Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have a neighbor, who is having a conversation defending side A. Another person is defending side B, gets mad and attacks the side A neighbor. Ellis Bell stops the attack. Is Ellis Bell now defending side A or is Ellis Bell defending a neighbor?
I know you've read this post multiple times but have refused to answer. Try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
You have a neighbor, who is having a conversation defending side A. Another person is defending side B, gets mad and attacks the side A neighbor. Dane_in_LA stops the attack. Is Dane_in_LA now defending side A or is Dane_in_LA defending a neighbor?
I know you've read this post multiple times but have refused to answer. Try. But you wont even try since it proves my point
So - which version is the big gotcha? Am I on side B or not? (I see you fixed the names, good job.)
So - which version is the big gotcha? Am I on side B or not? (I see you fixed the names, good job.)
Answer this question and don't continue to deflect.
You have a neighbor, who is having a conversation defending side A. Another person is defending side B, gets mad and attacks the side A neighbor. Dane_in_LA stops the attack. Is Dane_in_LA now defending side A or is Dane_in_LA defending a neighbor?
I know you've read this post multiple times but have refused to answer. Try. But you wont even try since it proves my point and proves you wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
(I see you fixed the names, good job.)
You are welcome. Stop deflecting, that's a bad job.
You can do it. Are you defending the person against an attack or are you supporting that persons ideals?
Pretty damn sure I didn't put your name in a citation block over something you didn't type.
I was mimicking you since you did it first
Answer this question and don't continue to deflect.
You have a neighbor, who is having a conversation defending side A. Another person is defending side B, gets mad and attacks the side A neighbor. Dane_in_LA stops the attack. Is Dane_in_LA now defending side A or is Dane_in_LA defending a neighbor?
Are you defending the person against an attack or are you supporting that persons ideals?
Answer this question and don't continue to deflect.
You have a neighbor, who is having a conversation defending side A. Another person is defending side B, gets mad and attacks the side A neighbor. Dane_in_LA stops the attack. Is Dane_in_LA now defending side A or is Dane_in_LA defending a neighbor?
I know you've read this post multiple times but have refused to answer. Try. But you wont even try since it proves my point and proves you wrong
So I'm not on side B? It's version 2? Just making sure.
And the answer is - it depends.
B could be a neo-Nazi going at A, my nice Jewish neighbor, in which case B deserves a solid kick to the rearside and I'm only too happy that he provided an excuse for me to lay hands on him. Or B could be a random passer-by on his way to synagogue being taunted by that bastard next door, and I step in to prevent violence, even though my neighbor would benefit from a solid beating.
Now give us the tortured analogy, we're waiting with bated breath.
That the American Civil War could not be about race-based enslavement?
What is your point?
That the American Civil War could not be about race-based enslavement?
American people have been inundated by Lost Cause gaslighting for nearly 2 centuries. Enough already.
Not when you have black folks owning black folks --- and being profitable in their land holdings, no. You can go gaslight someone else ---- I'm in no mood. Your ancestors pulled themselves up from a horrible situation and began making money hand over --- you may not want to see it, but they did it, beyond the politics of it.
What was my point? The civil war did not do what you think or would have others to believe it did. Slavery is alive and doing very well today and if people put the effort in fighting today for that that is today, rather than the past they can do nothing about --- we could end it. Just put one half of the zest into it. And light a fire under the government and call 'em out on their promise to end something --- they never intended to end in the first place.
Rather than removing statues --- investigate local farming and manufacturing; is that migrant here willingly or were they kidnapped and put to work? They're called 'hidden' slaves for a reason --- no one is to know they exist. Define abuse hand delivered ---
PS: with 40 million enslaved today and in the u.s. too, slaves are working --- is a tell tale sign this issue is not about statues. that little fact is the dead give away.
No you didn't answer. Not once. Instead you deflected. Just like you've done here
Again If the South got rid of slavery on Monday and wanted to succeed on Tuesday would Lincoln say no you can't go?
meaningless
A simple yes or no please
Again If the South got rid of slavery on Monday and wanted to succeed on Tuesday would Lincoln say no you can't go?
The answer is in the primary source documents, as opposed to your 'Gone With the Winds' fantasies.
The CSA did not allow secession based on a whim, it was a 'copy & paste' replica of the US Constitution with one significant departure:
THE PERMANENT CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION
Quote:
Regarding slavery: “No… law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was upheld by guaranteeing the right to bring slaves into Confederate territories.
Congress had the right to regulate slave trading with the U.S., and such trade with any other foreign nation was prohibited. Each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in Congress, just as in the U.S. Constitution. The Fugitive Slave Law, which southerners had so long denounced the North for failing to enforce, was strengthened.
My county's Republican Party waved the confederate flag along side Old Glory at their booth at the county fair a couple years ago. Picture of it here: https://okie.world/photos/confedflag.jpg
Except you have no proof the republican party supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
Who knows how many Republicans were thrilled seeing the confederate flag being waved inside the Capitol on Jan. 6? If a miniscule number, that is too many.
Agreed. But at the end of the day it's a flag and the ones supporting it are extremely scarce.
Again, you have no proof the republican party supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
Some Democrats are but Republicans would like to ban voting on Sunday when some blacks like to vote.
According to you because blacks are so childish and helpless it's hard for them to vote on the 6 other days? You don't understand how that is racist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
