Jump to content

Biden the Uniter...


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ya know...this has been hashed out to death. All you're doing is making an even bigger fool of yourself.

If that's even possible...

So you can't reveal ANY SENSE in Trump's NONSENSE either. You're the one making a bigger fool of yourself.

All I did is ask a question YOU COULDN'T ANSWER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

of course there was more than two sides

"Both sides" says otherwise. But thanks for at least TRYING.

Quote

Trump did not call Nazi's fine people

I didn't say he did. I know he denied that.

Quote

he said people on both sides of the Confederate statues debate were fine people

Except he didn't say that. Thanks for YOUR INTERPRETATION.

Quote

he explicitly said he wasn't talking about the Nazi's and condemned them totally

you buying into the fine people hoax is the ultimate sign of Trump Derangement Syndrome

I JUST ASKED A QUESTION. You just posted a nonsense ANSWER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

Your side is where people ban books because they contradict myths they believe in. 

When it comes to censorship and outright bans against certain people, it is overwhelmingly the left that does it. This is basically so one sided it's not even close.

If you truly believe that the right engages in censorship more than the left then you are woefully uninformed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Rebound said:

You said, “The VP supported street violence. Do you support her? How about Ol' Joe? Or AOC? Or Lizzy Warren? Or any of the Democrats...?

To be clear, I support Black Lives Matter and I do not support violence nor do I think BLM supports violence. 

Just curious but have you given any financial support to BLM? 

Black Lives Matter spent at least $12 million on mansions (nypost.com)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Both sides" says otherwise. But thanks for at least TRYING.

I didn't say he did. I know he denied that.

Except he didn't say that. Thanks for YOUR INTERPRETATION.

I JUST ASKED A QUESTION. You just posted a nonsense ANSWER.

the two sides were not Nazi's and those who protested Nazi's

it was both sides of the statue debate

of which a small minority were Nazi's

and Trump condemned them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Both sides" says otherwise. But thanks for at least TRYING.

I didn't say he did. I know he denied that.

Except he didn't say that. Thanks for YOUR INTERPRETATION.

I JUST ASKED A QUESTION. You just posted a nonsense ANSWER.

Does this answer your question once and for all?

My bad, I missed that Infidel Dog already posted this. It does bear watching again to put that particular lie to rest.

Edited by ironstone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the two sides were not Nazi's and those who protested Nazi's

it was both sides of the statue debate

of which a small minority were Nazi's

and Trump condemned them

Simply not true.
The rally was organized by white supremacists. They lost $26 million in a lawsuit afterwards. They called themselves “pro-white activists” and were protesting, among other things, a proposal to remove pro-slavery Civil War insurrectionist Robert Lee. The rally attracted hundreds and hundreds of Proud Boys, Nazis and KKK members. They were not a small minority, they were the organizers and key members. There weren’t a bunch of cheery nice non-racists who wanted to preserve the racist statue. 
 

Again, all we need to do is look at the rally’s purpose: Preserve a statue of a white supremacist who waged a massive war against the United States. 

Edited by Rebound
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Simply not true.
The rally was organized by white supremacists. They lost $26 million in a lawsuit afterwards. They called themselves “pro-white activists” and were protesting, among other things, a proposal to remove pro-slavery Civil War insurrectionist Robert Lee. The rally attracted hundreds and hundreds of Proud Boys, Nazis and KKK members. They were not a small minority, they were the organizers and key members. There weren’t a bunch of cheery nice non-racists who wanted to preserve the racist statue. 
 

Again, all we need to do is look at the rally’s purpose: Preserve a statue of a white supremacist who waged a massive war against the United States. 

the rally was organized in light of the statue controversy

most of the protesters were not Nazi's

and attempting to paint anyone who didn't want Robert E Lee's statue taken down as racist is beyond asinine

the vast majority of those who wanted to preserve the statue are not racists

which was precisely what Trump was getting at in his comments

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert E Lee was a much nicer fellow than Ulysses S Grant. 

Both were fine Americans, though. Both deserve to be remembered.

Why would one want to forget either? Forgetting is dangerous...one wouldn't want to repeat any mistakes.

If you were a time traveler...you'd fair much better in the Army of Northern Virginia during the first two years of the war. After that you might consider a move over to the Army of the Potomac to be prudent...

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Does this answer your question once and for all?

My bad, I missed that Infidel Dog already posted this. It does bear watching again to put that particular lie to rest.

They won't watch it, you know.

For some unfathomable reason they seem to believe remaining ignorant makes them in some way superior.

I don't know. Can't figure it out. Pre-ordained by their great Prog God or something. "Lo, and the ignorant shall inherit the earth." It must be written down for them somewhere. Maybe in Slate, or Snopes, or Mother Jones or MediaBiasFactCheck. Or some other of their religious texts. Maybe the CBC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Robert E Lee was a much nicer fellow than Ulysses S Grant. 

Both were fine Americans, though. Both deserve to be remembered.

Why would one want to forget either? Forgetting is dangerous...one wouldn't want to repeat any mistakes.

If you were a time traveler...you'd fair much better in the Army of Northern Virginia during the first two years of the war. After that you might consider a move over to the Army of the Potomac to be prudent...

Because Robert E Lee fought to overthrow the US Government in order to keep human beings in bondage as property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Because Robert E Lee fought to overthrow the US Government in order to keep human beings in bondage as property. 

 

That wasn't why Lee was fighting. He fought for Virginia. Had Virginia stayed in the Union, Lee would have commanded the Army of the Potomac rather than Northern Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

He was fighting so that Virginians could own slaves. No more, no less.  

 

Nothing is ever that simple with the US Civil War.

The last Confederate general to surrender was Stand Watie, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. He wasn't fighting to own slaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Bobby Lee certainly wasn’t fighting for Native American rights. 

 

No he wasn't. He was fighting to keep Virginia sovereign from Federal overreach. Slavery for him was something distant...being in the Army and serving out West for much of his career. He had inherited some slaves (ten by most accounts) from his mother yet referred to slavery as a moral and political evil to his wife.

It was Lee, of course, who was ordered by the government to deal with the John Brown Raid at Harper's Ferry. He testified that none of the black insurrectionists assisted Brown in the final fight; believing them to have been forced into revolt by Brown. His word on this saved a lot of lives from the hangman...no matter if it was true or not.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No he wasn't. He was fighting to keep Virginia sovereign from Federal overreach. Slavery for him was something distant...being in the Army and serving out West for much of his career. He had inherited some slaves (ten by most accounts) from his mother yet referred to slavery as a moral and political evil to his wife.

It was Lee, of course, who was ordered by the government to deal with the John Brown Raid at Harper's Ferry. He testified that none of the black insurrectionists assisted Brown in the final fight; believing them to have been forced into revolt by Brown. His word on this saved a lot of lives from the hangman...no matter if it was true or not.

That’s just a lot of long-winded excuse making for the plain simple truth: The “government overreach” you speak of was slavery. It can be clearly seen by reading the resolutions the State legislatures passed in deciding to join the Confederacy.

There has been 150 years of revisionist history writing trying to make the Confederacy and its leaders seem noble, and trying to make slavery seem benevolent and kind. It’s all lies. Slavery was incredibly cruel and evil and it was the sole reason why the South fought the Civil War. 

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the two sides were not Nazi's and those who protested Nazi's

it was both sides of the statue debate

of which a small minority were Nazi's

and Trump condemned them

Thanks for YOUR OPINION, but that's NOT what Trump said.

"there were fine people.... on BOTH SIDES"

㊙️ both means 2

Only much later when he understood how f'd he was did he deny meaning the torch marchers.

Of course that left him one side SHORT.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Simply not true.
The rally was organized by white supremacists. They lost $26 million in a lawsuit afterwards. They called themselves “pro-white activists” and were protesting, among other things, a proposal to remove pro-slavery Civil War insurrectionist Robert Lee. The rally attracted hundreds and hundreds of Proud Boys, Nazis and KKK members. They were not a small minority, they were the organizers and key members. There weren’t a bunch of cheery nice non-racists who wanted to preserve the racist statue. 
 

Again, all we need to do is look at the rally’s purpose: Preserve a statue of a white supremacist who waged a massive war against the United States. 

And ALSO (mainly) to "Unite the Right" as PROVEN by the FACT that it was the TITLE of the gathering.

That means that "the right" was CLEARLY one of the sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

That’s just a lot of long-winded excuse making for the plain simple truth: The “government overreach” you speak of was slavery. It can be clearly seen by reading the resolutions the State legislatures passed in deciding to join the Confederacy.

There has been 150 years of revisionist history writing trying to make the Confederacy and its leaders seem noble, and trying to make slavery seem benevolent and kind. It’s all lies. Slavery was incredibly cruel and evil and it was the sole reason why the South fought the Civil War. 

 

I've been interested in the US Civil War all of my life. I had a posthumous uncle in the German New York Regiments who fought against Lee at Seven Pines and various skirmishes of that time (1862). Wounded in action. Perhaps you have a similar family history.

The Government overreach was over King Cotton...not slavery which wasn't on the ballot...so to speak. In 1860, the issue of slavery in border states was what the politicians were fighting about...not in the Solid Democrat South. For most politicians in the South, the writing was on the wall for slavery lasting much longer, anyways. Automation was already making slavery unprofitable...and that is the death of almost anything.

As my old chum BC-2004 likes to say: Economics trumps virtue. Great Britain...staunchly anti-slavery by 1860...supported the South during the war right-up until Lincoln brilliantly made the war about slavery rather than the precious cotton the British desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the rally was organized in light of the statue controversy

most of the protesters were not Nazi's

and attempting to paint anyone who didn't want Robert E Lee's statue taken down as racist is beyond asinine

the vast majority of those who wanted to preserve the statue are not racists

which was precisely what Trump was getting at in his comments

Do you understand what "Unite the Right" means?

㊙️ All of "the right" was one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I've been interested in the US Civil War all of my life. I had a posthumous uncle in the German New York Regiments who fought against Lee at Seven Pines and various skirmishes of that time (1862). Wounded in action. Perhaps you have a similar family history.

The Government overreach was over King Cotton...not slavery which wasn't on the ballot...so to speak. In 1860, the issue of slavery in border states was what the politicians were fighting about...not in the Solid Democrat South. For most politicians in the South, the writing was on the wall for slavery lasting much longer, anyways. Automation was already making slavery unprofitable...and that is the death of almost anything.

As my old chum BC-2004 likes to say: Economics trumps virtue. Great Britain...staunchly anti-slavery by 1860...supported the South during the war right-up until Lincoln brilliantly made the war about slavery rather than the precious cotton the British desired.

Slavery

Primary Sources prove this:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

Edited by Rebound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I've been interested in the US Civil War all of my life. I had a posthumous uncle in the German New York Regiments who fought against Lee at Seven Pines and various skirmishes of that time (1862). Wounded in action. Perhaps you have a similar family history.

The Government overreach was over King Cotton...not slavery which wasn't on the ballot...so to speak. In 1860, the issue of slavery in border states was what the politicians were fighting about...not in the Solid Democrat South. For most politicians in the South, the writing was on the wall for slavery lasting much longer, anyways. Automation was already making slavery unprofitable...and that is the death of almost anything.

As my old chum BC-2004 likes to say: Economics trumps virtue. Great Britain...staunchly anti-slavery by 1860...supported the South during the war right-up until Lincoln brilliantly made the war about slavery rather than the precious cotton the British desired.

5 of  the States' secession declarations specifically mentioned slavery. ? 

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Georgia  Mississippi South Carolina Texas Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...