(08-23-2017, 03:20 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017, 04:12 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]So Lincoln's actual words and deeds don't matter?
This Lost Cause BS is being pushed hard by NPR and other liberal media wishing to rewrite history. Did you learn that phrase this week, rj?
You realize the Lost Cause was a rewrite of history, don't you?
You realize history written by the winners, don't you?
(08-20-2017, 01:00 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2017, 11:55 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I have to admit I've never seen this quote before. However, in context of the times, this view was considered moderate. While slavery was absent in the North, racism was rampant and barely concealed.
I'm curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that Lincoln destroyed America.
Please read the Wikipedia page on the Emancipation Proclamation. It did not apply to the approximately 1 million slaves in the North.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
As to the destruction of the Unites States, it is not my conclusion, it is historical fact.
On March 27, 1861 the southern States' contingent walked out of congress and congress adjourned "sine die" (without a day).
From Wikipedia: Adjournment sine die means "without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing". To adjourn an assembly sine die is to adjourn it for an indefinite period. A legislative body adjourns sine die when it adjourns without appointing a day on which to appear or assemble again.
Congress officially dissolved in 1861. They never had a lawful quorum so never lawfully reconvened.
It was Lincoln ruling by decree back then which is the basis for all actions since. He ordered congress to do certain things under martial law (military rule). He even had the governor of New York arrested for opposing certain decrees.
We have had a corporation ACTING as government since 21 Feb 1871.
See:
28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)
(15)“United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
© an instrumentality of the United States.
So... B and C are subdivisions of the "Federal corporation." For further verification go to Dunn & Bradstreet (dnb.com) or manta.com. You will find that ALL government entities are listed as private corporations right down to your local police department and school district.
The law isn't what you think it is. It's all just corporate regulations. Congress and legislatures are acting as the board of directors for the corporations and most people don't have any idea. You are simply seen as a corporate asset (human resource) with an asset tag (SS#) that is not allowed to tell your owner what to do. In "freeing the slaves" we all became slaves.
If these sieves don't know this by now you're essentially pissing in the wind my friend.
What's really at stake here is that they're pitting one against the other and doing quite a fine job at it. The poor peasants wouldn't know what power is if it hit them in the face directly.
Go ahead and keep dividing folks so we can get this over with and become conquered already.
(08-23-2017, 07:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017, 03:20 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]You realize the Lost Cause was a rewrite of history, don't you?
You realize history written by the winners, don't you?
Those statues weren't erected to honor the winners, were they?
No, they were erected to show who was still in charge.
(09-03-2017, 07:39 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (08-23-2017, 07:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You realize history written by the winners, don't you?
Those statues weren't erected to honor the winners, were they?
No, they were erected to show who was still in charge.
Hardly, they were put there to honor the sacrifice of local veterans.
(09-03-2017, 08:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017, 07:39 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Those statues weren't erected to honor the winners, were they?
No, they were erected to show who was still in charge.
Hardly, they were put there to honor the sacrifice of local veterans.
Oh, my. A statue of Robert E. Lee on the campus of UVA was in honor of local veterans?
You should research the timing of when the statues and monuments started appearing, and 50 years later, when schools were named or re-named.
Push back and white washing (pun intended).
(09-03-2017, 09:29 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017, 08:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Hardly, they were put there to honor the sacrifice of local veterans.
Oh, my. A statue of Robert E. Lee on the campus of UVA was in honor of local veterans?
You should research the timing of when the statues and monuments started appearing, and 50 years later, when schools were named or re-named.
Push back and white washing (pun intended).
You mean sons chose to honor their fathers about the time that generation started passing away? Never happened before in the history of Erff.
(09-03-2017, 09:29 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017, 08:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Hardly, they were put there to honor the sacrifice of local veterans.
Oh, my. A statue of Robert E. Lee on the campus of UVA was in honor of local veterans?
You should research the timing of when the statues and monuments started appearing, and 50 years later, when schools were named or re-named.
Push back and white washing (pun intended).
I believe most understand the intent of these monuments was to serve as a middle finger to the north in the early to mid 20th century. That's irrelevant now. The people who erected them, and their intended targets are long gone.
The people protesting these monuments today probably couldn't tell you a thing about the namesake of said monuments, or the history there. Most of these monuments have stood for 60-100 years with nary a peep, especially over the past 8 or 9 years.
This moral outrage certainly has some peculiar/convenient timing. It's not as if the intent behind these monuments being erected suddenly changed. The useful idiots demonstrating are just mindless drones being told, and in many cases, paid to be outraged on queue and on camera. These protesters have been conditioned to be nothing more than trained circus performers acting for the audience.
That's their purpose. Dance for the cameras and make it look good. If you can create a little chaos or spark a violent response, all the better.
(09-04-2017, 09:37 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017, 09:29 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, my. A statue of Robert E. Lee on the campus of UVA was in honor of local veterans?
You should research the timing of when the statues and monuments started appearing, and 50 years later, when schools were named or re-named.
Push back and white washing (pun intended).
I believe most understand the intent of these monuments was to serve as a middle finger to the north in the early to mid 20th century. That's irrelevant now. The people who erected them, and their intended targets are long gone.
The people protesting these monuments today probably couldn't tell you a thing about the namesake of said monuments, or the history there. Most of these monuments have stood for 60-100 years with nary a peep, especially over the past 8 or 9 years.
This moral outrage certainly has some peculiar/convenient timing. It's not as if the intent behind these monuments being erected suddenly changed. The useful idiots demonstrating are just mindless drones being told, and in many cases, paid to be outraged on queue and on camera. These protesters have been conditioned to be nothing more than trained circus performers acting for the audience.
That's their purpose. Dance for the cameras and make it look good. If you can create a little chaos or spark a violent response, all the better.
If you miss the point of the intent of the monuments, you miss the point of the objection to said monuments. They weren't so much a middle finger of the north, they were meant as a symbol that their "way of life" was a noble ideal worth dying for, still existed and, more to the point, were a big middle finger directly to the face of African-Americans. The emergence of the monuments around the turn of, and early part of, the 20th century coincided with the implementation of Jim Crow. The same thing happened during school desegregation. It was all push back against social justice efforts.
There have been on-going, mostly local efforts to remove or change these monuments. I agree more important issues need attention, and I know many want to believe the current controversies were stirred up by 8 years of Obama and a false flag operation in Charlottsville, but when do we hear about them? When there are protests.
(09-04-2017, 01:25 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (09-04-2017, 09:37 AM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]I believe most understand the intent of these monuments was to serve as a middle finger to the north in the early to mid 20th century. That's irrelevant now. The people who erected them, and their intended targets are long gone.
The people protesting these monuments today probably couldn't tell you a thing about the namesake of said monuments, or the history there. Most of these monuments have stood for 60-100 years with nary a peep, especially over the past 8 or 9 years.
This moral outrage certainly has some peculiar/convenient timing. It's not as if the intent behind these monuments being erected suddenly changed. The useful idiots demonstrating are just mindless drones being told, and in many cases, paid to be outraged on queue and on camera. These protesters have been conditioned to be nothing more than trained circus performers acting for the audience.
That's their purpose. Dance for the cameras and make it look good. If you can create a little chaos or spark a violent response, all the better.
If you miss the point of the intent of the monuments, you miss the point of the objection to said monuments. They weren't so much a middle finger of the north, they were meant as a symbol that their "way of life" was a noble ideal worth dying for, still existed and, more to the point, were a big middle finger directly to the face of African-Americans. The emergence of the monuments around the turn of, and early part of, the 20th century coincided with the implementation of Jim Crow. The same thing happened during school desegregation. It was all push back against social justice efforts.
There have been on-going, mostly local efforts to remove or change these monuments. I agree more important issues need attention, and I know many want to believe the current controversies were stirred up by 8 years of Obama and a false flag operation in Charlottsville, but when do we hear about them? When there are protests.
You missed the point of this thread. Hint: the group you're defending is offended by Lincoln. Lincoln for crying out loud.
(09-04-2017, 04:17 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-04-2017, 01:25 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]If you miss the point of the intent of the monuments, you miss the point of the objection to said monuments. They weren't so much a middle finger of the north, they were meant as a symbol that their "way of life" was a noble ideal worth dying for, still existed and, more to the point, were a big middle finger directly to the face of African-Americans. The emergence of the monuments around the turn of, and early part of, the 20th century coincided with the implementation of Jim Crow. The same thing happened during school desegregation. It was all push back against social justice efforts.
There have been on-going, mostly local efforts to remove or change these monuments. I agree more important issues need attention, and I know many want to believe the current controversies were stirred up by 8 years of Obama and a false flag operation in Charlottsville, but when do we hear about them? When there are protests.
You missed the point of this thread. Hint: the group you're defending is offended by Lincoln. Lincoln for crying out loud.
You missed the point of my posts, I'm not defending anyone defacing any monument, but other points made in this thread.
That defacing a statue of Lincoln is stupid should go without saying, shouldn't it?