(August 19, 2017 at 10:49 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: For example, people here are calling Neo a racist. Nothing he has said has indicated to me that he is in fact a racist person.

Thanks, but it's okay. The term has lost all meaning. It says more about them than it does about the people they are trying to smear.

I can say though that no Republican ever owned a slave and I would bet good money that nearly all of those Confederate monuments were commissioned by Democratic politicians.

The term means, now, what it's always meant.  It's okay, buddy - I'll still be your friend.  As a True Southerner™....I'm acclimated.  

As your friend, I have a q.  Is there some point at which you'll stop using racial discord as a wedge for your idiotic political opinions? That's kind of racist, bro.

(August 19, 2017 at 9:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 19, 2017 at 10:49 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: For example, people here are calling Neo a racist. Nothing he has said has indicated to me that he is in fact a racist person.

Thanks, but it's okay. The term has lost all meaning. It says more about them than it does about the people they are trying to smear.

I can say though that no Republican ever owned a slave and I would bet good money that nearly all of those Confederate monuments were commissioned by Democratic politicians.

There was once a time when I would have thought conflating, through insinuation, the Jim Crow-era Democrat party with the same party during our lifetimes (while ignoring the Republicans' Southern Strategy in the wake of the Civil Rights Acts) would have been beneath you. But I've been wrong about people before. You should be ashamed of such nakedly obvious dishonesty.

Or is it idiocy?

Either way, it's shameful.

(August 16, 2017 at 8:28 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: We didn't forget the Nazis and we dismantled their statues.

Many of these Confederate statues were installed during Jim Crow and the push for Civil Rights. They were installed in bad faith and they're currently defended by people acting in bad faith.

I cannot see a better reason than that to dismantle these cheap ass ($400) piles of crap masquerading as "history".

History is preserving battle fields, not the monuments of traitors or nazis.

You don't see statues of King George throughout the South. So much for the "history" argument, which I also suspected of being made in bad faith.

Anyone who knows a damned thing about these statues and when they were installed knows a great many of them came to be over racial prejudice toward current events of that time.

The colonists destroyed all of the King George statues in America.

https://imgflip.com/i/1uao93

Quote:I can say though that no Republican ever owned a slave and I would bet good money that nearly all of those Confederate monuments were commissioned by Democratic politicians.

Lol trying to compare the old Dixie  democrats with the modern democrats instead says more about you then anything (that your a dishonest, deceitful, coward , This will no doubt be countered with whining of smearing ) And yup the southern strategy built the modern Republican party that Wooter so loves.

Quote:American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

Quote:Thanks, but it's okay. The term has lost all meaning. It says more about them than it does about the people they are trying to smear.

Yes it says we have an acute sense of character and a low tolerance for bigot double speak . And calling said observations smears . Also gotta love his attempt to muddy the term racist just as racists do .

(August 19, 2017 at 5:59 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(August 19, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: History is not so easily erased.  Thutmoses III tried to obliterate the memory of Hatshepsut.  3,500 years later we still know about her.

The commemoration of history?  That is another question.

It seems to be easier to erase history than to learn it.

True of every subject, G/S.  Why else do we have morons who think "goddidit?"

(August 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(August 19, 2017 at 9:50 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Thanks, but it's okay. The term has lost all meaning. It says more about them than it does about the people they are trying to smear.

I can say though that no Republican ever owned a slave and I would bet good money that nearly all of those Confederate monuments were commissioned by Democratic politicians.

There was once a time when I would have thought conflating, through insinuation, the Jim Crow-era Democrat party with the same party during our lifetimes (while ignoring the Republicans' Southern Strategy in the wake of the Civil Rights Acts)  would have been beneath you. But I've been wrong about people before. You should be ashamed of such nakedly obvious dishonesty.

Or is it idiocy?

Either way, it's shameful.

Why not both?

Also: despite Wooters' shameful attempt of claiming moral superiority by political association, the modern GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on in that department. Not only has Drumpf tried to fill his administration with Nazis and their sympathizers, but Congress very nearly torpedoed our healthcare and economy to give the 1% some extra cash. And they constantly meddle with the ACA at the state level to make failure a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also gotta love the fact Wooter ignores the only reason Dems had more slave owners is because the party had been around longer . And the Republicans had little in way of a unified set of beliefs

Oh and Lincoln may have freed the slaves but he was also a racist

Quote:More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States.

Don't forget Liberia which was championed by none other than Henry Clay who had a unique idea of philanthropy!

(August 17, 2017 at 9:32 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 17, 2017 at 9:14 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: And yet the people who built them are no longer around, and thanks to this, the meaning of said statues is free to be changed.

No, the South fought to keep slavery, that is not subject to change.

The Sought didn't actually fight to keep slavery since slavery was completely legal in America under the Constitution.  It could have kept its slaves even after the shooting started if they had simply stopped fighting and returned to the Union.  

What the Southerners wanted to do was to expand slavery into the Western Territories and to take control of Cuba.  To counter the expansion of slavery into the West the Unionists came up with the Homestead Acts, which limited the size of land ownership in the territories.  They wanted the land to be settled by free white men from the North instead of by a few slave owners who controlled big parcels of land.  

The Civil War was about economics although the Southerners did say that their nation was based on slavery.    They wanted to import more slaves.  The North wanted to limit slaves and would have been perfectly OK with deporting all black people in America.  The Southerners could have kept their cake and ate it too but once the shooting started their fate was sealed.  They simply didn't have the infrastructure or manpower to win the war and they had no foreign allies.  

The South could have used slaves as soldiers, which the military was calling for, but the politicians said that they would rather be defeated than to owe their freedom to blacks.  Plus they needed people to work the farms and they didn't want hundreds of thousands of armed black people getting used to the idea of killing white people.  They didn't think that the slaves would give up their guns and go back to picking cotton once the war was over.  

The US Army had the same thinking during WWII when it wouldn't let black American soldiers kill white Nazis who were trying to conquer the world.  So they sent most of them off to fight the other colored people, the Japanese.