• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

So then it was okay until it wasn't and the delineation line is with the particular men that fought for the South in the civil war?
 
These are Robert E Lee's own words, the fact he uses the term "enlightened age" in this ridiculous justification is really telling:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
Click to expand...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm
 
JohnnyHolmes said:
So you're saying that the Antifa "protesters" violated the 1st amendment?
Click to expand...

Small technical point...Antifa protesters may have violated some sort of speech law (there are various laws covering the exceptions I noted as well as some others I didn't), but they didn't violate the 1st amendment. Only the government can do that and only by barring the legitimately protected speech of citizens.

Cute flip though, your buddies chanting racist slogans at people of other races is not protected speech. This isn't a free speech issue numbnuts, as much as you want to bludgeon the concept of American free speech into submission to make it so.





If one Muslim shows up on your plane with a bomb, are all Muslims now carrying that bomb?
Click to expand...

You really are one of the dumbest **********s I've ever come across in my life.
 
1) Violence is violence, doesn't matter what side it comes from, and saying that 1 individual represents an entire group of people is ridiculous, which you all can't post quickly enough after another Muslim attack.

2) **** you.

It's absolutely 100% a 1st Amendment issue.
 
Last edited:
zeke said:
nazi coward.

View attachment 4625
Click to expand...

a43aec536d26d8488ebcd107e02ab57907dc2c1a8a1b3a184bfa923a0a04ccb9.jpg


Yo numbnuts, I could post pics of antifa thugs attacking people all day long. You aren't proving anything.
 
For all the talk that Trump dominates twitter, he's way behind Obama when it comes to engagement.

DHG3TzbWAAEqbHi.jpg:large
 
JohnnyHolmes said:
1) Violence is violence, doesn't matter what side it comes from, and saying that 1 individual represents an entire group of people is ridiculous, which you all can't post quickly enough after another Muslim attack.

2) **** you.

It's absolutely 100% a 1st Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

yep you'd be cool if there were a fully armed ISIS rally marching with torches.

own it you nazi coward.
 
someone needs to somehow get that to him just to increase his rage and get him to literally snap and say something nazi like. This would be a real interesting time for NBC to release those "alleged" tapes that they supposedly have during the apprentice in which Trump uses the N word.
 
Habsy said:
You think the people that need to understand where the country came from and how far it's come go to museums?

It's taken 150 years to get to the point where the country is ready to stop placating the south. These memorials were allowed to go up to quell the radical fervor of the south's loss to the north. Is it time to rethink the memorials? Sure I think so but I also realize it's a delicate situation. You won't change hearts and minds with a stick. People worry so much about offending other people until they are the ones doing the offending.
Click to expand...
Taking them down because a group feels triggered merely triggers the guys from yesterday. The latter will fight over it.

Telling them suck it and boohoo when they complain doesn't help.
 
Last edited:
JohnnyHolmes said:
2) **** you.

It's absolutely 100% a 1st Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

Shouting racist epithets at people likely to be personally offended by them is not protected speech. The supreme court has been quite clear on this.

Shockingly, you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't some new "pc" shit either. The ruling is almost 80 years old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top