PC Fascists To Remove Lee and Jackson from War College Memorials

I will make you look like a stupid shit every time.

North Pole, Alaska, is a small community near the entrance road to Eielson AFB.

Check the map, son.

City of North Pole, Alaska
:rofl:


Boom!

No, no 'boom' as Starkey is lying and has no regret about making people who stick up for him look like fools when his lies come to light.

JimCrowie, you been made to look like a fool again and you are crying.

Tough shit, little one. You will be handled every time you try this.
 
North Pole was about twenty miles down the road near the entrance to Eielson Air Force Bace.
You are patently full of shit.

Disingenuous at best:
Thule Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will make you, just like I do JimCrowie, look like a stupid shit every time.

North Pole, Alaska, is a small community near the entrance road to Eielson AFB.

Check the map, son.

City of North Pole, Alaska

So along with your bullshit bravado, you engaged in disingenuousness, so what?

It is easy to claim to be a this or that on the internet.

You show no indication of military bearing or discipline, but of course I could be wrong and the Army is just scraping the bottom of the refuse pile these days and dragging in any idiot they can find, like you.

oh, and anyone can search the thread where you insisted that I had no idea what Keynesianism is, dumbass, and you were the one who looked totally stupid. In fact, I cant remember a single thing I disagreed with you about and you turned out to be provably right.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson - Washington Times

The U.S. Army War College, which molds future field generals, has begun discussing whether it should remove its portraits of Confederate generals — including those of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

Nestled in rural Pennsylvania on the 500-acre Carlisle Barracks, the war college is conducting an inventory of all its paintings and photographs with an eye for rehanging them in historical themes to tell a particular Army story.


I mean its not like these two were good generals that War College students might learn from if they studied them, oh no, they aint PC so they gotta go!

Robert E. Lee was a great general. He fought many battles out-manned and under supplied, winning for many years.
 
Last edited:
It is easy to claim to be a this or that on the internet. You show no indication of military bearing or discipline, but of course I could be wrong and the Army is just scraping the bottom of the refuse pile these days and dragging in any idiot they can find, like you.

Yup, you claim to be a patriot, which you are not.

Yes, you are wrong, as usual, and try a meenchy withdrawal that "boom" goes wrong for you.
 
Intent is a major part of any law in the US, be it consitutional or trial law. Thier intent was not treason to the US, it was to leave the US. The Civil War settled the question on unilateral seccession, until that point it was NOT settled.

They were attempting to take a major part of United States Territory. And they fired upon Americans.

They, by the way, weren't intending to pay for it or get it through congress via legislation.

For ALL intents and purposes, they were COMMITTING TREASON. As outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

They fired upon United States Military. And they started a war Against the United States.

It's black and white.

So did Mexican in the Mexican American War, idiot. That the South considered itself to no longer be part of the union totally destroys any charge of treason, dumbass.

The South much like the Albanians in Kosovo, considered themselves as having been driven out by a hostile government, and no longer part of the US. I wonder where the UN would come down if the South or any other part of the US tried to secede again after all we have done to support Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Eretria and other break way states around the world. To do all that and yet still insist that the South had no right is leftwing fascist hypocrisy at its finest.

This thread..which is yours is not about Mexico. It's not about Kosovo. It's not about Georgia. It's not about Eretria. In fact it's not about any foreign nation.

Your attempting to "kitchen sink" because you've been shutdown on every single one of your ridiculous points.

You cannot take part of the US and call yourself a sovereign nation.

That's an act of war.
 
It is easy to claim to be a this or that on the internet. You show no indication of military bearing or discipline, but of course I could be wrong and the Army is just scraping the bottom of the refuse pile these days and dragging in any idiot they can find, like you.

Yup, you claim to be a patriot, which you are not.

Yes, you are wrong, as usual, and try a meenchy withdrawal that "boom" goes wrong for you.

So prove me not a patriot and fail again like you tried to prove I didn't know what Keynesianism is.

roflmao
 
Robert E. Lee was a great general. He fought many battles out-manned and under supplied.

Yes, he was a great general, his campaigns will continue to be studied, and JimCrowie's OP has been fail and he and his minions handled.

So what is new?
 
They were attempting to take a major part of United States Territory. And they fired upon Americans.

They, by the way, weren't intending to pay for it or get it through congress via legislation.

For ALL intents and purposes, they were COMMITTING TREASON. As outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

They fired upon United States Military. And they started a war Against the United States.

It's black and white.

So did Mexican in the Mexican American War, idiot. That the South considered itself to no longer be part of the union totally destroys any charge of treason, dumbass.

The South much like the Albanians in Kosovo, considered themselves as having been driven out by a hostile government, and no longer part of the US. I wonder where the UN would come down if the South or any other part of the US tried to secede again after all we have done to support Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Eretria and other break way states around the world. To do all that and yet still insist that the South had no right is leftwing fascist hypocrisy at its finest.

This thread..which is yours is not about Mexico. It's not about Kosovo. It's not about Georgia. It's not about Eretria. In fact it's not about any foreign nation.

Your attempting to "kitchen sink" because you've been shutdown on every single one of your ridiculous points.

You cannot take part of the US and call yourself a sovereign nation.

That's an act of war.

Swallow it is about the leftwing USA insisting that countries have to respect those who secede from their countries while also at the same time insisting that the South had no such right.

You are once again stupidly wrong and self contradictory...not that that has ever bothered a liar like you and Starkey.
 
So prove me not a patriot and fail again like you tried to prove I didn't know what Keynesianism is.

Your protests in this thread show your lack of patriotism.

Your lack of grasp of Keynesianism and your hackery of von Mises's doctrines caused an avalanche of laughter on the Board.
 
Swallow it is about the leftwing USA insisting that countries have to respect those who secede from their countries while also at the same time insisting that the South had no such right.

You are once again stupidly wrong and self contradictory...not that that has ever bothered a liar like you and Starkey.

The South had a legal right to secede, and they started a civil war rather than following how to do it legally.
 
Looks like the secession debate is as strong as ever and I doubt will ever end. Madison, the "The Father of the Constitution", opposed the right to secede while championing the right to revolution. In an 1833 letter to Danial Webster he wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. "
Essentially he acknowledged the right to "secede" (revolt) if the conditions warrant it.
James Buchanan in his final State of the Union address to congress in 1860 stated:
"The South, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."
But he added this:
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. [emphasis added] If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Good luck making arguments for the whimsical whims of secession, I have yet to find any legal or constitutional position, barring revolution against a tyrannical federal government, that allows for shallow, popular secession to take place.
Oh, a state does have a right to secede.

It just has to go out the same way it came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.

It does have another option, fight it out, and win. The winning is the important part.
True, but in the case of the CSA, they never stood a chance. Not one.

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.
 
So prove me not a patriot and fail again like you tried to prove I didn't know what Keynesianism is.

Your protests in this thread show your lack of patriotism.[/quote]

Patriotism does not require a closed mind, you fascist.

Your lack of grasp of Keynesianism and your hackery of von Mises's doctrines caused an avalanche of laughter on the Board.

Prove it jack ass.
 
Oh, a state does have a right to secede.

It just has to go out the same way it came in, with the consent of Congress and the other states.

It does have another option, fight it out, and win. The winning is the important part.
True, but in the case of the CSA, they never stood a chance. Not one.

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

The South *could* have won, but it would have required the sort of action that had they been willing to abide they would never have left to start with.
 
paperview, I don't think I agree with that: there were several chances for an armed truce they may have ended in Southern independence, the most likely being recognition by GB and FR.

The South could not have forced independence by force of arms alone, any more than the Patriots could during our War of Independence.
 
So prove me not a patriot and fail again like you tried to prove I didn't know what Keynesianism is.

Your protests in this thread show your lack of patriotism.

Patriotism does not require a closed mind, you fascist.

Your lack of grasp of Keynesianism and your hackery of von Mises's doctrines caused an avalanche of laughter on the Board.

Prove it jack ass.[/QUOTE]

One, you have a closed mind: you are a TeaPtard, what can I say.

Two, the other was settled in the thread in which you pretended to understand both Kenyesian and the Austrians schools and got way outed.

Tis way tis.
 
The South could not have forced independence by force of arms alone, any more than the Patriots could during our War of Independence.

No peace agreement is the result of force alone, dumbass. By its very nature it also require diplomacy and economic interest be settled as well.
 
paperview, I don't think I agree with that: there were several chances for an armed truce they may have ended in Southern independence, the most likely being recognition by GB and FR.

The South could not have forced independence by force of arms alone, any more than the Patriots could during our War of Independence.

Its fictional history, but check out this link to Turtledove's "Timeline" 191, which supposes a confederate victory, and much different 20th century as a result.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before the Battle of Antietam, Federal troops accidentally recovered a copy of Special Order 191, which detailed Lee's plan for the invasion of Maryland. Using this intelligence, Federal forces under George B. McClellan moved north and forced the Battle at Antietam, ending the invasion.

In Turtledove's alternate history, Confederate troops recover Lee's orders before the papers fall into Union hands. The resulting Confederate advance catches McClellan and the U.S. by surprise. General Lee forces McClellan into a battle on the banks of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and destroys the Army of the Potomac in the Battle of Camp Hill on October 1, 1862.

After this decisive Confederate victory, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia move eastward to occupy Philadelphia. The Confederate States of America earn diplomatic recognition from the UK and France. The two European nations force mediation on the United States; the Confederate States achieve independence. This War of Secession ends in less than two years.
 
So prove me not a patriot and fail again like you tried to prove I didn't know what Keynesianism is.

Your protests in this thread show your lack of patriotism.

Patriotism does not require a closed mind, you fascist.

Your lack of grasp of Keynesianism and your hackery of von Mises's doctrines caused an avalanche of laughter on the Board.

Prove it jack ass.

One, you have a closed mind: you are a TeaPtard, what can I say.

Two, the other was settled in the thread in which you pretended to understand both Kenyesian and the Austrians schools and got way outed.

Tis way tis.[/QUOTE]

You cannot even do attributions right, idiot.
 

Forum List

Back
Top