independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 16th Dec 2019 3:03am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Torch-Wielding Group Protest Confederate Statue Removal
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 6 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #150 posted 05/31/17 12:38pm

purplepoppy

The Confederacy was a failed governmet. I'll just leave it at that. flag


[Edited 5/31/17 12:42pm]

Brand new boogie without the hero.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #151 posted 05/31/17 12:42pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

purplepoppy said:

The Confederacy was a failed governmet. I'll just leave it at that. flag
Goodbye Tex-Ass -your word.

it lost a war... yeah we know. And I am sure you do not know what a confederate flag is... well maybe you do now but you did not an hour ago. Lousy-anna!

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #152 posted 05/31/17 1:13pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

purplepoppy said:

The Confederacy was a failed governmet. I'll just leave it at that. flag
Goodbye Tex-Ass -your word.

it lost a war... yeah we know. And I am sure you do not know what a confederate flag is... well maybe you do now but you did not an hour ago. Lousy-anna!


Yeah I never quite understood people who believe those who fought on the losing end of wars shouldn't be honored. Is that why Viet Nam vets were treated like crap? (I know North Viet Nam surrendered, but still ... we lost that one ...)

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #153 posted 05/31/17 1:19pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Pokeno4Money said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it lost a war... yeah we know. And I am sure you do not know what a confederate flag is... well maybe you do now but you did not an hour ago. Lousy-anna!


Yeah I never quite understood people who believe those who fought on the losing end of wars shouldn't be honored. Is that why Viet Nam vets were treated like crap? (I know North Viet Nam surrendered, but still ... we lost that one ...)

and many of them forget that the North did not fight to end slavery... if the South was so bad and if their government was so bad why not just wait them out? But some people (such as the ones that might cheer when a historical monument is removed) do not seem to know history.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #154 posted 05/31/17 1:35pm

2elijah

avatar

Interesting opinion piece on this topic. A reminder of what some of those confederate monuments represent in America's past, and what some of the protests against removing them may really be about:


https://www.washingtonpos...story.html

Protests against removing Confederate monuments are not really about history

By Christine Emba

"....In most cases, as Ingraham helpfully illustrated, those protesting the monuments’ removal aren’t exactly avid historians; many couldn’t tell one Confederate general from the next. And despite what some indignant statue supporters might claim, moving memorials from the city center to a dedicated museum is nothing like leveling the Egyptian pyramids or tearing down the Roman Colosseum; it’s not destruction, it’s adding needed context. As for honoring the memories of honorable men, here’s what Robert E. Lee himself said about undue reverence for conflicts past: “I think it wisest not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”

To be clear, these monuments were raised to commemorate a time of unquestioned white supremacy, when black people “knew their place” as second-class citizens and could be punished with impunity when they stepped out of line. The Civil War was fought to preserve the antebellum South. It and the post-Reconstruction era were a time and place in which those in one segment of the population could live in the absolute certainty that they were better than the rest — that they should and always would remain on top.

That place sounds comfortable, if you’re on the winning side of things. I can understand why one might want to keep that feeling alive, especially today.



In the current moment, many Americans find themselves gripped by what some have termed “cultural anxiety.” Nearly two-thirds of white working-class Americans believe that the country’s culture and way of life have deteriorated in recent decades. Nearly half say that things have changed so much that they feel like strangers in their own country. Most hesitate to call this “racism” — after all, you don’t have to dislike people of other races to want to maintain your own status, and few see themselves as deserving of what is now viewed as the worst possible epithet.

But there’s no escaping that it’s still a question of roles, standing and hierarchy, a wish to maintain a social structure that prefers one group over the rest. It’s discomfiting to feel that you have lost power as others have gained equal footing, even if you were never entitled to dominance in the first place.

Maybe this is why the far right has taken up Old South preservation as a pet cause, and why some conservative politicians base their campaigns on their support of symbols that glorify the Confederacy (Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart recently donned period costume to attend an “Old South Ball” and heralded the first New Orleans statue removal as evidence that “ISIS has won.”) For some, Making America Great Again means keeping alive the memory of a time when the country seemed more settled in their favor.

But there is no way to satisfy this longing for “America as it used to be” in the context of what America is becoming and should have always been: a democracy in which all citizens are of equal value. There will always be space for remembering our history, but remembering isn’t the end of it: We must also decide which parts of it are worthy of continued celebration and which are not. Those attempting to keep the past alive under the guise of protecting Confederate memorials need to recognize that this is the case, as uncomfortable as that might be."
[Edited 6/2/17 3:18am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #155 posted 05/31/17 2:57pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

and many of them forget that the North did not fight to end slavery... if the South was so bad and if their government was so bad why not just wait them out? But some people (such as the ones that might cheer when a historical monument is removed) do not seem to know history.


Exactly. In fact, IIRC the last slaves in America were in the North. The South was fighting over money.

"Jussie Smollett wanted to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Black Men, but instead he became the Rosie Ruiz."

https://nypost.com/2019/0...a-is-long/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #156 posted 05/31/17 6:00pm

purplepoppy

2elijah said:

Interesting opinion piece on this topic. I'll post a portion of it: https://www.washingtonpos...story.html Protests against removing Confederate monuments are not really about history By Christine Emba "....In most cases, as Ingraham helpfully illustrated, those protesting the monuments’ removal aren’t exactly avid historians; many couldn’t tell one Confederate general from the next. And despite what some indignant statue supporters might claim, moving memorials from the city center to a dedicated museum is nothing like leveling the Egyptian pyramids or tearing down the Roman Colosseum; it’s not destruction, it’s adding needed context. As for honoring the memories of honorable men, here’s what Robert E. Lee himself said about undue reverence for conflicts past: “I think it wisest not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.” To be clear, these monuments were raised to commemorate a time of unquestioned white supremacy, when black people “knew their place” as second-class citizens and could be punished with impunity when they stepped out of line. The Civil War was fought to preserve the antebellum South. It and the post-Reconstruction era were a time and place in which those in one segment of the population could live in the absolute certainty that they were better than the rest — that they should and always would remain on top. That place sounds comfortable, if you’re on the winning side of things. I can understand why one might want to keep that feeling alive, especially today. In the current moment, many Americans find themselves gripped by what some have termed “cultural anxiety.” Nearly two-thirds of white working-class Americans believe that the country’s culture and way of life have deteriorated in recent decades. Nearly half say that things have changed so much that they feel like strangers in their own country. Most hesitate to call this “racism” — after all, you don’t have to dislike people of other races to want to maintain your own status, and few see themselves as deserving of what is now viewed as the worst possible epithet. But there’s no escaping that it’s still a question of roles, standing and hierarchy, a wish to maintain a social structure that prefers one group over the rest. It’s discomfiting to feel that you have lost power as others have gained equal footing, even if you were never entitled to dominance in the first place. Maybe this is why the far right has taken up Old South preservation as a pet cause, and why some conservative politicians base their campaigns on their support of symbols that glorify the Confederacy (Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart recently donned period costume to attend an “Old South Ball” and heralded the first New Orleans statue removal as evidence that “ISIS has won.”) For some, Making America Great Again means keeping alive the memory of a time when the country seemed more settled in their favor. [color=blue]But there is no way to satisfy this longing for “America as it used to be” in the context of what America is becoming and should have always been: a democracy in which all citizens are of equal value. There will always be space for remembering our history, but remembering isn’t the end of it: We must also decide which parts of it are worthy of continued celebration and which are not. Those attempting to keep the past alive under the guise of protecting Confederate memorials need to recognize that this is the case, as uncomfortable as that might be."

Excellent, thank you.

Brand new boogie without the hero.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #157 posted 06/14/17 9:24am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

It just hit me! Why do the Dems want to remove these symbols? They are almost ALL Democrats!

My conclusion is they want to remove the history because they know that it is a satin on the DNC. Get rid of the symbols and they twist history such that people forget the true nature of the DNC!


The DNC is just the same: all about control and power. And they get the pawns to do the work. But make no mistake the party of slavery and the KKK still has the same agenda... they've just swapped chains with checks.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #158 posted 06/14/17 12:34pm

Horsefeathers

avatar

Well, then somebody needs to tell all those not-Democrats fighting to preserve them. Boy, do they look stupid fighting so publicly to keep those participation trophies dedicated to their enemies
Murica: at least it's not Sudan.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #159 posted 06/14/17 1:11pm

purplepoppy

That would be the Democrat Aggression.

Brand new boogie without the hero.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #160 posted 06/14/17 3:34pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It just hit me! Why do the Dems want to remove these symbols? They are almost ALL Democrats!

My conclusion is they want to remove the history because they know that it is a satin on the DNC. Get rid of the symbols and they twist history such that people forget the true nature of the DNC!


The DNC is just the same: all about control and power. And they get the pawns to do the work. But make no mistake the party of slavery and the KKK still has the same agenda... they've just swapped chains with checks.


falloff

Absolutely hysterical! Like the Democratic and Republican parties have remained the exact same for 150 years!!... Woody Allen or Larry David or Judd Apatow at their most inspired could not come up with anything as absurdly funny as this... It's almost as humorous as his recent comments that it was the RIGHT WING who fought for Civil Rights and against discrimination!! How does he come up with this stuff????
[Edited 6/14/17 15:37pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #161 posted 06/14/17 3:46pm

purplepoppy

Dog with a new dumb ass bone.

Brand new boogie without the hero.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #162 posted 06/14/17 3:58pm

uPtoWnNY

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It just hit me! Why do the Dems want to remove these symbols? They are almost ALL Democrats!

My conclusion is they want to remove the history because they know that it is a satin on the DNC. Get rid of the symbols and they twist history such that people forget the true nature of the DNC!


The DNC is just the same: all about control and power. And they get the pawns to do the work. But make no mistake the party of slavery and the KKK still has the same agenda... they've just swapped chains with checks.

falloff Absolutely hysterical! Like the Democratic and Republican parties have remained the exact same for 150 years!!... Woody Allen or Larry David or Judd Apatow at their most inspired could not come up with anything as absurdly funny as this... It's almost as humorous as his recent comments that it was the RIGHT WING who fought for Civil Rights and against discrimination!! How does he come up with this stuff???? [Edited 6/14/17 15:37pm]

It's humorous and sad at the same time.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #163 posted 06/14/17 8:13pm

2elijah

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It just hit me! Why do the Dems want to remove these symbols? They are almost ALL Democrats!

My conclusion is they want to remove the history because they know that it is a satin on the DNC. Get rid of the symbols and they twist history such that people forget the true nature of the DNC!


The DNC is just the same: all about control and power. And they get the pawns to do the work. But make no mistake the party of slavery and the KKK still has the same agenda... they've just swapped chains with checks.


Bullsh*t. The statues need to be removed because, to the present-day residents there, those statues are an insult and reminder of America's ugly past. End of story.
[Edited 6/14/17 20:15pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #164 posted 06/14/17 8:42pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

2elijah said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It just hit me! Why do the Dems want to remove these symbols? They are almost ALL Democrats!

My conclusion is they want to remove the history because they know that it is a satin on the DNC. Get rid of the symbols and they twist history such that people forget the true nature of the DNC!


The DNC is just the same: all about control and power. And they get the pawns to do the work. But make no mistake the party of slavery and the KKK still has the same agenda... they've just swapped chains with checks.

Bullsh*t. The statues need to be removed because, to the present-day residents there, those statues are an insult and reminder of America's ugly past. End of story. [Edited 6/14/17 20:15pm]

To some, including perhaps some on here, those were Glory Days

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #165 posted 06/15/17 3:51am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

based on the over the top and hateful reaction i must have struck a nerve

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #166 posted 06/15/17 4:38am

Dasein

Pokeno4Money said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:


Exactly. In fact, IIRC the last slaves in America were in the North. The South was fighting over money.


Please provide us with the sources you used to substantiate these claims as I would like to know
which historian/academic has discovered that the last slaves in the USA were in the North, and that
the South was not fighting, chiefly, for its rights to maintain its economical, sectional, and political/
constitutional dependence upon slavery but merely "fighting over money."

I know you don't read books and don't care too much about history but only read articles online from
unbiased journalists, so I'm very eager to see your citations!



[Edited 6/15/17 8:37am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #167 posted 06/15/17 4:45am

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

based on the over the top and hateful reaction i must have struck a nerve


The responses you received were proportional to the comment you made. And I am beginning to
doubt that you are published in logic as JJ pointed out a grievous error you made in thinking that
the two major political parties prior to and soon after the Civil War are accurately reflected today
in 2017.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #168 posted 06/15/17 5:58am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

based on the over the top and hateful reaction i must have struck a nerve


The responses you received were proportional to the comment you made. And I am beginning to
doubt that you are published in logic as JJ pointed out a grievous error you made in thinking that
the two major political parties prior to and soon after the Civil War are accurately reflected today
in 2017.

it was not a logical flaw on my part... it was historical fact. Leading up to the war there were movements by to end slavery but when the south left the war was fought to force them back into the Union (in fact by law they never left but that is another historical fact many do not know--and was part of Johnson's impeachment.). It was NOT fought to end slavery. Lincoln used the issue to trip Douglas up. But it was not until Lincoln used the EP to gain support for the war and then after the 13th amendment was ratified.

So yes the north did fight a war to being slaves back into the union. It is not even that hard to understand.

and it is not even a logical argument... but it was a change in circumstance and policy that happened during and after the war.




EDITS Below


AND even if I am wrong it would still not be a logical fallacy as I did not present an argument. I stated 'facts' if my history is wrong then that is a failing of my history knowledge, not logic.



and here is a little light reading on Lincoln and slavery

http://www.history.com/ne...ancipation

and this see #2


https://www.livescience.c...myths.html


MORE EDITS:

LOL i misread your post! I never said that the parties of today were the same as the ones from back then. I just stated some facts about the Democratic party...

[Edited 6/15/17 6:08am]

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #169 posted 06/15/17 6:43am

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


The responses you received were proportional to the comment you made. And I am beginning to
doubt that you are published in logic as JJ pointed out a grievous error you made in thinking that
the two major political parties prior to and soon after the Civil War are accurately reflected today
in 2017.

it was not a logical flaw on my part... it was historical fact. Leading up to the war there were movements by to end slavery but when the south left the war was fought to force them back into the Union (in fact by law they never left but that is another historical fact many do not know--and was part of Johnson's impeachment.). It was NOT fought to end slavery. Lincoln used the issue to trip Douglas up. But it was not until Lincoln used the EP to gain support for the war and then after the 13th amendment was ratified.

So yes the north did fight a war to being slaves back into the union. It is not even that hard to understand.

and it is not even a logical argument... but it was a change in circumstance and policy that happened during and after the war.




EDITS Below


AND even if I am wrong it would still not be a logical fallacy as I did not present an argument. I stated 'facts' if my history is wrong then that is a failing of my history knowledge, not logic.



and here is a little light reading on Lincoln and slavery

http://www.history.com/ne...ancipation

and this see #2


https://www.livescience.c...myths.html


MORE EDITS:

LOL i misread your post! I never said that the parties of today were the same as the ones from back then. I just stated some facts about the Democratic party...

[Edited 6/15/17 6:08am]


No. Your comments implied that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have the same
agendas in 2017 that they did during the Civil War, and that is just plain ol' dumb and wrong. So,
this history lesson you've given us on Lincoln is not an appropriate response to our claim that your
argument was incondite, or, you misread my post and/or don't understand the error you made:
claiming that Democrats in 2017 are embarrassed by 1860's Democrats, who you say were KKK
members and the party of slavery, presumes 2017 Democrats share the same values of the latter,
and like I said, that's just plain ol' dumb and wrong and fallacious thinking.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #170 posted 06/15/17 7:02am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it was not a logical flaw on my part... it was historical fact. Leading up to the war there were movements by to end slavery but when the south left the war was fought to force them back into the Union (in fact by law they never left but that is another historical fact many do not know--and was part of Johnson's impeachment.). It was NOT fought to end slavery. Lincoln used the issue to trip Douglas up. But it was not until Lincoln used the EP to gain support for the war and then after the 13th amendment was ratified.

So yes the north did fight a war to being slaves back into the union. It is not even that hard to understand.

and it is not even a logical argument... but it was a change in circumstance and policy that happened during and after the war.




EDITS Below


AND even if I am wrong it would still not be a logical fallacy as I did not present an argument. I stated 'facts' if my history is wrong then that is a failing of my history knowledge, not logic.



and here is a little light reading on Lincoln and slavery

http://www.history.com/ne...ancipation

and this see #2


https://www.livescience.c...myths.html


MORE EDITS:

LOL i misread your post! I never said that the parties of today were the same as the ones from back then. I just stated some facts about the Democratic party...

[Edited 6/15/17 6:08am]


No. Your comments implied that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have the same
agendas in 2017 that they did during the Civil War, and that is just plain ol' dumb and wrong.

If you got that out of what I said, either i was not clear or you missconstrued it


So,
this history lesson you've given us on Lincoln is not an appropriate response to our claim that your
argument was incondite, or, you misread my post and/or don't understand the error you made:
claiming that Democrats in 2017 are embarrassed by 1860's Democrats, who you say were KKK
members and the party of slavery, presumes 2017 Democrats share the same values of the latter,
and like I said, that's just plain ol' dumb and wrong and fallacious thinking.


in your opnion.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #171 posted 06/15/17 7:24am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

based on the over the top and hateful reaction i must have struck a nerve


The responses you received were proportional to the comment you made. And I am beginning to
doubt that you are published in logic as JJ pointed out a grievous error you made in thinking that
the two major political parties prior to and soon after the Civil War are accurately reflected today
in 2017.

And I doubt he fully understands the implications of saying the DNC "swapped chains for checks". This insinuates the slaves (who were Black),were "chained" that their modern day descendents vote Democratic simply to get "free stuff" (checks), as if every Black person lacked the intelligence to pick whom they believe are the best candidates for their interests and for their communities. (also implicating that those voters are mainly receiving government "hand-outs") The patronization of the comment is so disgusting, it absolutely amazes me.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #172 posted 06/15/17 7:26am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Dasein said:

Pokeno4Money said:


Exactly. In fact, IIRC the last slaves in America were in the North. The South was fighting over money.


Please provide us with the sources you used to substantiate these claims as I would like to know
which historian/academic has discovered that the last slaves in the USA were in the North, and that
the South was not fighting, chiefly, for its rights to maintain its economical, sectional, and political/
constitutional dependence upon slavery in the face of but merely "fighting over money."

I know you don't read books and don't care too much about history but only read articles online from
unbiased journalists, so I'm very eager to see your citations!

You may not get an answer from that particular idiot anytime soon ...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #173 posted 06/15/17 7:30am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it was not a logical flaw on my part... it was historical fact. Leading up to the war there were movements by to end slavery but when the south left the war was fought to force them back into the Union (in fact by law they never left but that is another historical fact many do not know--and was part of Johnson's impeachment.). It was NOT fought to end slavery. Lincoln used the issue to trip Douglas up. But it was not until Lincoln used the EP to gain support for the war and then after the 13th amendment was ratified.

So yes the north did fight a war to being slaves back into the union. It is not even that hard to understand.

and it is not even a logical argument... but it was a change in circumstance and policy that happened during and after the war.




EDITS Below


AND even if I am wrong it would still not be a logical fallacy as I did not present an argument. I stated 'facts' if my history is wrong then that is a failing of my history knowledge, not logic.



and here is a little light reading on Lincoln and slavery

http://www.history.com/ne...ancipation

and this see #2


https://www.livescience.c...myths.html


MORE EDITS:

LOL i misread your post! I never said that the parties of today were the same as the ones from back then. I just stated some facts about the Democratic party...

[Edited 6/15/17 6:08am]


No. Your comments implied that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have the same
agendas in 2017 that they did during the Civil War, and that is just plain ol' dumb and wrong. So,
this history lesson you've given us on Lincoln is not an appropriate response to our claim that your
argument was incondite, or, you misread my post and/or don't understand the error you made:
claiming that Democrats in 2017 are embarrassed by 1860's Democrats, who you say were KKK
members and the party of slavery, presumes 2017 Democrats share the same values of the latter,
and like I said, that's just plain ol' dumb and wrong and fallacious thinking.

His comments explicitly linked the Democratic Party of the 1860s to the party of today, and when you point out the fallacy of such a comparison, all he can say is "That's your opinion" ?? !!?? err

How do you deal with minds like these ??

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #174 posted 06/15/17 7:34am

Horsefeathers

avatar

I'm not wrong, but even if I were wrong, I wouldn't be wrong. lol
Murica: at least it's not Sudan.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #175 posted 06/15/17 8:04am

purplepoppy

jjhunsecker said:

Dasein said:


The responses you received were proportional to the comment you made. And I am beginning to
doubt that you are published in logic as JJ pointed out a grievous error you made in thinking that
the two major political parties prior to and soon after the Civil War are accurately reflected today
in 2017.

And I doubt he fully understands the implications of saying the DNC "swapped chains for checks". This insinuates the slaves (who were Black),were "chained" that their modern day descendents vote Democratic simply to get "free stuff" (checks), as if every Black person lacked the intelligence to pick whom they believe are the best candidates for their interests and for their communities. (also implicating that those voters are mainly receiving government "hand-outs") The patronization of the comment is so disgusting, it absolutely amazes me.

I was stunned by that comment, thank you for addressing it.

These are 150 yr old talking points re the Confederacy that are dragged out by any idiot on a daily basis. Ask anyone who lives in the South. Horsefeathers laid it out real well on another thread this week.

Slavery was over in the Caribbean 30 years before the US fought their war. Europeans developed a source of sugar they could grow there (beets). The plantation owners were bought out by their governments, most took the money and went home. America was different because they brought slaves to their homeland but it was no less doomed.

The North/South argument is a dodge to make it sombody else's fault that moderns participate in. New York was the slavery capital in the 1700s. New Orleans was the capital in the 1800s. Take your pick.

Brand new boogie without the hero.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #176 posted 06/15/17 9:03am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

Dasein said:


The responses you received were proportional to the comment you made. And I am beginning to
doubt that you are published in logic as JJ pointed out a grievous error you made in thinking that
the two major political parties prior to and soon after the Civil War are accurately reflected today
in 2017.

And I doubt he fully understands the implications of saying the DNC "swapped chains for checks". This insinuates the slaves (who were Black),were "chained" that their modern day descendents vote Democratic simply to get "free stuff" (checks), as if every Black person lacked the intelligence to pick whom they believe are the best candidates for their interests and for their communities. (also implicating that those voters are mainly receiving government "hand-outs") The patronization of the comment is so disgusting, it absolutely amazes me.

the fallacy you are committing and the one that shows you do not fully understand the implications of what i said is that you are taking as an affront against people (who are mostly white) getting checks and other forms of assistance paid for by other people when it is really an indictment of the way the social assistance programmes are designed to keep people on them. The system is meant to keep people on it by making it so a job that pays less than what they are getting would cause them to be kicked off the programs. Of a daughter saving for college. Or a car that is worth too much.

Chains to checks about how the government controls people not how people game the system. Unless you think slaves were happy to be slaves?



No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #177 posted 06/15/17 9:10am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

jjhunsecker said:

And I doubt he fully understands the implications of saying the DNC "swapped chains for checks". This insinuates the slaves (who were Black),were "chained" that their modern day descendents vote Democratic simply to get "free stuff" (checks), as if every Black person lacked the intelligence to pick whom they believe are the best candidates for their interests and for their communities. (also implicating that those voters are mainly receiving government "hand-outs") The patronization of the comment is so disgusting, it absolutely amazes me.

the fallacy you are committing and the one that shows you do not fully understand the implications of what i said is that you are taking as an affront against people (who are mostly white) getting checks and other forms of assistance paid for by other people when it is really an indictment of the way the social assistance programmes are designed to keep people on them. The system is meant to keep people on it by making it so a job that pays less than what they are getting would cause them to be kicked off the programs. Of a daughter saving for college. Or a car that is worth too much.

Chains to checks about how the government controls people not how people game the system. Unless you think slaves were happy to be slaves?



This is NOT what you said. You said the DNC exchainged chains (which was used on Black slaves) for Checks , clearly implying that it the same people being "enslaved". Are you not intelligent enough to understand your own posts ? Or are you trying to wriggle out of the implications of what you actually said, and most likely believe ?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #178 posted 06/15/17 9:15am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

This is NOT what you said. You said the DNC exchainged chains (which was used on Black slaves) for Checks , clearly implying that it the same people being "enslaved". Are you not intelligent enough to understand your own posts ? Or are you trying to wriggle out of the implications of what you actually said, and most likely believe ?

since you want to put me down i will just say you are not intelligent to understand the comparison.

The person in chains is being controlled by the chains and finds it difficult to get out of that situation and is stuck there along with their kids and so on....

The person getting the checks (all forms of assistance) is being controlled by the checks and finds it difficult to get out of that situation and is stuck there along with their kids and so on....


No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #179 posted 06/15/17 9:21am

purplepoppy

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the fallacy you are committing and the one that shows you do not fully understand the implications of what i said is that you are taking as an affront against people (who are mostly white) getting checks and other forms of assistance paid for by other people when it is really an indictment of the way the social assistance programmes are designed to keep people on them. The system is meant to keep people on it by making it so a job that pays less than what they are getting would cause them to be kicked off the programs. Of a daughter saving for college. Or a car that is worth too much.

Chains to checks about how the government controls people not how people game the system. Unless you think slaves were happy to be slaves?



This is NOT what you said. You said the DNC exchainged chains (which was used on Black slaves) for Checks , clearly implying that it the same people being "enslaved". Are you not intelligent enough to understand your own posts ? Or are you trying to wriggle out of the implications of what you actually said, and most likely believe ?

Exactly. He was probably pleased to roll that one out. Now it's about something else.

Brand new boogie without the hero.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 6 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Torch-Wielding Group Protest Confederate Statue Removal