Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[bripat9643]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating them

They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.

And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.

I'm not sure any of them have noticed the dysfuntion the Confedreacy experienced in it's few years of trying to legislate. If the dumb asses wouldn't have started a war, within a governmental frame work that opposed centralization, it might have gone on longer. Not a lot of forward thinking from Confederates, just like the lack of forthought practiced by southern evangelicals today

According to your theory, Nazi German and the Soviet Union are "forward thinking."

 

[regent]

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law.

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursdays the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

By the President:ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Secretary of State WILLIAM H. SEWARD

You may be correct about that. However, he still had no permission from Congress to invade a State of the Union.

Yeah, I'm correct about that and you're wrong.

& The Constitution gave him that permission, neo-confed.

It gave him permission to raise the militia, not to invade Virginia, Stalinist bootlicker.

Your screed about New York turned out to be total bullshit, didn't it?

No, it didn't you lying scumbucket.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

 

[toxicmedia]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating them

They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.

And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.

I'm not sure any of them have noticed the dysfuntion the Confedreacy experienced in it's few years of trying to legislate. If the dumb asses wouldn't have started a war, within a governmental frame work that opposed centralization, it might have gone on longer. Not a lot of forward thinking from Confederates, just like the lack of forthought practiced by southern evangelicals today

According to your theory, Nazi German and the Soviet Union are "forward thinking."

You're just too simple to understand that I didn't propose a theory, I stated facts instead

 

[bripat9643]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating them

They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.

And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.

I'm not sure any of them have noticed the dysfuntion the Confedreacy experienced in it's few years of trying to legislate. If the dumb asses wouldn't have started a war, within a governmental frame work that opposed centralization, it might have gone on longer. Not a lot of forward thinking from Confederates, just like the lack of forthought practiced by southern evangelicals today

According to your theory, Nazi German and the Soviet Union are "forward thinking."

You're just too simple to understand that I didn't propose a theory, I stated facts instead

You call all your numskull theories "facts."

 

[bripat9643]

You may be correct about that. However, he still had no permission from Congress to invade a State of the Union.

Yeah, I'm correct about that and you're wrong.

& The Constitution gave him that permission, neo-confed.

It gave him permission to raise the militia, not to invade Virginia, Stalinist bootlicker.

Your screed about New York turned out to be total bullshit, didn't it?

No, it didn't you lying scumbucket.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

 

[kaz]

Earlier, one of our really despicable racists went so far as to say Booth was a hero for assassinating Lincoln. Odious or whatever his name is. He's an ignorant jackass.

Some of these dummies still hold on to confederate money rather than invest in the US or their own future.

All in all, not a very smart lot.

So if someone thinks States have the right to secede from the union, that means they think the reasons any State ever wanted to secede from the union were just.

Hmm

And you talk about other people not being "smart?"

Hmm

Carry on, simpleton

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

 

[kaz]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?...

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

So you are really huffy that I said you are equating them in general and you say you were only doing it to bripat? Seriously? That really has your undies in a wad? Fascinating

Well of course That's what our discussion was about. You made a claim you couldn't substantiate, and continuously dodged that fact. Thanks for (finally) being upfront.
Nobody likes it when an unintelligent hack spreads a false claim about you.

I said you are equating the secession of the confederacy with why they want it. You came back with nuh uh. Well, OK ,I am, but only for bripat. Which means I'm not doing that. Other than for bripat. So prove I did that. Other than for bripat I mean.

It's quite a stand on principle you are taking, LOL

 

[toxicmedia]

They like white Christian Republican Americans, and everybody else...they range from tolerating them, to hating them

They want 50 countries out of the 50 states. They want the Balkanization of America.

And the reason they want it is because they believe that little conservative nations can better impose a tyranny of the majority on its citizens than can one big nation.

I'm not sure any of them have noticed the dysfuntion the Confedreacy experienced in it's few years of trying to legislate. If the dumb asses wouldn't have started a war, within a governmental frame work that opposed centralization, it might have gone on longer. Not a lot of forward thinking from Confederates, just like the lack of forthought practiced by southern evangelicals today

According to your theory, Nazi German and the Soviet Union are "forward thinking."

You're just too simple to understand that I didn't propose a theory, I stated facts instead

You call all your numskull theories "facts."

Moron..........

The political strength of the South was hampered by its belief in States' rights. "Jefferson Davis never enjoyed the sweeping political power of Lincoln." The South lacked a powerful bureaucracy and much power rested in the hands of local governors. The Southerners refused to give Davis the same political powers as Lincoln out of fear he would misuse it. Davis was never allowed to suspend habeas corpus as frequently or for as long duration as Lincoln. The South however committed to States' rights as it was, failed to realize that during a war your President must have sweeping powers in order to maintain internal stability.
The Confederacy was also not as unified as is commonly thought. Parts of the Confederacy were extremely loyal while others such as East Tennessee were hotbeds of Unionist activity. These citizens resisted Confederate drafts, and refused to pay Confederate taxes. Many of these Unionists formed groups to resist the Confederate government. Confederate loyalists persecuted unionists in East Tennessee and in other areas. Nevertheless, internal opposition to the Confederacy hurt the stability of a region as well as undermined the war effort. ......Why the Confederacy Was Not Ready for War

 

[-S-]

I think the Confederacy would have had to concede the issue of slavery by 1900. They would have grudgingly provided blacks with some legal status but not full rights and not the vote
It would be like Jim Crow on steroids

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

 

[-S-]

[Your claim was, in black and white, as clear as crystal:

KAZ SAID: ↑
"..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede..."

Yes, and you just again proved me right

As for Bripat:

In response to the argument "why would anybody defend the immoral Confederate causes"

To which I and many others pointed out that the 'right to self government' was based around the 'right' to continue slavery, to which he never made an argument against slavery, just that the 'states had the right' to choose for themselves.

Your argument is exactly what I said, if he supports secession, that means he supports the reason they want to secede. No, it doesn't mean that. Amazing, you keep hounding me to prove your statement which you keep proving yourself

Incorrect. You claim was that I said that you and others who support the right to secede automatically supports slavery. It's up there^ in black and white. That's what "WE" means. There's no "WE" in any of your 'proof'.

You are wrong and your tap dance routine around the main point of the discourse is obvious for everyone to see.

So you are really huffy that I said you are equating them in general and you say you were only doing it to bripat? Seriously? That really has your undies in a wad? Fascinating

Well of course That's what our discussion was about. You made a claim you couldn't substantiate, and continuously dodged that fact. Thanks for (finally) being upfront.
Nobody likes it when an unintelligent hack spreads a false claim about you.

I said you are equating the secession of the confederacy with why they want it. You came back with nuh uh. Well, OK ,I am, but only for bripat. Which means I'm not doing that. Other than for bripat. So prove I did that. Other than for bripat I mean.

It's quite a stand on principle you are taking, LOL

It's a simple procedure, Kaz.

If you don't want to look like an ass, don't make a claim you can't back up. You said "WE", not "Bripat". You lose on that basis alone.
I'm right, you're wrong, and it's there for everyone to see. Thanks for playing.





P.S
(You might want to quit digging your hole here, and do some damage control on the "slaves of the Democratic party" blunder you made. I'm currently owning you on that conversation as well.)

 

[toxicmedia]

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

 

[kaz]

Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party. Either that or you'll lynch them. But they can't say they don't have a choice!

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

 

[-S-]

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

 

[jillian]

Earlier, one of our really despicable racists went so far as to say Booth was a hero for assassinating Lincoln. Odious or whatever his name is. He's an ignorant jackass.

Some of these dummies still hold on to confederate money rather than invest in the US or their own future.

All in all, not a very smart lot.

So if someone thinks States have the right to secede from the union, that means they think the reasons any State ever wanted to secede from the union were just.

Hmm

And you talk about other people not being "smart?"

Hmm

Carry on, simpleton

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you, but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, you lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

And I reiterate what I said. You calling anyone else a simpleton is laughable.

 

[-S-]

Earlier, one of our really despicable racists went so far as to say Booth was a hero for assassinating Lincoln. Odious or whatever his name is. He's an ignorant jackass.

Some of these dummies still hold on to confederate money rather than invest in the US or their own future.

All in all, not a very smart lot.

So if someone thinks States have the right to secede from the union, that means they think the reasons any State ever wanted to secede from the union were just.

Hmm

And you talk about other people not being "smart?"

Hmm

Carry on, simpleton

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you, but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

Don't take anything Kaz says personally.

He just says whatever pops into his head, no matter how ignorant.
Diarrhea of the mouth.

 

[toxicmedia]

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Right, so the Democratic Party is now a planation....uhh boyeee.......

Listen, the current line up of token black sell outs that appear on Fox News include people like Ben Carson, and Alan West. Thes guys are accmplished in their chosen fields, but haven't transitioned well into charismatic politicians. Do you think they somehow should go uncriticized by the Democatic Party?

Normally righties don't get all fragile about how they're criticized. That goes against their narrative that that lefties are too PC, and have fragile sensabilities.

I think your tender notions are just adorable

 

[jillian]

Earlier, one of our really despicable racists went so far as to say Booth was a hero for assassinating Lincoln. Odious or whatever his name is. He's an ignorant jackass.

Some of these dummies still hold on to confederate money rather than invest in the US or their own future.

All in all, not a very smart lot.

So if someone thinks States have the right to secede from the union, that means they think the reasons any State ever wanted to secede from the union were just.

Hmm

And you talk about other people not being "smart?"

Hmm

Carry on, simpleton

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you, but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

Don't take anything Kaz says personally.

He just says whatever pops into his head, no matter how ignorant.
Diarrhea of the mouth.

And, as an old chorus teacher of mine used to say "constipation of the brain"

 

[squeeze berry]

How on earth are blacks slaves of the Democratic Party?

Are you just rambling whatever nonsense pops into your head?

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

 

[mikegriffith1]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

 

[toxicmedia]

So if someone thinks States have the right to secede from the union, that means they think the reasons any State ever wanted to secede from the union were just.

Hmm

And you talk about other people not being "smart?"

Hmm

Carry on, simpleton

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you, but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

Don't take anything Kaz says personally.

He just says whatever pops into his head, no matter how ignorant.
Diarrhea of the mouth.

And, as an old chorus teacher of mine used to say "constipation of the brain"

I think this thread is simply a lightening rod for the stifled and oppressed Republicans.

Oh the humaity.....

First, righties can't use the "N" word anymore,

Then...women start wanting rights, and burning their bras.

After that, the doctor they've been seeing for years retires and the guy who takes over for him is named Singh, or Patel.

Then 20 years later, Patel or Singh retires, and the woman doctor who takes over for him is also named Patel, or Singh, or Chan!

It's like the only good thing since WWII was Ronald Reagan!

There are people with crazy sounding foreign names answering the phone wherever you call the local power company!!!!

Holy crap!

But then.........................a light shines through the darkness

Fox News, Conservative media, Right wing think tanks, and Family Values organizations spring up, and they tell the depressed righties that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Blacks had it okay when they were slaves. Women and gays don't like being equal. Lefties are communists. Racial integration is a failure! Affirmative Action is oppressing whites!.........good times...good times.

But yeah, there is lot's written about politics between 1830-1950, and the GOP strategists feel that making it all seem full of bad things for white males over 60 without college degrees, who attend church once a week, is a good strategy