(12-14-2022, 12:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this is ghastly.
https://nationalfile.com/blm-mayor-of-ri...l-ap-hill/
"The desecration of General AP Hill’s resting place came after the BLM-aligned Mayor of Richmond, Virginia, LeVar Stoney, ordered his remains and monument removed from city property, along with the rest of Richmond’s Confederate relics."
Why would they do that?
[font='PT Serif', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"In digging up the remains of General AP Hill, Democrat Mayor Stoney reportedly contracted with “Team Henry,” a company owned by one of his biggest campaign donors, and u[/font]sed city funds to pay roughly 10 times what the job was actually worth."
Oh. Oooooohhhhhhhhh....right, The Big Grift.
I’ve never understood Confederate monuments. They lost while supporting a ghastly cause. Why should they be memorialized?
I can understand moving AP Hill’s remains since the monument is gone.
(12-14-2022, 02:04 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve never understood Confederate monuments. They lost while supporting a ghastly cause. Why should they be memorialized?
I can understand moving AP Hill’s remains since the monument is gone.
You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
(12-14-2022, 10:33 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 02:04 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve never understood Confederate monuments. They lost while supporting a ghastly cause. Why should they be memorialized?
I can understand moving AP Hill’s remains since the monument is gone.
You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
You need to taper the end of this nonsensical post so it doesn't make such a loud pop as it's pulled out of your [BLEEP].
(12-14-2022, 10:33 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 02:04 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve never understood Confederate monuments. They lost while supporting a ghastly cause. Why should they be memorialized?
I can understand moving AP Hill’s remains since the monument is gone.
You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
I'm able to overlook some of the really weird [BLEEP] you say but this? Not so much. You have obviously never been for all intents and purposes kept prisoner and raped, sodomized, beaten, half starved, threatened, etc. Or under anyone's control before. As in a controlling relationship or a controlling family.
All of those biracial babies didn't come from black female slaves who willingly had sex with their "masters". Quite the opposite.
My freaking goodness.
(12-14-2022, 10:33 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 02:04 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve never understood Confederate monuments. They lost while supporting a ghastly cause. Why should they be memorialized?
I can understand moving AP Hill’s remains since the monument is gone.
You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
I don't think any elite person anywhere in the US or the confederacy was better off in 1865 than they were in 1861. Such an incredible loss of able bodied workers and machinery on both sides.
It was about slavery from the beginning. The South judged (correctly) that they needed new slave states in the Senate or else it would be a matter of time before the Feds would vote to eliminate slavery, against the will of the Southern states.
The fact that Lincoln was elected without the consent of a single Southern state demonstrated that Southern politicians had lost their ability to veto Federal policy, and Lincoln's promise to stop the expansion of slavery meant they would not get their veto back.
It's true that most southerners did not own slaves but it's also true that most people on both sides of the conflict had extremely racist attitudes. "You should pay your labor" "OK I can't afford that, I'll send them North to work for you and you can pay them" "no we don't want black people here." Etc. Some of us are less racially enlightened than others, but unless you're Black, or have William Lloyd Garrison in your family tree, you would probably be deeply, deeply disappointed in how racist your Civil War era ancestors were if you met them.
Just FYI the narrative that the owner doesn't care if the hired labor gets sick, in general that is not true. It's usually hard to replace workers when a trained worker get sick. The idea that ownership thinks all labor is replaceable and should be paid as little as possible is Marxist language.
The idea that the workers could and should band together against the elites is also Marxism. The American revolution included owners of land and capital, elites, on both sides. It was not anti-elite. The Shays rebellion was the American rebellion of labor vs elites. And it failed.
(12-14-2022, 10:33 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2022, 02:04 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve never understood Confederate monuments. They lost while supporting a ghastly cause. Why should they be memorialized?
I can understand moving AP Hill’s remains since the monument is gone.
You need to look past what we are generally feed from MSM. Most people didn't own slaves, even in the south. The war had nothing to do with salary until the North was on the verge of losing. The people weren't fighting a war so the elites in the South could own some slaves.
The elites may or may not have benefited from actually ending slavery. Being a slave sucks but at the same time you are valuable. The owner has to ensure you stay healthy, fed, and able to work or they get no return on their investment.
After slavery ended, the elites could then pay minimal and it didn't matter to them if you couldn't feed yourself or got sick. They could just hire the next worker.
So you have the people who supported the generals and then you have elites who were probably playing both sides. So I believe that's why you see these. It also helps to kept the people fighting each other instead of joining together against the elites like they had done in the forming of the nation.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
“Being a slave sucks but”
There should be no “but”.
Another garbage post from you BUT at least you’re consistent.
History is a terrible place.
(12-15-2022, 12:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]”Democracy Dies in Darkness” while newspapers die in piles of biased trash.
Someone in the comments made an excellent point. Will the lefties go after billionaire Bezos for laying off WaPo employees with the same vigor they attacked Musk for laying off Twitter employees? Obviously that’s a rhetorical question and also ironic given that it’s the same tainted mindset which caused both of those things to happen.
The Washington Post announces layoffs as subscriber numbers plummet.
https://twitter.com/anniegowen/status/16...lJ_DH8iCZw
The sad part is these news rags are putting themselves out of business, and they're aware of it.
(12-15-2022, 12:40 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2022, 12:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]”Democracy Dies in Darkness” while newspapers die in piles of biased trash.
Someone in the comments made an excellent point. Will the lefties go after billionaire Bezos for laying off WaPo employees with the same vigor they attacked Musk for laying off Twitter employees? Obviously that’s a rhetorical question and also ironic given that it’s the same tainted mindset which caused both of those things to happen.
The Washington Post announces layoffs as subscriber numbers plummet.
https://twitter.com/anniegowen/status/16...lJ_DH8iCZw
The sad part is these news rags are putting themselves out of business, and they're aware of it.
Exactly. All they have to do is report all of the facts, in context, without crafted omissions, but they simply aren’t able to do so. They are literally putting themselves out of a job for the simple fact that they refuse to abide by the very obligations their occupations demand.
![[Image: 20221214-161819.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/KYgffRd7/20221214-161819.jpg)