Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 22:48:21 GMT
You dodged that like a leftist! Well done! Wadsworth would be proud of your sidestepping to double down on defending monuments to men who added nothing to our culture but hate, division, strife, oppression and murder. But I'm going to give you a pass. A mulligan of sorts before I drill down on the obvious. Because like I say, there's no easy, nonrude way to point out the obvious to someone who can't see it. Whether because of limitations in intelligence, or, as is more likely in your case, strong programming.
I could easily make an argument that there was nobody more instrumental to the formation of the modern state of Israel than Adolf Hitler. So take another step up to the tee and... explain why Golda Meir, with her obvious "reverence" for history, didn't use her time as the Prime Minister of Israel to erect statues of Hitler in public spaces all over Israel. Does she not actually believe what she said?
Queshank
You argue like a leftist. I crush your narrative and you double down. The only men who added "hate, division, strife, oppression and murder" to our culture were the minions of the federal government who invaded the South. If that's what you believe, then you must really hate the Founding generation, who seceded from England.
If you have a point about Meir, let's have it. It's your little off topic digression, not mine. Since I've already shown the clear difference between Hitler and anyone associated with the Confederacy, why continue this Godwin's law nonsense? Make your point and I'll either agree or crush it.
I'm going to give you one more chance to prove you actually understand what you're talking about before I dismiss you as hopelessly brainwashed and/or simply a racist trying to saddle others with your crap in a bid for a veneer of cover. Explain why Golda Meir, with her reverence for history, didn't raise statues to Hitler in city parks all over Israel while she was prime minister of Israel. Queshank |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 22:52:00 GMT
I can show you the Declaration of Causes for secession that reference the Republican party's hostility to slavery as a reason for secession and mentions their support of slaves and slavery literally dozens of times, but I can't make you read it.
This is the problem with newbies. You have to revisit 10 years dead and finished arguments and start all over trying to unbrainwash them.
Queshank
There were only four declarations of causes (excluding Virginia's very brief version) out of eleven seceded states. Only 20% of South Carolina's Declaration was about slavery, so that's three out of eleven. If you actually read the declarations, the clear message is the increased federal usurpation of power by the federal government and the abuse of that power by Northern interests.
If a group of corporatists and elitists gathered and issued a fiery pro business manifesto, would you automatically assume that that was the primary motivation of all Americans? If not, then why are you taking four documents and assuming that they area summary of the Southern cause? Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves; of those, only 1% owned a large quantity. This smattering did not and do not represent the Southern cause or motivation. Never did.
The only "newbie" on this particular subject appears to be you. If you want ot see brainwashing, look at the mindless animals in Boston damaging a monument to black Union soldiers and demanding that a Lincoln statue be removed.
Sure. So long as you *completely* ignore all that "Republican abolitionists" and "Party of Lincoln" and "slaves" and "slavery" talk. Once you snip all that out ... just to do you a favor so you can say "I'm not racist" I might add ... you can get down to the other points. Most of them quite minor and brought about as a result of slavery. Queshank |
|
Greg55_99
Legend
Posts: 23,116 
Member is Online
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 16, 2020 22:58:19 GMT
I can show you the Declaration of Causes for secession that reference the Republican party's hostility to slavery as a reason for secession and mentions their support of slaves and slavery literally dozens of times, but I can't make you read it.
This is the problem with newbies. You have to revisit 10 years dead and finished arguments and start all over trying to unbrainwash them.
Queshank
There were only four declarations of causes (excluding Virginia's very brief version) out of eleven seceded states. Only 20% of South Carolina's Declaration was about slavery, so that's three out of eleven. If you actually read the declarations, the clear message is the increased federal usurpation of power by the federal government and the abuse of that power by Northern interests.
If a group of corporatists and elitists gathered and issued a fiery pro business manifesto, would you automatically assume that that was the primary motivation of all Americans? If not, then why are you taking four documents and assuming that they area summary of the Southern cause? Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves; of those, only 1% owned a large quantity. This smattering did not and do not represent the Southern cause or motivation. Never did.
The only "newbie" on this particular subject appears to be you. If you want ot see brainwashing, look at the mindless animals in Boston damaging a monument to black Union soldiers and demanding that a Lincoln statue be removed.
I BELIEVE we've been through this nonsense before. As you claim, ONLY 6% of Confederates owned slaves, but 100% of Confederates COULD legally own slaves. Puts a different face on it, doesn't it. Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 23:01:19 GMT
There were only four declarations of causes (excluding Virginia's very brief version) out of eleven seceded states. Only 20% of South Carolina's Declaration was about slavery, so that's three out of eleven. If you actually read the declarations, the clear message is the increased federal usurpation of power by the federal government and the abuse of that power by Northern interests.
If a group of corporatists and elitists gathered and issued a fiery pro business manifesto, would you automatically assume that that was the primary motivation of all Americans? If not, then why are you taking four documents and assuming that they area summary of the Southern cause? Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves; of those, only 1% owned a large quantity. This smattering did not and do not represent the Southern cause or motivation. Never did.
The only "newbie" on this particular subject appears to be you. If you want ot see brainwashing, look at the mindless animals in Boston damaging a monument to black Union soldiers and demanding that a Lincoln statue be removed.
I BELIEVE we've been through this nonsense before. As you claim, ONLY 6% of Confederates owned slaves, but 100% of Confederates COULD legally own slaves. Puts a different face on it, doesn't it. Greg In other words, 6% of confederates owned slaves. 94% had a dream to become slave owners. Queshank |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jun 16, 2020 23:19:16 GMT
I BELIEVE we've been through this nonsense before. As you claim, ONLY 6% of Confederates owned slaves, but 100% of Confederates COULD legally own slaves. Puts a different face on it, doesn't it. Greg In other words, 6% of confederates owned slaves. 94% had a dream to become slave owners. Queshank Well I doubt it was anything like that but the option did exist. I'm one of those who believes that the south had a right to peacefully secede but I acknowledge that they tried to do it over primarily a very shitty reason. Paleo will ignore that about 1/3 of the CSA directly stated that the primary reason was over slavery in their declarations of secession. He will ignore that all the leaders of the secessionist movements in all the other states that did not directly say so in their declarations of secession or lack there of also specifically claimed slavery was the primary reason. There are numerous speeches from all those guys from all those states. It's one of those close your eyes and plugging your ears type of things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 15:50:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 20:43:32 GMT
What? What kind of fool question is "did Lincoln secede"?
You don't have a clue about the constitution do you? Typical leftist. There is no power granted to the Federal government or prohibition against the states related to secession in the constitution. There's no mention of secession at all, in fact, nor is there any provision that requires that a state is forever bound to the union once it has voluntarily joined. Good so far? So, knowing that the federal government has no power at all related to secession, who does have that power? Here you go, Amendment number ten:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
The state of South Carolina therefore in 1860 had the power under the Constitution to sever its ties to the Union. Once that tie was broken, she was no longer subject to any part of the U.S. Constitution. She retained all of her sovereignty and did so legally. And, please don't be ignorant enough to counter with "Texas v. White", that unconstitutional garbage from Lincoln apologist Salmon Chase, unless of course you like being laughed at.
You so silly.
There was and is NO provision in the US Constitution for a state, or a group of states, to secede from the Union. Your argument again floats on the fetid breeze into pure sophistry. The argument that non-enumerated powers devolve to the states having the right to secede is contradictory. And the Federal Government still has the full right to defend itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as in the Confederacy, states that unilaterally secede have automatically lost all rights under the Constitution and in fact have become hostile powers that the Federal government has every right to wage war upon for the sake of the nation.
The illegality of secession was confirmed, after the Civil War, by the US Supreme Court.
Wow, you seem painfully slow accepting this undeniable fact: the 10th amendment retains to the states ALL POWERS that were not specifically delegated to the federal government. Per the 10th amendment, "no provision" means that prohibition of/approval of a state's secession was therefore not a power given to the federal government by the states. So far, you've offered nothing to say that this very clear delineation is somehow "contradictory"; let's see you back that up. What's contradictory is your statement that secession somehow made the seceded states "hostile powers"; how could that be if the states couldn'r legally secede? Oops. Yes, the U.S has a right to fight if there is a reason for war. Lincoln's reasons for war were conquest and subjugation, which are not legitimate reasons for war under the Constitution. "For the sake of the nation"? What hogwash; the war was for the sake of big Northern business interests and an expansion of federal power, nothing more. Face it; it was the North that was the evil aggressor in that war, not the South. Secession was and is still legal under the 10th amendment, which has not been rewritte. And the Texas v. White decision in 1869 has been shredded as a specious piece of judicial crap. Idiot Salmon P. Chase didn't base his garbage opinion on the Constitution at all; he had to try to wring out an excuse from the Articles of Confederation! There's no cure for that kind of Yankee stupid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 20:59:14 GMT
There were only four declarations of causes (excluding Virginia's very brief version) out of eleven seceded states. Only 20% of South Carolina's Declaration was about slavery, so that's three out of eleven. If you actually read the declarations, the clear message is the increased federal usurpation of power by the federal government and the abuse of that power by Northern interests.
If a group of corporatists and elitists gathered and issued a fiery pro business manifesto, would you automatically assume that that was the primary motivation of all Americans? If not, then why are you taking four documents and assuming that they area summary of the Southern cause? Only 6% of Southerners owned slaves; of those, only 1% owned a large quantity. This smattering did not and do not represent the Southern cause or motivation. Never did.
The only "newbie" on this particular subject appears to be you. If you want ot see brainwashing, look at the mindless animals in Boston damaging a monument to black Union soldiers and demanding that a Lincoln statue be removed.
Sure. So long as you *completely* ignore all that "Republican abolitionists" and "Party of Lincoln" and "slaves" and "slavery" talk. Once you snip all that out ... just to do you a favor so you can say "I'm not racist" I might add ... you can get down to the other points. Most of them quite minor and brought about as a result of slavery. Queshank Not ignore, but keep in context the dearth of documentary proof of your "it's all about slavery!" narrative. Four declarations by a handful of elitists and a speech by the VP is pretty thin, but by golly THAT'S their story and they are sticking to it. It always surprises me that folks like Q who are renowned on LNF for their deep dives into the complexities and nuance of every current issue have this aversion to doing so on this subject. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 21:07:28 GMT
I BELIEVE we've been through this nonsense before. As you claim, ONLY 6% of Confederates owned slaves, but 100% of Confederates COULD legally own slaves. Puts a different face on it, doesn't it.Greg Greg excels at logical fallacies. For the 80 years prior to the formation of the Confederacy, 100% of AMERICANS could legally own slaves. Some states restricted slave holding inside their state, but each of those individuals COULD own slaves in states where slaveholding was allowed. ALL legal slave importation to North America done under auspices of either a European power or the United States, NOT the Confederacy.
Eighty years under the U.S. Flag, four short years under both U.S. and Confederate flags (U.S. still allowed slavery until 1865). Puts a different face on it, doesn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 21:11:58 GMT
In other words, 6% of confederates owned slaves. 94% had a dream to become slave owners. Queshank Well I doubt it was anything like that but the option did exist. I'm one of those who believes that the south had a right to peacefully secede but I acknowledge that they tried to do it over primarily a very shitty reason. Paleo will ignore that about 1/3 of the CSA directly stated that the primary reason was over slavery in their declarations of secession. He will ignore that all the leaders of the secessionist movements in all the other states that did not directly say so in their declarations of secession or lack there of also specifically claimed slavery was the primary reason. There are numerous speeches from all those guys from all those states. It's one of those close your eyes and plugging your ears type of things. Is that really any different than you ignoring all of the other reasons why the South seceded legally? And if secession is legal as you acknowledge, any reason or no reason at all is legitimate.
|
|
Greg55_99
Legend
Posts: 23,116
Member is Online
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 17, 2020 21:12:01 GMT
I BELIEVE we've been through this nonsense before. As you claim, ONLY 6% of Confederates owned slaves, but 100% of Confederates COULD legally own slaves. Puts a different face on it, doesn't it.Greg Greg excels at logical fallacies. For the 80 years prior to the formation of the Confederacy, 100% of AMERICANS could legally own slaves. Some states restricted slave holding inside their state, but each of those individuals COULD own slaves in states where slaveholding was allowed. ALL legal slave importation to North America done under auspices of either a European power or the United States, NOT the Confederacy.
Eighty years under the U.S. Flag, four short years under both U.S. and Confederate flags (U.S. still allowed slavery until 1865). Puts a different face on it, doesn't it?
No, the Southern traitors were fighting and willing to spill blood to keep forced labor camps on U.S. soil. The North was fighting to keep the union together and eliminate that "peculiar institution". Greg |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 17, 2020 21:30:52 GMT
I BELIEVE we've been through this nonsense before. As you claim, ONLY 6% of Confederates owned slaves, but 100% of Confederates COULD legally own slaves. Puts a different face on it, doesn't it. Greg In other words, 6% of confederates owned slaves. 94% had a dream to become slave owners. Queshank
The entire nation profited from the institution of slavery, including the textile mills in New England. But the North wanted to end slavery despite the cost. The states that seceded wanted to keep it in place, putting economic gain over human rights. I'm surprised so many here miss that simple fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 21:38:54 GMT
You argue like a leftist. I crush your narrative and you double down. The only men who added "hate, division, strife, oppression and murder" to our culture were the minions of the federal government who invaded the South. If that's what you believe, then you must really hate the Founding generation, who seceded from England.
If you have a point about Meir, let's have it. It's your little off topic digression, not mine. Since I've already shown the clear difference between Hitler and anyone associated with the Confederacy, why continue this Godwin's law nonsense? Make your point and I'll either agree or crush it.
I'm going to give you one more chance to prove you actually understand what you're talking about before I dismiss you as hopelessly brainwashed and/or simply a racist trying to saddle others with your crap in a bid for a veneer of cover. Explain why Golda Meir, with her reverence for history, didn't raise statues to Hitler in city parks all over Israel while she was prime minister of Israel. Queshank And I'll give YOU one more chance to sound like more than a broken record before you're dismissed as clueless on this subject. The use of the tired ole' "You're a racist" smear is, ironically, " a veneer of cover" for a closed mind...or a weak one.
So, you want to talk about Golda Meir. OK....no memorials were erected by Meir because Germany was not her country, because there was no civil war in Israel where Hitler participated and because the victors in a fight rarely erect monuments to their opponents. So, either Meir lied about her reverence of history or she concentrated on her own history first. And this inane question has exactly zero application to the War Between the States or the subsequent monuments.
You do realize that the North did not erect any monuments honoring Southerners, right? Southerners privately put most of them up near their homes after the war to honor elderly veterans or long dead leaders, nothing more.
Despite being part of the UK, Scotland has memorials to their brave and fallen ancestors who fought against invaders and tyrants; London may not agree with the historical context of such memorials to former enemies, but they understand that these memorials are harmless expressions of pride in one's origins and appreciation of the sacrifice of those who fought. And yes, the Scots were considered to be evil barbarians by the Brits of that time, but no one (so far) is moronic enough to tear them down for revenge and hatred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 21:50:18 GMT
Greg excels at logical fallacies. For the 80 years prior to the formation of the Confederacy, 100% of AMERICANS could legally own slaves. Some states restricted slave holding inside their state, but each of those individuals COULD own slaves in states where slaveholding was allowed. ALL legal slave importation to North America done under auspices of either a European power or the United States, NOT the Confederacy.
Eighty years under the U.S. Flag, four short years under both U.S. and Confederate flags (U.S. still allowed slavery until 1865). Puts a different face on it, doesn't it?
No, the Southern traitors were fighting and willing to spill blood to keep forced labor camps on U.S. soil. The North was fighting to keep the union together and eliminate that "peculiar institution". Greg That is probably the most inaccurate and ignorant summary of that period of time that I've ever seen. But hey, that's not a surprise considering the author. There were no Southern traitors. They fought because they were attacked and invaded by a tyrannical power. The North was fighting to control and subjugate the entire union under a despotic central authority. And I've already proven to you the the "Union" was ready, willing and able to guarantee that slavery would be PROTECTED by the Federal government (Corwin Amendment); it was a Constitutional amendment that even banned future amendments that might reverse this decision! The North maintained their slavery until the end of the war; it's also been shown that the abandoned hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves to a slow death after the war.
If you are even capable of learning and objectivity, try to learn the truth before posting again. What you posted definitely ain't it.
|
|
Greg55_99
Legend
Posts: 23,116
Member is Online
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Jun 17, 2020 22:23:26 GMT
No, the Southern traitors were fighting and willing to spill blood to keep forced labor camps on U.S. soil. The North was fighting to keep the union together and eliminate that "peculiar institution". Greg That is probably the most inaccurate and ignorant summary of that period of time that I've ever seen. But hey, that's not a surprise considering the author. There were no Southern traitors. They fought because they were attacked and invaded by a tyrannical power. The North was fighting to control and subjugate the entire union under a despotic central authority. And I've already proven to you the the "Union" was ready, willing and able to guarantee that slavery would be PROTECTED by the Federal government (Corwin Amendment); it was a Constitutional amendment that even banned future amendments that might reverse this decision! The North maintained their slavery until the end of the war; it's also been shown that the abandoned hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves to a slow death after the war.
If you are even capable of learning and objectivity, try to learn the truth before posting again. What you posted definitely ain't it.
An abandoned ex-slave is a FREE MAN. Not subject to the whip or lash. A man that can no longer be told where to go, what to do and what to give up. THAT is what the Southern traitors tried to perpetuate. Thankfully, the rebellion was put down. Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 22:47:57 GMT
I'm going to give you one more chance to prove you actually understand what you're talking about before I dismiss you as hopelessly brainwashed and/or simply a racist trying to saddle others with your crap in a bid for a veneer of cover. Explain why Golda Meir, with her reverence for history, didn't raise statues to Hitler in city parks all over Israel while she was prime minister of Israel. Queshank And I'll give YOU one more chance to sound like more than a broken record before you're dismissed as clueless on this subject. The use of the tired ole' "You're a racist" smear is, ironically, " a veneer of cover" for a closed mind...or a weak one.
So, you want to talk about Golda Meir. OK....no memorials were erected by Meir because Germany was not her country, because there was no civil war in Israel where Hitler participated and because the victors in a fight rarely erect monuments to their opponents. So, either Meir lied about her reverence of history or she concentrated on her own history first. And this inane question has exactly zero application to the War Between the States or the subsequent monuments.
You do realize that the North did not erect any monuments honoring Southerners, right? Southerners privately put most of them up near their homes after the war to honor elderly veterans or long dead leaders, nothing more.
Despite being part of the UK, Scotland has memorials to their brave and fallen ancestors who fought against invaders and tyrants; London may not agree with the historical context of such memorials to former enemies, but they understand that these memorials are harmless expressions of pride in one's origins and appreciation of the sacrifice of those who fought. And yes, the Scots were considered to be evil barbarians by the Brits of that time, but no one (so far) is moronic enough to tear them down for revenge and hatred.
So she lied about history .... or she concentrated on her own history first. Good on you for at least answering after the 3rd time you were asked the question. Hitler factors pretty heavily in the origin of the modern state of Israel. So I think we can skip the "concentrated on her own history first" suggestion. No Hitler ... no state of Israel. So we're left with Golda lying about her reverence for history. Which is nonsense. I'm going to propose an alternate answer. The obvious one. The one that points out that "statues" aren't history. And that this debate has nothing to do with history but rather to do with the allocation of public funds. And you're being manipulated into appearing to be a racist by arguing for this illegitimate use of public funds. *OR* you're actually a racist who takes it personally when your viewpoints aren't given prominence in the public square through the use of public funds. You get to decide. Southerners privately putting most of them up near their homes ... and in cemeteries ... is exactly how the victims of the South's war of secession should be remembered. And it's how victims of the South's war of secession were remembered for decades after the war. The men who fell who were simply doing what they were told to do. But you want to focus on the leaders who led those poor men to their deaths. Who encouraged them to lift up arms and defend slavery, despite by your own admission, none of them owning slaves. You want to honor the men who slaughtered your ancestors for their own personal gain. You argue that only 6% of the people of the South owned slaves. How come 100% of the statues are honoring men who owned slaves, then? I'll answer for you again. It's because these statues were created to honor the white man's place of superiority. That's why the people of the South took 60 years to raise the first of these statues. Because they weren't created to memorialize the Civil War, but rather as a mark of defiance against the idea of desegregation and against the idea of equality between the races. They are monuments to hate, prejudice and oppression. It's insult piled on insult to the soldiers of the Confederacy. The men you claim you're trying to honor ... the 94% who didn't own slaves. First rich men manipulate them to their deaths. Then, 60 years later, more rich men come along later and manipulate them into defending the men who led them to their deaths. What a sad story you're helping to write. This isn't just a hill you die on. This is a hill you lose the entire fucking war on. Queshank |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 23:06:29 GMT
In other words, 6% of confederates owned slaves. 94% had a dream to become slave owners. Queshank
The entire nation profited from the institution of slavery, including the textile mills in New England. But the North wanted to end slavery despite the cost. The states that seceded wanted to keep it in place, putting economic gain over human rights. I'm surprised so many here miss that simple fact.
Yes, the North profited mightily from the slave trade far before the textile mills. It was their ships that carried slaves to our hemisphere, although only 4% were brought to North America. These Northerner slavers became very wealthy; many a Yankee business empire was formed. And some of the same Northern families were the protectionist tariff parasites that drove the South to secede.
And no, the North didn't want to end slavery; only a few abolitionists were advocates for blacks. The North wanted power usurped through the federal government and Southern secession represented a reduction of that power. There was no grand altruistic goal in the North except money and power. These Northern power players actually did put economic gain over human LIVES. They are ultimately responsible for the 620,000 soldier deaths on both sides. And it turns out that the alleged good intentions (not really) of these Yankees resulted in the deaths of tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves after the war when the North abandoned them to fend for themselves in the devastated South. Read up on it sometime:
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 18, 2020 3:38:24 GMT
The entire nation profited from the institution of slavery, including the textile mills in New England. But the North wanted to end slavery despite the cost. The states that seceded wanted to keep it in place, putting economic gain over human rights. I'm surprised so many here miss that simple fact.
Yes, the North profited mightily from the slave trade far before the textile mills. It was their ships that carried slaves to our hemisphere, although only 4% were brought to North America. These Northerner slavers became very wealthy; many a Yankee business empire was formed. And some of the same Northern families were the protectionist tariff parasites that drove the South to secede.
And no, the North didn't want to end slavery; only a few abolitionists were advocates for blacks. The North wanted power usurped through the federal government and Southern secession represented a reduction of that power. There was no grand altruistic goal in the North except money and power. These Northern power players actually did put economic gain over human LIVES. They are ultimately responsible for the 620,000 soldier deaths on both sides. And it turns out that the alleged good intentions (not really) of these Yankees resulted in the deaths of tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves after the war when the North abandoned them to fend for themselves in the devastated South. Read up on it sometime:
OK, so if the North profited off slavery and didn't want to end it, please explain why the 13th and 14th amendments were passed into the Constitution soon after the southern traitors were defeated?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jun 18, 2020 19:27:03 GMT
Monuments to proven traitors to the United States of America are highly inappropriate.
Would you support a monument in honor of Benedict Arnold?
How about one to Judas?
How about Vladimir Lenin? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle) |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Jun 18, 2020 19:43:39 GMT
Monuments to proven traitors to the United States of America are highly inappropriate.
Would you support a monument in honor of Benedict Arnold?
How about one to Judas?
How about Vladimir Lenin? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle)
1) It's on private, not public, property.
2) AFAIK, Lenin never waged war upon the United States.
|
|
