Nathan Bedford Forrest statue causing controversy

[bripat9643]

When you're a ignorant bigot with no facts to support your case.

Let me know when you spot one of those.

Spotted.

 

[Unkotare]

Fortunately, anyone can simulate your thought process with a dart board with passages from Mein Kamph taped to it.

There you go again. You nuts sure are obsessed with Nazis. Hmmmm....

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't make much sense.

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. The UK at the time was particularly anti-slavery. The raw goods that they valued via trade with the south for their industrial development were obtainable from their Indian holdings. And New England was culturally and socially closer to the UK at the time. The Irish had not quite achieved the social/political power that they would by the end of the century. Other parts of what used to be the country (in this asinine game of make-believe) had closer ethnic ties to Germany. There is a good chance that France would have taken a large portion of the South in the event that the Union was broken.

But it doesn't matter because this little make-believe didn't happen, much to the chagrin of some of the bitter fools here.

That theory is even more idiotic than the one Joe proposed.

 

[Unkotare]

When you're a ignorant bigot with no facts to support your case.

Let me know when you spot one of those.

Spotted.

Where?

 

[Unkotare]

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. The UK at the time was particularly anti-slavery. The raw goods that they valued via trade with the south for their industrial development were obtainable from their Indian holdings. And New England was culturally and socially closer to the UK at the time. The Irish had not quite achieved the social/political power that they would by the end of the century. Other parts of what used to be the country (in this asinine game of make-believe) had closer ethnic ties to Germany. There is a good chance that France would have taken a large portion of the South in the event that the Union was broken.

But it doesn't matter because this little make-believe didn't happen, much to the chagrin of some of the bitter fools here.

That theory is even more idiotic than the one Joe proposed.

Go play with your ball of yarn.

 

[bripat9643]

You haven't posted a single fact since you chimed into this thread.

Of course I have.

Name one.

 

[Unkotare]

You haven't posted a single fact since you chimed into this thread.

Of course I have.

Name one.

- The Civil War is over

- The Civil War ended over 150 years ago

- The United States is ONE nation

- Your insane ranting over this places you in a very, very, very tiny minority

- You're an unamerican scumbag

 

[bripat9643]

Of course I have.

Name one.

- The Civil War is over

- The Civil War ended over 150 years ago

- The United States is ONE nation

- Your insane ranting over this places you in a very, very, very tiny minority

- You're an unamerican scumbag

You're "facts" fall into two classes:

1. Non facts.
   
2. Stuff so obvious that no one would ever contest it. Why don't you tell us the sky is blue?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me know when you spot one of those.

Spotted.

Where?

Look in the mirror.

 

[Unkotare]

Name one.

- The Civil War is over

- The Civil War ended over 150 years ago

- The United States is ONE nation

- Your insane ranting over this places you in a very, very, very tiny minority

- You're an unamerican scumbag

You're "facts" fall into two classes:

1. Non facts.
   
2. Stuff so obvious that no one would ever contest it. Why don't you tell us the sky is blue?

While it is certainly that obvious that you are an unamerican scumbag, it is a fact worth noting.

 

[Unkotare]

Spotted.

Where?

Look in the mirror.

We have established that I have provided facts. Now, show me the "bigotry" to which you refer.

 

[JoeB131]

That doesn't make much sense.

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. The UK at the time was particularly anti-slavery. The raw goods that they valued via trade with the south for their industrial development were obtainable from their Indian holdings. And New England was culturally and socially closer to the UK at the time. The Irish had not quite achieved the social/political power that they would by the end of the century. Other parts of what used to be the country (in this asinine game of make-believe) had closer ethnic ties to Germany. There is a good chance that France would have taken a large portion of the South in the event that the Union was broken.

But it doesn't matter because this little make-believe didn't happen, much to the chagrin of some of the bitter fools here.

Yes, none of this happened because Lincoln stomped the slave-rapers into the dirt, which is exactly what should have done with them. Absolutely awesome.

Now we need to disabuse their descendents of any notion that there was anything noble about them. Ban the Confederate flag and take down every last monument to a Confederate "War hero" and replace it with an education center about how evil slavery was.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. The UK at the time was particularly anti-slavery. The raw goods that they valued via trade with the south for their industrial development were obtainable from their Indian holdings. And New England was culturally and socially closer to the UK at the time. The Irish had not quite achieved the social/political power that they would by the end of the century. Other parts of what used to be the country (in this asinine game of make-believe) had closer ethnic ties to Germany. There is a good chance that France would have taken a large portion of the South in the event that the Union was broken.

But it doesn't matter because this little make-believe didn't happen, much to the chagrin of some of the bitter fools here.

Yes, none of this happened because Lincoln stomped the slave-rapers into the dirt, which is exactly what should have done with them. Absolutely awesome.

Now we need to disabuse their descendents of any notion that there was anything noble about them. Ban the Confederate flag and take down every last monument to a Confederate "War hero" and replace it with an education center about how evil slavery was.

It was you Yankees did all the slave-raping, dumbass. You revisionist motherfuckers sure do like your history from Burger King, don't you?

 

[JoeB131]

It was you Yankees did all the slave-raping, dumbass. You revisionist motherfuckers sure do like your history from Burger King, don't you?

Oh, right.. that's why we have about 30 different skin tones on African Americans, because those slave holders were sooooo understanding.

The old joke, "The Southern Society Ladies knew who fathered the mulatos on every plantation but their own..."

 

[GuyPinestra]

It was you Yankees did all the slave-raping, dumbass. You revisionist motherfuckers sure do like your history from Burger King, don't you?

Oh, right.. that's why we have about 30 different skin tones on African Americans, because those slave holders were sooooo understanding.

The old joke, "The Southern Society Ladies knew who fathered the mulatos on every plantation but their own..."

You motherfuckers just ignore anything that goes against your narrative, don't you? Gadfly posted the historical record which you can't dispute.

I guess you and Unkotard both have very selective comprehension skills.

 

[JoeB131]

It was you Yankees did all the slave-raping, dumbass. You revisionist motherfuckers sure do like your history from Burger King, don't you?

Oh, right.. that's why we have about 30 different skin tones on African Americans, because those slave holders were sooooo understanding.

The old joke, "The Southern Society Ladies knew who fathered the mulatos on every plantation but their own..."

You motherfuckers just ignore anything that goes against your narrative, don't you? Gadfly posted the historical record which you can't dispute.

I guess you and Unkotard both have very selective comprehension skills.

The only thing Gadfly did was post the same tiresome apologism for the Confederacy the South has been using for 150 years.

again, the mistake was not putting these people on trial for treason...

 

[squeeze berry]

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. The UK at the time was particularly anti-slavery. The raw goods that they valued via trade with the south for their industrial development were obtainable from their Indian holdings. And New England was culturally and socially closer to the UK at the time. The Irish had not quite achieved the social/political power that they would by the end of the century. Other parts of what used to be the country (in this asinine game of make-believe) had closer ethnic ties to Germany. There is a good chance that France would have taken a large portion of the South in the event that the Union was broken.

But it doesn't matter because this little make-believe didn't happen, much to the chagrin of some of the bitter fools here.

Yes, none of this happened because Lincoln stomped the slave-rapers into the dirt, which is exactly what should have done with them. Absolutely awesome.

Now we need to disabuse their descendents of any notion that there was anything noble about them. Ban the Confederate flag and take down every last monument to a Confederate "War hero" and replace it with an education center about how evil slavery was.

quote=JoeB131;5843518][/quote]
I am amazed that there are people on the right who really hate so much.[/QUOTE


Joe, think for a minute that not all people in the cofederacy owned slaves, few actually raped slaves and slavery was common practice all over the world even after 1865.

You are comparing apples to kiwi

 

[squeeze berry]

Oh, right.. that's why we have about 30 different skin tones on African Americans, because those slave holders were sooooo understanding.

The old joke, "The Southern Society Ladies knew who fathered the mulatos on every plantation but their own..."

You motherfuckers just ignore anything that goes against your narrative, don't you? Gadfly posted the historical record which you can't dispute.

I guess you and Unkotard both have very selective comprehension skills.

The only thing Gadfly did was post the same tiresome apologism for the Confederacy the South has been using for 150 years.

again, the mistake was not putting these people on trial for treason...

putting them on trial would have assured that there would be three countries, including Canada, north of the Rio Grande

 

[JoeB131]

No, it doesn't. The UK at the time was particularly anti-slavery. The raw goods that they valued via trade with the south for their industrial development were obtainable from their Indian holdings. And New England was culturally and socially closer to the UK at the time. The Irish had not quite achieved the social/political power that they would by the end of the century. Other parts of what used to be the country (in this asinine game of make-believe) had closer ethnic ties to Germany. There is a good chance that France would have taken a large portion of the South in the event that the Union was broken.

But it doesn't matter because this little make-believe didn't happen, much to the chagrin of some of the bitter fools here.

Yes, none of this happened because Lincoln stomped the slave-rapers into the dirt, which is exactly what should have done with them. Absolutely awesome.

Now we need to disabuse their descendents of any notion that there was anything noble about them. Ban the Confederate flag and take down every last monument to a Confederate "War hero" and replace it with an education center about how evil slavery was.

I am amazed that there are people on the right who really hate so much.[/QUOTE[/B]


Joe, think for a minute that not all people in the cofederacy owned slaves, few actually raped slaves and slavery was common practice all over the world even after 1865.

You are comparing apples to kiwi

Yes, the vast majority of people in the south didn't own slaves, but they still stupidly went out and died by the thousands so a few rich assholes could. Just proof that Darwin was right. If you're dumb, you die.

If only we got to the point in history where the rich send their own kids out to die in wars instead of tricking poor people's kids into doing it.

Incidently, most of the world banned slavery well before the US. The last country in the Americas to do so was Brazil in 1871.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes, none of this happened because Lincoln stomped the slave-rapers into the dirt, which is exactly what should have done with them. Absolutely awesome.

Now we need to disabuse their descendents of any notion that there was anything noble about them. Ban the Confederate flag and take down every last monument to a Confederate "War hero" and replace it with an education center about how evil slavery was.

I am amazed that there are people on the right who really hate so much.[/QUOTE[/B]


Joe, think for a minute that not all people in the cofederacy owned slaves, few actually raped slaves and slavery was common practice all over the world even after 1865.

You are comparing apples to kiwi

Yes, the vast majority of people in the south didn't own slaves, but they still stupidly went out and died by the thousands so a few rich assholes could. Just proof that Darwin was right. If you're dumb, you die.

If only we got to the point in history where the rich send their own kids out to die in wars instead of tricking poor people's kids into doing it.

Incidently, most of the world banned slavery well before the US. The last country in the Americas to do so was Brazil in 1871.

Wrong again, Joe. They went out, fought and died for something called the Constitution and the rule of Law.

Something you revisionist cocksuckers wouldn't know a damned thing about.