This is what emboldened white supremacists look like

[Tambora]

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
- William Tecumseh Sherman

 

[drbrumley]

The only thing I ever heard my grandfather say about him, when his name came up in a conversation. "Damn him and all of his kind and kin." [/FONT][/COLOR]

You should have listened to your grandfather more it seems

 

[Ktoyou]

Sherman? You may have moved to Texas ma'am, but there's no way you're from the South. Sherman. Cover the ears of your children at what would have proceeded from the mouth of any Southerner asked about that one. In my South he has long been considered a war criminal and is detested.

Those dam Yankees! Still not over it!:madmad:

 

[Ktoyou]

You should have listened to your grandfather more it seems

Maybe his grandfather was a merchant, not a planter? Makes a big difference.

 

[drbrumley]

Maybe his grandfather was a merchant, not a planter? Makes a big difference.

My great great grandfather fought for the union even though he was from Alabama...of course he had family fight for confederacy. So yeah, that war tore his family apart...Most of my family were sharecroppers.

 

[Ktoyou]

My great great grandfather fought for the union even though he was from Alabama...of course he had family fight for confederacy. So yeah, that war tore his family apart...Most of my family were sharecroppers.

Father's family were planters. He once told me his grandmother had told him stories about how poor there lives were after the war. They had hired paddy (the Irish) to work the farm, which in my thinking, long ago, seemed to indicate slavery would not have lasted, had the war been avoided. It was outmoded, as well, very immoral to any enlightened person.

 

[Foxfire]

Mexicans are not American dufus

Just curious, in your geography lessons, what continent was Mexico on?

 

[patrick jane]

Just curious, in your geography lessons, what continent was Mexico on?

I was a doofus in school

 

[Foxfire]

I was a doofus in school

You do realize that about 1/3 of the continental United States was a part of Mexico for a couple of centuries before it was U.S. territory? That includes every U.S. state that borders with Mexico and a few more.

 

[patrick jane]

You do realize that about 1/3 of the continental United States was a part of Mexico for a couple of centuries before it was U.S. territory? That includes every U.S. state that borders with Mexico and a few more.

Yes I knew that, you're just being picky about the word "American", don't they have statues and memorials of the Alamo though?

 

[Foxfire]

Yes I knew that, you're just being picky about the word "American", don't they have statues and memorials of the Alamo though?

Not to any Mexican war hero's. I'm not aware of a single one in of all that nearly 1.5 million square miles of centuries long formerly Mexican Sovereign land.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The intent of the founders on the point means nothing to me...Town


Ladies and gentlemen, that tells you everything you need to know about Town. It explains how his ilk has systematically destroyed our Constitution.

 

[Town Heretic]

The intent of the founders on the point means nothing to me...Town

Ladies and gentlemen, that tells you everything you need to know about Town. It explains how his ilk has systematically destroyed our Constitution.

Rather, it does let anyone interested know what they need to about either how you think or fail to and how your less than encompassing methodology, which may well boil down to the same thing, feeds your distorted bias.

What they need and what you can't afford to allow is context. From the larger bit you quote:

But as with you and Texas v. White, who cares?...If the founders had wanted to they could have set out unambiguous language on the point in the very Constitution they cobbled.

Or, I'm using the approach of dr who'd made the bold dismissal of White, a ruling that addressed the point (as had the legal definition). I noted that the perfect opportunity to settle the issue without ambiguity and within the Constitution wasn't taken by its framers.

Okay. The intent of the founders on the point means nothing to me...or to Lincoln and the prevailing side.

Or, the S.Ct. and most of the states in that Union saw it differently and, thankfully, prevailed, though the use of "nothing to me" is, again, a rhetorical device used to meet drbrumley's declaration on point and meet it problematically for him.

People of my "ilk" have defended the Constitution from people of CS's temperament and practice for generations. And now you have a little clearer picture of why that's necessary.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Rather, it does let anyone interested know what they need to about either how you think or fail to and how your less than encompassing methodology, which may well boil down to the same thing, feeds your distorted bias.

What they need and what you can't afford to allow is context. From the larger bit you quote:



Or, I'm using the approach of dr who'd made the bold dismissal of White, a ruling that addressed the point (as had the legal definition). I noted that the perfect opportunity to settle the issue without ambiguity and within the Constitution wasn't taken by its framers.


Or, the S.Ct. and most of the states in that Union saw it differently and, thankfully, prevailed, though the use of "nothing to me" is, again, a rhetorical device used to meet drbrumley's declaration on point and meet it problematically for him.

People of my "ilk" have defended the Constitution from people of CS's temperament and practice for generations. And now you have a little clearer picture of why that's necessary.

The intent of the founders means nothing to you. Your own words clown. Don't try to squirm out of it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

People of your ilk are directly responsible for having a constitution utterly alien from the original.


Of course you support that bastardization of it.

 

[Zeke]

TH is full of Papal Bull compacts.

 

[Town Heretic]

The intent of the founders means nothing to you.

No, intent absent framing as law. Just so, you might be a raving racist or a near saint and believe all sorts of crazy or wonderful things, and that's your right. But if you want law you write it down and men vote on it.

Your own words clown.

Town. You may have a key sticking on your keyboard.

Don't try to squirm out of it.

That's not what providing a full quote amounts to. It's only what someone in your position, accustomed to bumper stickers and demonstrably incapable of substantive discourse relies on.

I set out the larger context for my remarks and to put a point on what you still don't or won't understand, no, our government wasn't designed to remain the stagnant playground of landed white gentry. And the truly remarkable thing is that it was designed for change BY that landed white gentry. I think it's one of the more impressive creations in the history of man cobbling compacts in part because of that.

People of your ilk are directly responsible for having a constitution utterly alien from the original.

Which, as with so much in that rich, inner fantasy world of yours, simply isn't true. While any number of changes over the decades since it was written would no doubt surprise most of them and delight many who opposed some of what they sanctioned, like slavery (which I suppose you must still support given your position), the Constitution remains in force and is anything but alien to...itself. :AMR:

Of course you support that bastardization of it.

Complete nonsense, of course. The Constitution itself allows for its own alteration. Your problem (well, one of them) is that you don't like some of the changes, which means you should go shake your fist at the ground and the founders who left that door open, ironically enough (given your position).

TH is full of Papal Bull compacts.

I'm not completely sure that even you know what that is supposed to mean. Solid punctuation though. Nicely done on that front.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, intent absent framing as law. Just so, you might be a raving racist or a near saint and believe all sorts of crazy or wonderful things, and that's your right. But if you want law you write it down and men vote on it.


Town. You may have a key sticking on your keyboard.


That's not what providing a full quote amounts to. It's only what someone in your position, accustomed to bumper stickers and demonstrably incapable of substantive discourse relies on.

I set out the larger context for my remarks and to put a point on what you still don't or won't understand, no, our government wasn't designed to remain the stagnant playground of landed white gentry. And the truly remarkable thing is that it was designed for change BY that landed white gentry. I think it's one of the more impressive creations in the history of man cobbling compacts in part because of that.



Which, as with so much in that rich, inner fantasy world of yours, simply isn't true. While any number of changes over the decades since it was written would no doubt surprise most of them and delight many who opposed some of what they sanctioned, like slavery (which I suppose you must still support given your position), the Constitution remains in force and is anything but alien to...itself. :AMR:


Complete nonsense, of course. The Constitution itself allows for its own alteration. Your problem (well, one of them) is that you don't like some of the changes, which means you should go shake your fist at the ground and the founders who left that door open, ironically enough (given your position).


I'm not completely sure that even you know what that is supposed to mean. Solid punctuation though. Nicely done on that front.

You can't deny your own words. Sorry dude. If you can't live with it, don't say it. Your anticonstitutional , so just own it.

 

[fool]

Sherman? You may have moved to Texas ma'am, but there's no way you're from the South. Sherman. Cover the ears of your children at what would have proceeded from the mouth of any Southerner asked about that one. In my South he has long been considered a war criminal and is detested. Of course, he didn't set Texas to the match and Texicans are notorious for not seeing past their own grievance, so...

Why is Sherman so reviled and charged?

He ordered the shelling of citizens in Atlanta. Said Sherman, “No consideration must be paid to the fact they are occupied by families, but the place must be cannonaded.”

From Discerning History:

​

​

What distinguished Sherman from most other armies was the intentionality of his destruction. His actual orders were not far from the ordinary, but in his correspondence made his intentions clear. Although other armies wrought similar kinds of destruction, Sherman was different. He launched a campaign for the sole purpose of making war on civilians and turning them against the war. Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.​

The only thing I ever heard my grandfather say about him, when his name came up in a conversation. "Damn him and all of his kind and kin."

So...That's one order of Tubman.

In addition to melting down the Confederate Statuary I think we should rent advertising space on Confederate grave stones to raise money for Archeology at slave grave sites.

We should establish a Slave Grave Department and Investigate with Ground Penetrating Radar all known or suspected site of slave remains. Excavate and catalog and sample all found remains and compare against a data base of volunteered DNA from living people.

Thanks to this thread we are all now aware that there's a Confederate Grave Marker for a Camel.
A freaking Camel.
While we have no idea where we buried Washington's Butler.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So everything they do you believe is the will of the people?

I know a bunch of gays who pretended to be conservative to get on a city councel too, so they could put their own agenda into place- their will, not of those who elected them.

Youve seen a ton of cities cater to the Freedom from faith people cause issues in cities far and wide removed from them, think those things are the local peoples desires who elected their counsels?

You know a bunch of gays?

Wow, did you tell them that you think they should be executed?

:think:

I took you off ignore ONLY to respond to this lie (i was told of it, since most here know my position on this and you lied (since you knew it too), and reinforce why you are on ignore, because you LIE. This is a big one, ive never once ever advocated for the execution of a gay, ever.

I even posted in a poll when i first came here that says i do not support it, and you know it, as well as rusha that i noticed supported your lying claim about me, thanks again for reminding me of the liar you are, and back to ignore for you.

I was actually sad to see rusha thank you for your lie, but then it looks like she like you have given themselves over to wickedness now. I expect it from you because you lie often, but it was the first time i saw rusha support a known lie, since she knows my stance on it too. Bye bye.