Racist groups vs Free Speech, i've converted...

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Actually I don't support anyone's heritage to vanish.

I don't support the endangered San Bushman to vanish either, even though they're not smart.

However, I most certainly am also concerned with the watering down of the intellect of Humanity as well.

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

Seriously man, how many times do I need to ask a question before you can give a straight answer. This is becomeing a joke. Back up your idiotic statements with direct responses or stop spewing shit that you can't explain

Heritage is more than just customs, people of a certain heritage also tend to have a certain phenotype.

Why should we erase any of this?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

What hate, and Racism in those statues?

The Confederates were economic extreme Capitalists.

They saw slavery as a means of profit, nothing to do with hate, and racism.

For goodness sake, slavery was a business, which imported Blacks into their own backyards.

How is that racist?
How many racists do you know want to import Blacks into their own backyards?

Hmm South Carolinas reason for secession was slavery was needed since "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun"

Louisiana's wasn't just to preserve slavery but to preserve "AFRICAN slavery".

Alabama said no freedom because it would "gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

Texas' secession article said "ll white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both"

Jefferson Davis the president of the Confederacy said "white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies"

Alexander Stephens their Vice President said "With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. "

Joseph E Brown, Governor of Georgia said "The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men."

Mississippi Senator Albert Brown when asking if they should try and make slaves Christians said "They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing"

Mississippi's other Senator John Williams said "This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own"

The Confederate Veteran (official paper of Confederate soldiers) 40 years after the war said "The kindliest relation that ever existed between the two races in this country, or that ever will, was the ante-bellum relation of master and slave"

James Henry Hammond, governor from South Carolina said in his reasonings for emancipation that "We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. "

Robert E Lee said "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race,"



So yes, if you want to burn A LOT of books, speeches, writings, letters, and articles of the time that slavery was about the dominance of the white race over the black race, then you can make your point. But you've got a WHOLE BUNCH of history you need to destroy first.

The Confederate types were Multiculturalists for goodness sake, they're the reason Blacks are in this nation.

That's not racism, slavery was all about mega profits for businesses.

Original slaveowners in this country were American Indians, I don't think that was about profits. Get You're fucking head out of your ass

Native American slavery made their lives easier.
That wasn't about "Racism'" either.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Actually I don't support anyone's heritage to vanish.

I don't support the endangered San Bushman to vanish either, even though they're not smart.

However, I most certainly am also concerned with the watering down of the intellect of Humanity as well.

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom

Who the f*ck voted for the Third-World multicultural takeover of our countries?

This is an anti-Democratic monstrosity.

 

[Slade3200]

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

Seriously man, how many times do I need to ask a question before you can give a straight answer. This is becomeing a joke. Back up your idiotic statements with direct responses or stop spewing shit that you can't explain

Heritage is more than just customs, people of a certain heritage also tend to have a certain phenotype.

Why should we erase any of this?

The great thing about a free society is you don't have to erase anything. You can marry a pure blood, have children, and teach them you sacred traditions. That's your prerogative and you can do that. If I see a hot Latina and she rocks my world then I can do the same with her and have radical Italian Latino babies. Lucky me.

So far the only points you've made to justify your views are intellect and phenotype. Are those the main attributes that you are trying to preserve by preventing the mixing of races?

 

[Slade3200]

So you don't want the intellect watered down and that's why you're so concerned about heritage. Ok so what do you proposed we do about it

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom

Who the f*ck voted for the Third-World multicultural takeover of our countries?

This is an anti-Democratic monstrosity.

Are you talking about immigration? Who voted for immigration? Are you serious?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom

Who the f*ck voted for the Third-World multicultural takeover of our countries?

This is an anti-Democratic monstrosity.

Are you talking about immigration? Who voted for immigration? Are you serious?

Well, when did we vote for all these immigrants to be here?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Actually I care about heritage point blank too, you don't because you don't have real Human feelings, and sentiments.

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

Seriously man, how many times do I need to ask a question before you can give a straight answer. This is becomeing a joke. Back up your idiotic statements with direct responses or stop spewing shit that you can't explain

Heritage is more than just customs, people of a certain heritage also tend to have a certain phenotype.

Why should we erase any of this?

The great thing about a free society is you don't have to erase anything. You can marry a pure blood, have children, and teach them you sacred traditions. That's your prerogative and you can do that. If I see a hot Latina and she rocks my world then I can do the same with her and have radical Italian Latino babies. Lucky me.

So far the only points you've made to justify your views are intellect and phenotype. Are those the main attributes that you are trying to preserve by preventing the mixing of races?

That's the funny thing, I'd deport, or create nationhood for minorities to try, and separate ethnic groups.

 

[Slade3200]

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom

Who the f*ck voted for the Third-World multicultural takeover of our countries?

This is an anti-Democratic monstrosity.

Are you talking about immigration? Who voted for immigration? Are you serious?

Well, when did we vote for all these immigrants to be here?

How do you think YOU got here? We all came from immigrants from a diversity of different countries.

Immigration law has been developed by our elected leaders and rulings have been made by the supreme court. People vote for our leadership who run campaigns based on policy issues. Our leaders write laws and make decisions as representatives of the people. Its called a democratic republic.

 

[Slade3200]

Of course I care about heritage, I find if fascinating and have done a ton of work and research about my own families lineage. The difference between you and I is I appreciate and celebrate the diversity of my ancestors and enjoy the traditions and history that has been passed down from my family through the generations. You see that as a threat for some crazy reason that you still haven't explained.

I've asked for this explaination from you multiple times and you keep bouncing around with indirect answers about intelligence and heritage, but you fail to intelligently explain yourself or present a clear argument to defend your position. So I'll ask AGAIN. Explain why a "pure" heratiage is so important to you and what it is you want to do with society.

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

Seriously man, how many times do I need to ask a question before you can give a straight answer. This is becomeing a joke. Back up your idiotic statements with direct responses or stop spewing shit that you can't explain

Heritage is more than just customs, people of a certain heritage also tend to have a certain phenotype.

Why should we erase any of this?

The great thing about a free society is you don't have to erase anything. You can marry a pure blood, have children, and teach them you sacred traditions. That's your prerogative and you can do that. If I see a hot Latina and she rocks my world then I can do the same with her and have radical Italian Latino babies. Lucky me.

So far the only points you've made to justify your views are intellect and phenotype. Are those the main attributes that you are trying to preserve by preventing the mixing of races?

That's the funny thing, I'd deport, or create nationhood for minorities to try, and separate ethnic groups.

So you want the government to decide who our citizens can and can't mate with... You don't see that as a gross violation of liberty and freedom?

You still have not answered the question, this is the 7th time i've asked you. What is it that is so important to preserve by separating ethnic groups, why is it so important to you? You keep giving weak round about answers that do not directly answer the question. Grow a pair and speak up for your cause. You are doing a piss poor job representing your positions.

 

[Rustic]

What hate, and Racism in those statues?

The Confederates were economic extreme Capitalists.

They saw slavery as a means of profit, nothing to do with hate, and racism.

For goodness sake, slavery was a business, which imported Blacks into their own backyards.

How is that racist?
How many racists do you know want to import Blacks into their own backyards?

Hmm South Carolinas reason for secession was slavery was needed since "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun"

Louisiana's wasn't just to preserve slavery but to preserve "AFRICAN slavery".

Alabama said no freedom because it would "gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

Texas' secession article said "ll white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both"

Jefferson Davis the president of the Confederacy said "white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies"

Alexander Stephens their Vice President said "With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. "

Joseph E Brown, Governor of Georgia said "The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men."

Mississippi Senator Albert Brown when asking if they should try and make slaves Christians said "They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing"

Mississippi's other Senator John Williams said "This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own"

The Confederate Veteran (official paper of Confederate soldiers) 40 years after the war said "The kindliest relation that ever existed between the two races in this country, or that ever will, was the ante-bellum relation of master and slave"

James Henry Hammond, governor from South Carolina said in his reasonings for emancipation that "We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. "

Robert E Lee said "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race,"



So yes, if you want to burn A LOT of books, speeches, writings, letters, and articles of the time that slavery was about the dominance of the white race over the black race, then you can make your point. But you've got a WHOLE BUNCH of history you need to destroy first.

The Confederate types were Multiculturalists for goodness sake, they're the reason Blacks are in this nation.

That's not racism, slavery was all about mega profits for businesses.

Original slaveowners in this country were American Indians, I don't think that was about profits. Get You're fucking head out of your ass

Native American slavery made their lives easier.
That wasn't about "Racism'" either.

Actually it was, how do you think relations race relations were between Indians and Mexicans?

 

[Rustic]

Why should countries like Italy, Poland, Germany, Greece, Britain, France, Sweden become a mixed culture, when their culture has been thousands of years in the making?

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom

Who the f*ck voted for the Third-World multicultural takeover of our countries?

This is an anti-Democratic monstrosity.

Are you talking about immigration? Who voted for immigration? Are you serious?

Well, when did we vote for all these immigrants to be here?

How do you think YOU got here? We all came from immigrants from a diversity of different countries.

Immigration law has been developed by our elected leaders and rulings have been made by the supreme court. People vote for our leadership who run campaigns based on policy issues. Our leaders write laws and make decisions as representatives of the people. Its called a democratic republic.

Actually that should be a capitalist republic, but Socialism has fucked this country over for the last hundred plus years.

 

[Slash]

No, it is you who are not making sense.

Confederates were multiculturalists, who bought Blacks here for profits.

Slavery was big business, they needed people to pick plants for cheaper, so they took slaves.
Sound familiar?
Sounds exactly like the business Capitalist Multiculturalists who hire illegal immigrants for cheap labor profits.


But, I know you're obviously a product of the failed U.S education system, and can't think for yourself due to your sub-Human Western European heritage.

No it doesn't really sound familiar. If those farmers stole the illegal immigrants, took away all their rights, forced them into labor, raped and killed them and then took up arms against the US government and fought a war to protect that right against the US, then we might be getting somewhere close.

 

[Rustic]

Socialism destroys any sort of individuality and freedom along with culture…

 

[martybegan]

The thing is the right has pretty much given up on changing that via legislative action, judicial action, or bullying government in general to go after it. They met the 1st amendment and the amendment won.

My point is that today's progressive has more in common with those moral majority idiots from the 80's than classical liberals, and ironically more in common with Bull Connor than MLK.

You complain the the left is overly sensitive and offended by everything but are also responsible for the uncensored offensive crap that is on TV. How does that logic work?

I am not blaming anyone for what's on TV. I love violent shows like Game of Thrones. If I ever have kids and I don't want them to watch it, it's up to me to figure it out.

I am comparing the old Moral Majority to today's progressives with regards to their tactics and their almost dogmatic demand that everyone like what they like, or at least do what they want to do hidden somewhere in a closet (ironic, no?)

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

You make a good point. The German people were smart enough to reject Nazism right after the war, where it took the US over 100 years to accept blacks as equals. Something we actually are still struggling with. You know, Lee even advocated not to build statues and monuments for himself or the confederate because he knew it would be divisive... smart man.

Having every bit of your infrastructure in large cities demolished to debris, and having 4 different occupying armies dictate your every move does wonders to motivating people to comply or else. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The difference is that in the US Civil war we were fighting our own countrymen, and occupying our own territory. Plus Reconstruction was done by committee, and that is never a good way to do things. One wonders what would have happened if Lincoln was not assassinated.

 

[Slade3200]

People in those countries and every country should be able to mate with whoever the hell they want. It's called freedom

Who the f*ck voted for the Third-World multicultural takeover of our countries?

This is an anti-Democratic monstrosity.

Are you talking about immigration? Who voted for immigration? Are you serious?

Well, when did we vote for all these immigrants to be here?

How do you think YOU got here? We all came from immigrants from a diversity of different countries.

Immigration law has been developed by our elected leaders and rulings have been made by the supreme court. People vote for our leadership who run campaigns based on policy issues. Our leaders write laws and make decisions as representatives of the people. Its called a democratic republic.

Actually that should be a capitalist republic, but Socialism has fucked this country over for the last hundred plus years.

I disrespectfully disagree

 

[Slade3200]

You complain the the left is overly sensitive and offended by everything but are also responsible for the uncensored offensive crap that is on TV. How does that logic work?

I am not blaming anyone for what's on TV. I love violent shows like Game of Thrones. If I ever have kids and I don't want them to watch it, it's up to me to figure it out.

I am comparing the old Moral Majority to today's progressives with regards to their tactics and their almost dogmatic demand that everyone like what they like, or at least do what they want to do hidden somewhere in a closet (ironic, no?)

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

You make a good point. The German people were smart enough to reject Nazism right after the war, where it took the US over 100 years to accept blacks as equals. Something we actually are still struggling with. You know, Lee even advocated not to build statues and monuments for himself or the confederate because he knew it would be divisive... smart man.

Having every bit of your infrastructure in large cities demolished to debris, and having 4 different occupying armies dictate your every move does wonders to motivating people to comply or else. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The difference is that in the US Civil war we were fighting our own countrymen, and occupying our own territory. Plus Reconstruction was done by committee, and that is never a good way to do things. One wonders what would have happened if Lincoln was not assassinated.

That is an interesting thought, what would Lincoln have done? I can't tell if you are supporting the German effort of wiping out Nazism or critiquing it. I agree with your points about the differences between the post WW2 and post Civil War situations. We took a more civil and democratic approach to rebuilding our nation. But for our argument about the appropriateness of statues that stand in contrast to our values there are similarities that can be analyzed.

 

[martybegan]

I am not blaming anyone for what's on TV. I love violent shows like Game of Thrones. If I ever have kids and I don't want them to watch it, it's up to me to figure it out.

I am comparing the old Moral Majority to today's progressives with regards to their tactics and their almost dogmatic demand that everyone like what they like, or at least do what they want to do hidden somewhere in a closet (ironic, no?)

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

You make a good point. The German people were smart enough to reject Nazism right after the war, where it took the US over 100 years to accept blacks as equals. Something we actually are still struggling with. You know, Lee even advocated not to build statues and monuments for himself or the confederate because he knew it would be divisive... smart man.

Having every bit of your infrastructure in large cities demolished to debris, and having 4 different occupying armies dictate your every move does wonders to motivating people to comply or else. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The difference is that in the US Civil war we were fighting our own countrymen, and occupying our own territory. Plus Reconstruction was done by committee, and that is never a good way to do things. One wonders what would have happened if Lincoln was not assassinated.

That is an interesting thought, what would Lincoln have done? I can't tell if you are supporting the German effort of wiping out Nazism or critiquing it. I agree with your points about the differences between the post WW2 and post Civil War situations. We took a more civil and democratic approach to rebuilding our nation. But for our argument about the appropriateness of statues that stand in contrast to our values there are similarities that can be analyzed.

It wasn't really a German effort, it was imposed upon them by the victors after an unconditional surrender and the disruption of any remaining form of Civil Government. Even their current laws outlawing Nazi symbolism comes from the rules imposed on them.

The German government still allows memorials to the Soldiers who fought in the war, even SS units. The leaders are not memorialized, but again I still see a huge difference between people fighting for what they thought was their own country, even with their peculiar institution, and a country that was practicing genocide against one group, and planning for more if they managed to actually win the war.

Jews were only the first step,. Poles and Russians were next.

 

[Slade3200]

I see that with some groups and I ignore them. I don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. The taking down of the confederate flag makes sense, that taking down of some statues that are deemed inappropriate by the communities makes sense. Those that want Jefferson, Washington and Columbus statues torn down are going too far, in my opinion

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

You make a good point. The German people were smart enough to reject Nazism right after the war, where it took the US over 100 years to accept blacks as equals. Something we actually are still struggling with. You know, Lee even advocated not to build statues and monuments for himself or the confederate because he knew it would be divisive... smart man.

Having every bit of your infrastructure in large cities demolished to debris, and having 4 different occupying armies dictate your every move does wonders to motivating people to comply or else. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The difference is that in the US Civil war we were fighting our own countrymen, and occupying our own territory. Plus Reconstruction was done by committee, and that is never a good way to do things. One wonders what would have happened if Lincoln was not assassinated.

That is an interesting thought, what would Lincoln have done? I can't tell if you are supporting the German effort of wiping out Nazism or critiquing it. I agree with your points about the differences between the post WW2 and post Civil War situations. We took a more civil and democratic approach to rebuilding our nation. But for our argument about the appropriateness of statues that stand in contrast to our values there are similarities that can be analyzed.

It wasn't really a German effort, it was imposed upon them by the victors after an unconditional surrender and the disruption of any remaining form of Civil Government. Even their current laws outlawing Nazi symbolism comes from the rules imposed on them.

The German government still allows memorials to the Soldiers who fought in the war, even SS units. The leaders are not memorialized, but again I still see a huge difference between people fighting for what they thought was their own country, even with their peculiar institution, and a country that was practicing genocide against one group, and planning for more if they managed to actually win the war.

Jews were only the first step,. Poles and Russians were next.

See this is where you lose me with the false comparisons. You bring up WW2 and call it genocide against one group and compare it to the Civil War that you describe as "people fighting for what they thought was their own country". You leave out the fact that they were fighting for the right to own people against their president and governments directives. Slavery is not as bad as genocide but it is still disgustingly bad, there were plenty of rapes and murders and abuses going on. It was a shameful element of our society and the the civil war was centered around it. These statues and confederate symbols represent those detestable values to many people. Just as Nazi symbols represented a disgraceful agenda and history that did not deserve to be celebrated through public monuments. Do you not understand that?

 

[martybegan]

The problem is the type of person that really really wants these things down doesn't draw a line. They keep pushing and pushing, finding more and more reasons to complain. They will never be satisfied. Removing history, even uncomfortable history is never a good idea when done at the demands of the mob. The mob is short sighted, and is only encouraged when you placate it.

When the Allies wiped Hitler and all the other Nazi leaders and their symbols off the map, they did it right away, and with a ruthlessness that was dictated by a desire to never see that type of German government ever happen again. Right now who except the most idiotic leftists and the brain dead white power morons themselves ever see American nazism/white identity/nationalism ever taking hold?

You make a good point. The German people were smart enough to reject Nazism right after the war, where it took the US over 100 years to accept blacks as equals. Something we actually are still struggling with. You know, Lee even advocated not to build statues and monuments for himself or the confederate because he knew it would be divisive... smart man.

Having every bit of your infrastructure in large cities demolished to debris, and having 4 different occupying armies dictate your every move does wonders to motivating people to comply or else. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The difference is that in the US Civil war we were fighting our own countrymen, and occupying our own territory. Plus Reconstruction was done by committee, and that is never a good way to do things. One wonders what would have happened if Lincoln was not assassinated.

That is an interesting thought, what would Lincoln have done? I can't tell if you are supporting the German effort of wiping out Nazism or critiquing it. I agree with your points about the differences between the post WW2 and post Civil War situations. We took a more civil and democratic approach to rebuilding our nation. But for our argument about the appropriateness of statues that stand in contrast to our values there are similarities that can be analyzed.

It wasn't really a German effort, it was imposed upon them by the victors after an unconditional surrender and the disruption of any remaining form of Civil Government. Even their current laws outlawing Nazi symbolism comes from the rules imposed on them.

The German government still allows memorials to the Soldiers who fought in the war, even SS units. The leaders are not memorialized, but again I still see a huge difference between people fighting for what they thought was their own country, even with their peculiar institution, and a country that was practicing genocide against one group, and planning for more if they managed to actually win the war.

Jews were only the first step,. Poles and Russians were next.

See this is where you lose me with the false comparisons. You bring up WW2 and call it genocide against one group and compare it to the Civil War that you describe as "people fighting for what they thought was their own country". You leave out the fact that they were fighting for the right to own people against their president and governments directives. Slavery is not as bad as genocide but it is still disgustingly bad, there were plenty of rapes and murders and abuses going on. It was a shameful element of our society and the the civil war was centered around it. These statues and confederate symbols represent those detestable values to many people. Just as Nazi symbols represented a disgraceful agenda and history that did not deserve to be celebrated through public monuments. Do you not understand that?

Actually they were fighting due to the chance of Slavery maybe being curtailed in the territories, and eventual, probably compensated emancipation. The South feared Lincoln like progressives fear Trump.

You also have to remember that Citizenship in a State was far more of an identifier then that it is now. People were often Citizens of the States first, and their Country second. To them, they were just exercising the same method of gaining independence that the Colonists did against the Crown. Now to me, you need the consent of the rest of the country before you can go, and that means war if they don't. Which is what happened.

Slavery was also waning at the time, but was still not universally condemned. Killing a whole people off "because they are an enemy" was recognized as an evil thing pretty much universally by the rest of the world when the Germans were doing it.

The difference still is Nazi symbology was removed at the time the other side won and imposed its rules. We have allowed the South to memorialize its lost cause and dead citizens for over a decade, now all of a sudden all that is evil evil evil. I'm sorry but I refuse to bend the knee to the chronically offended who if they win will just move on to the next idiotic request to assuage their own butt hurt.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Of course ANTIFA caused the violence, they shouldn't have shown up to shut down another protest in the first place. They were there for a fight.

Yes, they do. How was it a fumble? What do you disagree with about his speech? Probably simply the fact that your leftist buddies were lumped together with the other thugs, where they should be, and the fact that Donald Trump was the one making the speech.

Both were there to fight and provoke. You obviously don't have a good handle on the events that happened nor do you have an objective viewpoint on Trumps speech when he minimized the condemnation of those hate groups. You don't seem to be aware of the shuttering reaction that it sent through the nation. You simply point blame at "leftists" without really looking at the people that reacted critically, many of whom were supporters of Trump that could objectively call him out on reacting inappropriately. Your immaturity and bias is very apparent.

The irony of saying one doesn't have an objective viewpoint while not having an objective viewpoint. Trump condemned those that needed to be, and that's what everyone wanted to see. You only think he minimized the role of the white supremacists because he also condemned ANTIFA when nobody was calling for it. Just because you and yours didn't ask for it, doesn't mean it wasn't the right course of action. Addressing all guilty parties doesn't minimize the role of one of said guilty parties.

I understand perfectly what happened, I'm just not looking at them through lefty goggles.

The only ones upset by his speech are those who sympathize with ANTIFA, who are in a permanent state of butthurt in the first place.

Trump didn't say ANTIFA, and I literally just posted about how they suck... you don't know what you're talking about

In which case you would have no problem with how he addressed the issue.

In any case where he didn't come off like a total douchebag. Where he came out with the same anger and pointed retribution about blantant racists groups as he does about the media or his political opponents.

He addressed them at the same time, to he addressed them the exact same way. There's no issue with that, because they're all thugs. At least your post confirms you only disliked his speech because Donald Trump is the one making it.