... That doesn't set the awareness of history in the minds of 90% of America....


You got nothing.. Better to argue RETAINING or HIDING the public tributes to the past than make up silly assertions and depend America to read books when more than half of our public school kids are FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE and totally uninterested about history...

Even this tempest about "monuments and symbols" does more for History Appreciation week than PURGING those symbols...

WHERE did I post "most people know their history"? Got a quote? I seem to remember some wag contending that statues represent history and contradicting that silly assertion because obviously THEY DON'T. If you have to invent strawmen to knock down then you're playing with yourself.

History is recorded in history books, not statues, not monuments and not message boards or Googly Images. That's an irrefutable fact. And NOBODY is tearing down those history books, hence they ARE available for anyone interested. Your red herring canard about "what people come out of school knowing" is also IRRELEVANT to that.

History IS NOT recorded in statues, PERIOD. Address the topic actually presented and quit inventing new ones, K?

I believe you were talking about me. I never said statues were a history lesson, I said they were history, as in a reflection of our past. You can't tell me a painting of Abraham Lincoln is not history even though he was a historic figure.

A real American will not pick and choose what part of history should be learned, represented, or hidden. Tearing down those figures is anarchy of the left. Yeah......I know....I know....the left believes they own the entire country, and no dissent allowed. But the truth is we are a country of different people with different views.

This time it's statues, next time it will be books. They even wanted to remove George Washington. First they came after the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I said nothing.............

I honestly don't remember which of y'all said it, it's been rerun like a jukebox record several times. And I don't remember it being phrased as "statues are a history LESSON", that would actually be more accurate. The refrain I do remember is "removing statues is removing history", which it clearly and demonstrably is not.

Moreover neither "books" nor "George Washington" has any relevance to the Lost Cause propaganda, which is entirely what the monument moving is about. Except for of course those books that were directly rewritten and/or censored by that propaganda committee, which we already explored. Those books have presumably been supplanted, I don't know, but they were after all schoolbooks so not really relevant to true historical research anyway. That is to say, anyone who wants to know what really went down in the Civil War has plentiful resources to find out whether they reflect that propaganda or not.

As for "George Washington", who provably died long before the Civil War, there's just no way to leap there. As they say in Maine, you can't get there from here. So that's just a strawman made out of genuine canard.

When I said removing history, you were the one that equated it to history lessons, not me. Anything representing the past is history, including statues. So I stand by my original comment, removing the statues are removing history.

It's all relevant because we also know the history of the Democrats. They don't stop at point A where they started. If successful, they move to point B. When successful at point B, they move to point C and so on. So I see the statues as point A. Or maybe point A started before the statues.

The End of History Education in Elementary Schools? | Perspectives on History | AHA

Again --- I never said "history LESSON". That would (again) be a more accurate description, even if the history it taught were distorted, it is saying something. So I would not disagree that a statue or monument might be a history LESSON --- I disagree that it's HISTORY. Thus, removing a monument cannot be equated to "removing history".

As we've already noted, statues, monuments, markers, plaques etc. are not there for the purpose of reporting history; they're there for the purpose of memorializing, glorifying, sanctifying it. They are commentaries. Value judgments. Actual history is neutral; it contains no value judgments. It holds no event, person or place as more or less "worthy" than any other. Monuments do that. That's exactly what they exist for.

""History" means the story of what happened. Things that happen to date from some period do not necessarily tell us the history. I've got a record (as in 45rpm) right next to me that I know dates from 1955; that doesn't tell me how or where it was made or how it sold. For that, I need the book. And if I were to destroy this (45) record, I would not be destroying its history. It will still have existed, even this copy.

 

[Pogo]

My opinion on Civil War monuments is that it seems out of character for a country to commemorate statues/monuments to the defeated enemy in wartime. We did, but it's always been strange to me. That aside, do we absorb history better from monuments or books? I'd hope it's the latter.

I think the diff here is that "enemy" was American also.. Bloodiest war for American deaths STILL.. And the object of that war was to save the Union... Not totally obliterate the half that did not prevail in the Secession..

Both sides had to die to make the Union stronger and whole again....

The valuable message those symbols, plaques, monuments represent is to resolve that this country never becomes that divided again... Think that has any use today???

Should we end up there again -- and the Secession clock is approaching midnight from BOTH useless, aging and inept parties --- there's gonna be a losing side AGAIN... Maybe we should teach our kids what the damage can be....

This is what you think the monuments in question represent?

Do you have no idea what we mean by the Cult of the Lost Cause? Or the UDC?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

This is what you think the monuments in question represent?

What do you think they represent?

Do you have no idea what we mean by the Cult of the Lost Cause? Or the UDC?

A fringe ideology at best, not shared by any majority. You're always going to have conspiracy theorists. Not getting the relevance. Care to expound?

 

[Pogo]

This is what you think the monuments in question represent?

What do you think they represent?

Do you have no idea what we mean by the Cult of the Lost Cause? Or the UDC?

A fringe ideology at best, not shared by any majority. You're always going to have conspiracy theorists. Not getting the relevance. Care to expound?

AGAIN?

Sigh. If only people would read the first time.

Okay once again, who is the UDC and what's their role in this?

​

Now that's mainly about the schoolbooks but they were also the driving force behind suddenly throwing up all these monuments to glorify the Confederacy -- the vast majority of them having been erected in the first two decades of the 20th century. Look them up, see the pattern.

The thrust of the statue craze, as well as the schoolbooks, was to redefine what the Civil War was about, absolving the Confederacy for its reprehensible human rights values and pretending they never existed by (a) selling the whole campaign as a "noble" fight for "states rights" (despite every seceding state's written declaration that it was about slavery and racism); (b) selling the actual history of slavery as a "beneficial" institution that the enslaved "enjoyed", not at all the mass-scale abuse it was; and (c) getting this story told to the public via those schoolbooks and those statues. To the latter end they made sure said statues and monuments were prominently placed in central areas like city halls, courthouses, town squares, etc. That's why those municipalities are today removing them from public property. Obviously they didn't have TV or internet in 1910, but they could put up structures where the maximum number of people would see them and be indoctrinated with this revised history. They did this prolifically throughout the United States specifically to retell this story in their own terms (how many Civil War battles do you know that happened in Montana?)

And if you doubt their motives consider that the same UDC affixed a plaque on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee (in 1917) memorializing that building as the birthplace of the original Ku Klux Klan, feeling that the "Birth of a Nation" film of two years earlier hadn't given Pulaski its "due", and also commissioned a sculptor to carve a huge relief carving on Stone Mountain Georgia, birthplace of the revived Klan, glorifying Confederate generals (that sculptor was a Klan member, Gutzon Borglum, who then went on to carve Mount Rushmore).

"Birth of a Nation" of course was another product of the same Lost Cause propaganda, as was "The Clansman", the 1905 book-then-theater play on which it was based, as were the dressings of "Gone With the Wind" later. The same period of the absolute nadir of race relations in this country when Jim Crow dictated life in the South and elsewhere, when major league baseball entered its "gentlemen's agreement" to ban blacks from baseball starting in 1894 (notice they never say Jackie Robinson was the "first" black MLB player, because he wasn't), when lynchings were rampant social events sporting postcards and burnt body parts as souvenirs, when race riots spilled blood nationwide in response especially the "Red Summer" of 1919 and the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921 when an entire black neighborhood was wiped out including firebombing from the air, when the locally-Southern Ku Klux Klan was re-started (1915) and grew to a membership of millions from coast to coast --- ALL of these related aftereffects of this massive propaganda campaign.

THAT is what these statue/monument removals are about. Again, the first one to go in New Orleans was a marker commemorating how a vigilante white supremacist group called the White League effected a coup in the city government after a biracial council was duly elected. That monument (an obelisk with a plaque) stood at the foot of Canal Street, literally the busiest spot the city has to this day, for decades reminding the black population who was really in charge.

THAT is why municipalities are removing propaganda transmitters. Because they recognize them for what they are and what their purpose is. It's put well here:

​

And if you remember, this re-examination began when the state of South Carolina --- also the site of the beginning of the Civil War and the site of the first talk of secession as far back as 1828 with the Nullification Crisis --- took the Stars and Bars flag down from its statehouse, as a charged symbol of that same revisionistic mentality. That was the state's statement in response to one of its own citizens, Dylann Roof, trying to start a "race war" because he had bought into all that shit.


Further reading: Lost Cause of the Confederacy

 

[OKTexas]

Zero, don'cha know everything that happened over the last 240 years is all because of slavery, no amount of reform can erase that. Don't believe me, just ask Im2.

Slavery, on this continent, actually goes back a little over twice that long (494 years TBE). But I didn't learn that from a statue. I doubt there is such a statue and if there is you'd have to be in a specific spot in rural South Carolina to see it. History books, on the other hand, go anywhere.

Well smart ass if you want to go beyond our country as we know it, natives raided other tribes and took slaves almost from mans earliest occupation of this continent. Build yourself a statue to that.

Irrelevant. You cited a period of time half as long as it really is and I corrected it. Moreover we're talking specifically about transAtlantic slavery, which is a whole different animal from the slavery practiced for millennia on every continent in antiquity where people became spoils of war between neighboring tribes. Specifically this was the practice if importing people from an entirely different continent (and language and culture and flora and fauna), coupled with the marketing tool of this ethnocentric propaganda that they were "savages" ergo not really human, so it was OK, which we call "racism". Added to which, also unlike for lack of a better term 'traditional' slavery, they and their progeny were held to be slaves for life, specifically on account of that race. So you're trying to equate apples with kumquats here.

The final point there was that there exists, and would not be expected to exist, no "statue" or monument to tell us about Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón bringing the first captive Africans here in 1526. That's found, AGAIN, in the history books, because HISTORY BOOKS ARE WHERE HISTORY FUCKING LIVES. If we had to depend on some intrepid soul setting up a marker on the Pee Dee River to find out about this it would be obscure to the point of nonexistence.

But just for the sake of argument let's imagine there is such a marker explaining the story of San Miguel de Guadape. Now imagine somebody tears it down. Does it suddenly become never-known? Does it induce some weird mass amnesia?

Wow, 1526, that was quite a while before the first American colony was founded. Any more strawmen you want to throw out?

.

Yes it was, which is also irrelevant. The citation was "slavery on this continent". That's a geographical term, not a political one. Slavery on this continent in no way began with the Declaration of Independence.

No, it began with the fucking indians on this continent, as I stated before, which was long before 1526.

.

 

[OKTexas]

How vaguely interesting. Snore.

Yes, it is down to people and the culture they practice. As in Gun Culture. That culture exists whether you have one or not.

So now you're back to blaming machines, I guess you're indoctrination won't allow you to admit the truth. In your own words, define "gun culture".

.

Hey pogoshit, what's wrong, can't you define in your own words "gun culture"??????? Are you throwing around buzz words you don't really understand?????????

A delicious irony, since that was literally the first thing I did when I arrived at this site in 2012, right between the Jacksonville shooting and the Newtown shooting. Thanks for keeping up and shit.

Deflection and surrender duly noted.

Your Peewee Hermanning of readily-available and prolific posting dating back to 2012 is what's noted. It's hardly a secret, it's not in any way hidden to select members of the inner circle, and it's also not part of this topic. You want the info, I told you where to find it. If you don't bother, then you don't want it. Ain't my job to re-post shit you didn't bother to read (or retain, I suspect you were there) in the first place.

Why would I remember a post for insignificant flee form 9 years ago. If it's so damned easy to find, why don't you post it again? I have a suspension you can't define it in your own words. That's why you're going to such great lengths to avoid it.

.

 

[Pogo]

Slavery, on this continent, actually goes back a little over twice that long (494 years TBE). But I didn't learn that from a statue. I doubt there is such a statue and if there is you'd have to be in a specific spot in rural South Carolina to see it. History books, on the other hand, go anywhere.

Well smart ass if you want to go beyond our country as we know it, natives raided other tribes and took slaves almost from mans earliest occupation of this continent. Build yourself a statue to that.

Irrelevant. You cited a period of time half as long as it really is and I corrected it. Moreover we're talking specifically about transAtlantic slavery, which is a whole different animal from the slavery practiced for millennia on every continent in antiquity where people became spoils of war between neighboring tribes. Specifically this was the practice if importing people from an entirely different continent (and language and culture and flora and fauna), coupled with the marketing tool of this ethnocentric propaganda that they were "savages" ergo not really human, so it was OK, which we call "racism". Added to which, also unlike for lack of a better term 'traditional' slavery, they and their progeny were held to be slaves for life, specifically on account of that race. So you're trying to equate apples with kumquats here.

The final point there was that there exists, and would not be expected to exist, no "statue" or monument to tell us about Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón bringing the first captive Africans here in 1526. That's found, AGAIN, in the history books, because HISTORY BOOKS ARE WHERE HISTORY FUCKING LIVES. If we had to depend on some intrepid soul setting up a marker on the Pee Dee River to find out about this it would be obscure to the point of nonexistence.

But just for the sake of argument let's imagine there is such a marker explaining the story of San Miguel de Guadape. Now imagine somebody tears it down. Does it suddenly become never-known? Does it induce some weird mass amnesia?

Wow, 1526, that was quite a while before the first American colony was founded. Any more strawmen you want to throw out?

.

Yes it was, which is also irrelevant. The citation was "slavery on this continent". That's a geographical term, not a political one. Slavery on this continent in no way began with the Declaration of Independence.

No, it began with the fucking indians on this continent, as I stated before, which was long before 1526.

Please to link me to any evidence "fucking indians [sic]" shipped slaves here from another continent. Thanks ever so much in advance.

 

[Pogo]

So now you're back to blaming machines, I guess you're indoctrination won't allow you to admit the truth. In your own words, define "gun culture".

.

Hey pogoshit, what's wrong, can't you define in your own words "gun culture"??????? Are you throwing around buzz words you don't really understand?????????

A delicious irony, since that was literally the first thing I did when I arrived at this site in 2012, right between the Jacksonville shooting and the Newtown shooting. Thanks for keeping up and shit.

Deflection and surrender duly noted.

Your Peewee Hermanning of readily-available and prolific posting dating back to 2012 is what's noted. It's hardly a secret, it's not in any way hidden to select members of the inner circle, and it's also not part of this topic. You want the info, I told you where to find it. If you don't bother, then you don't want it. Ain't my job to re-post shit you didn't bother to read (or retain, I suspect you were there) in the first place.

Why would I remember a post for insignificant flee for 9 years ago. If it's so damned easy to find, why don't you post it again? I have a suspension you can't define it in your own words. That's why you're going to such great lengths to avoid it.

I'll tell you why --- because I see right through your tactic, that's why. You're trying to tie me up with constructing posts that you'll just ignore anyway like you did in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. Fuck that. If you want 'em, go find 'em. There's a multitude out there. It ain't my job to sit and read aloud to you. I put them there so they would stay, stay and they did whether you wanna go or not.

 

[basquebromance]

America is too good for Trump. the presidency is too good for Trump. he doesnt deserve it, my friends. he doesnt even deserve to live in America

 

[OKTexas]

Hey pogoshit, what's wrong, can't you define in your own words "gun culture"??????? Are you throwing around buzz words you don't really understand?????????

A delicious irony, since that was literally the first thing I did when I arrived at this site in 2012, right between the Jacksonville shooting and the Newtown shooting. Thanks for keeping up and shit.

Deflection and surrender duly noted.

Your Peewee Hermanning of readily-available and prolific posting dating back to 2012 is what's noted. It's hardly a secret, it's not in any way hidden to select members of the inner circle, and it's also not part of this topic. You want the info, I told you where to find it. If you don't bother, then you don't want it. Ain't my job to re-post shit you didn't bother to read (or retain, I suspect you were there) in the first place.

Why would I remember a post for insignificant flee for 9 years ago. If it's so damned easy to find, why don't you post it again? I have a suspension you can't define it in your own words. That's why you're going to such great lengths to avoid it.

I'll tell you why --- because I see right through your tactic, that's why. You're trying to tie me up with constructing posts that you'll just ignore anyway like you did in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. Fuck that. If you want 'em, go find 'em. There's a multitude out there. It ain't my job to sit and read aloud to you. I put them there so they would stay, stay and they did whether you wanna go or not.

Deflection and surrender duly noted.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Well smart ass if you want to go beyond our country as we know it, natives raided other tribes and took slaves almost from mans earliest occupation of this continent. Build yourself a statue to that.

Irrelevant. You cited a period of time half as long as it really is and I corrected it. Moreover we're talking specifically about transAtlantic slavery, which is a whole different animal from the slavery practiced for millennia on every continent in antiquity where people became spoils of war between neighboring tribes. Specifically this was the practice if importing people from an entirely different continent (and language and culture and flora and fauna), coupled with the marketing tool of this ethnocentric propaganda that they were "savages" ergo not really human, so it was OK, which we call "racism". Added to which, also unlike for lack of a better term 'traditional' slavery, they and their progeny were held to be slaves for life, specifically on account of that race. So you're trying to equate apples with kumquats here.

The final point there was that there exists, and would not be expected to exist, no "statue" or monument to tell us about Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón bringing the first captive Africans here in 1526. That's found, AGAIN, in the history books, because HISTORY BOOKS ARE WHERE HISTORY FUCKING LIVES. If we had to depend on some intrepid soul setting up a marker on the Pee Dee River to find out about this it would be obscure to the point of nonexistence.

But just for the sake of argument let's imagine there is such a marker explaining the story of San Miguel de Guadape. Now imagine somebody tears it down. Does it suddenly become never-known? Does it induce some weird mass amnesia?

Wow, 1526, that was quite a while before the first American colony was founded. Any more strawmen you want to throw out?

.

Yes it was, which is also irrelevant. The citation was "slavery on this continent". That's a geographical term, not a political one. Slavery on this continent in no way began with the Declaration of Independence.

No, it began with the fucking indians on this continent, as I stated before, which was long before 1526.

Please to link me to any evidence "fucking indians [sic]" shipped slaves here from another continent. Thanks ever so much in advance.

The citation was "slavery on this continent". That's a geographical term, not a political one.

Wow, moving the goal posts again, eh?

.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

I love it when you pretend to be tough.

Pretend? You saw what the guy pretending to be tough did when his intended victim defended himself. He ran like a little girl.

.

Typical dim beotch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk