American values

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 523
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

American values

#1

Post by GregD » Wed May 24, 2017 6:49 am

The mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu, recently gave a speech on the removal of 4 prominent Confederate statues in the city. I found the speech to be an eloquent expression of what I consider to be the core American value: e pluribus unum, out of many, one.

This page has a link to the video and also a transcript of the speech:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... peech.html
The video omits a portion of the speech. I noticed the reference to Obama was missing.

Only now do I realize that the official motto of the US,
e pluribus unum
perfectly expresses the "Liberal Agenda".

Only now do I realize that G.W. Bush perfectly expressed the "Progressive Agenda":
A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.

Liberals and Progressives like me would do well to hold up our positions and actions to these ideals. Sometimes we miss the mark.

I would be interested to hear how people from other parts of the political spectrum feel about the speech. I will be offline for many days off and on over the next couple of weeks, so I may not be able to follow up promptly.



User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#2

Post by sarge » Fri May 26, 2017 9:30 pm

Mitch Landrieu is trying to distract from his miserable failure at creating jobs and opportunites and his inability to stem the risign tide of violence in New Orleans.

Its a common tactic used by Democrats. Pick a subject guaranteed to cause controversy, but achieves no real progress towards helping people out of poverty or crime, then throw it out for discussion hoping some knuckle dragging troglodytes will come out and say something that the Democrats can use to make it look like he's defending something reprehensible, then use him to paint all other political opponents with the same brush.

Mitch Landrieu would show much better American values if he would turn to the things that Mayors are supposed to do, rather than create smokescreens to disguise his failures.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Flatliner
Reactions:
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:45 pm
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: American values

#3

Post by Flatliner » Fri May 26, 2017 11:09 pm

Sarge, it was a reasonably good speech celebrating something we should all be happy about. We aren't likely to tolerate a monument to Usama Bin Laden, why would the fathers of the confederacy be any different. The OPs post really wasn't an endorsement of a politician and I don't think that was the conversation he was trying to spark.

Where I might take issue is in equating 'e pleuribus unim' with liberal thought. America used to be seen as a 'melting pot' versus a 'salad bowl'. I would argue that becoming one was a great idea and that it was very much a conservative one. It is liberal thinkers that have pushed multiculturalism and political correctness. 'e pluribus unim' certainly isn't a concept that looks like a salad bowl[emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6

Just a middle age guy who likes doing outdoor things with his great kids...

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#4

Post by sarge » Sat May 27, 2017 8:53 am

Sarge, it was a reasonably good speech celebrating something we should all be happy about. We aren't likely to tolerate a monument to Usama Bin Laden, why would the fathers of the confederacy be any different. The OPs post really wasn't an endorsement of a politician and I don't think that was the conversation he was trying to spark.
Osama Bin Laden wasn't an American. Confederate soldiers were. In an effort to bind wounds that are now reopened for political purpose, Congress declared that Confederate soldiers were American Veterans. As a American Soldier myself, and especially on Memorial Day, I think equating any monument that honors American Soldiers should be left alone, regardless of who thier Commanders were or what their purpose was.

This is an act intended to divide us, one being done to undo actions that were intended to bind us back in the aftermath of being rent asunder in the worst way that division within a country could be.

I really don't care how pretty the speeches are. They're just words that pale in siginficance when compared to the pain and sacrifice any soldier of any nation endures when his country sends him to war.

I am reminded of a couple of quotes from George Orwell:
Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

I will leave you with some quotes from Orwell's 1984, which seems to be being used as an instruction manual for some:
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

2. Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.


This Party slogan appears twice in the novel, once in Book One, Chapter III, when Winston is thinking about the Party’s control of history and memory, and once in Book Three, Chapter II, when Winston, now a prisoner in the Ministry of Love, talks to O’Brien about the nature of the past. The slogan is an important example of the Party’s technique of using false history to break down the psychological independence of its subjects. Control of the past ensures control of the future, because the past can be treated essentially as a set of conditions that justify or encourage future goals: if the past was idyllic, then people will act to re-create it; if the past was nightmarish, then people will act to prevent such circumstances from recurring. The Party creates a past that was a time of misery and slavery from which it claims to have liberated the human race, thus compelling people to work toward the Party’s goals.

The Party has complete political power in the present, enabling it to control the way in which its subjects think about and interpret the past: every history book reflects Party ideology, and individuals are forbidden from keeping mementos of their own pasts, such as photographs and documents. As a result, the citizens of Oceania have a very short, fuzzy memory, and are willing to believe anything that the Party tells them. In the second appearance of this quote, O’Brien tells Winston that the past has no concrete existence and that it is real only in the minds of human beings. O’Brien is essentially arguing that because the Party’s version of the past is what people believe, that past, though it has no basis in real events, has become the truth.
3. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.
This quote occurs in Book One, Chapter VII, as Winston looks at a children’s history book and marvels at the Party’s control of the human mind. These lines play into the theme of psychological manipulation. In this case, Winston considers the Party’s exploitation of its fearful subjects as a means to suppress the intellectual notion of objective reality. If the universe exists only in the mind, and the Party controls the mind, then the Party controls the universe. As Winston thinks, “For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” The mathematical sentence 2 + 2 = 5 thus becomes a motif linked to the theme of psychological independence. Early in the novel, Winston writes that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.” The motif comes full circle at the end of the novel after the torture Winston suffers in the Ministry of Love breaks his soul; he sits at the Chestnut Tree Café and traces “2 + 2 = 5” in the dust on his table.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#5

Post by sarge » Sat May 27, 2017 10:05 am

And then there's this:

https://www.facebook.com/texasantifa/ph ... =3&theater

If you think it will stop with just a couple of Confederate Generals, you don't understand what's really going on here.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#6

Post by sarge » Sat May 27, 2017 11:21 am

More on the Heroic effort of the Left to rid the State of Texas from the symbols of its White Supremacist past.
"Texans agree the disgusting idols of America's dark days of slavery must be removed to bring internal peace to our country."

Another post reads:

"After we have this one removed, we can then work on getting the 67-foot Sam Houston statue outside of Huntsville turned into parking lot gravel, and the forest renamed."
When you get to be the one who defines what and who is a symbol of oppression, the rest is easy: you can put that label on anybody.

Especially if you laud the efforts of those who have started us on the track of giving them the ability to do the labeling.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Flatliner
Reactions:
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:45 pm
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: American values

#7

Post by Flatliner » Sat May 27, 2017 12:09 pm

Sam Houston is a LONG way from Nathan Bedford Forest. Please don't misread me here I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart liberal. With that said, this is a case where the left is 100% correct. Succession was treason and many in leadership of that movement and there beliefs should be abhorred, not celebrated. Just because some left crazies want take it too far doesn't mean thinking individuals on the right shouldn't support taking it far enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6

Just a middle age guy who likes doing outdoor things with his great kids...

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#8

Post by sarge » Sat May 27, 2017 3:57 pm

Flatliner wrote:Sam Houston is a LONG way from Nathan Bedford Forest. Please don't misread me here I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart liberal. With that said, this is a case where the left is 100% correct. Succession was treason and many in leadership of that movement and there beliefs should be abhorred, not celebrated. Just because some left crazies want take it too far doesn't mean thinking individuals on the right shouldn't support taking it far enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, actually, its the crazies who are leading this.

Nobody gave a rosy red rat's rump what Mitch Landrieu thought about statues a month ago. Now, we're supposed to be dicussing how he's a Hero.

And the criteria being used here is "White Supremecists" (you know, like Sam Houston was). I've got news for you: the way they describe that pretty much describes every white person on the planet from the beginning of time until a week ago. The only white people who aren't White Supremecists are the ones tearing the statues down. Its a great system, you get to define who is evil, then when someone objects to your definition, you label them as being sympathetic to White Supremecists. You know, like those slave owners George Washington and Andrew Jackson.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#9

Post by sarge » Sat May 27, 2017 6:13 pm

The idea that removing from our sight a few pounds of rock and concrete will somehow make us more peaceful and unified is ludicrous on its face. Its a pointless exercise, its only value is giving propagandists a tool to show people that they are morally superior to others.

Not on hungry mouth is filled. Not one job created. And the Liberation from Oppression has already occured.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
Flatliner
Reactions:
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:45 pm
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: American values

#10

Post by Flatliner » Sat May 27, 2017 6:39 pm

Straying slightly from the OP but I think a large part of the problem with the discourse in our country today is the inability of the sides to admit the their opposition may be right in some points. I fully agree that the underlying agenda here may be something I disagree with but it is the opposition of many on the right that make that agenda possible. If all Americans stood up and said, memorials to treasonous people who dedicated themselves to the destruction of our nation is wrong, take them down, then the ability to use taking them down for political gain goes away.

Another case of the stupidity of this today can be seen in the healthcare debate. Sure, I oppose Obamacare, it was a criminal overreach forcing a political agenda around 'reproductive rights'. There was much more wrong with it. BUT one thing it got right was personal responsibility, the idea that individuals were responsible to provide for their own healthcare insurance. There was no MORE conservative principle anywhere in the whole thing yet because it was an unpopular element first presented by the left, it isn't in the Republican alternatives IN SPITE OF BEING THE ONE TRULY CONSERVATIVE IDEA IN THE WHOLE THING.

My point is that we need to be careful that we aren't opposing something simply because of who is presenting it. That used to be a hallmark of the liberal, unfortunately today it seems to be a hallmark of the American discourse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:6

Just a middle age guy who likes doing outdoor things with his great kids...

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: American values

#11

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat May 27, 2017 8:20 pm

Flatliner wrote:Sam Houston is a LONG way from Nathan Bedford Forest. Please don't misread me here I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart liberal. With that said, this is a case where the left is 100% correct. Succession was treason and many in leadership of that movement and there beliefs should be abhorred, not celebrated. Just because some left crazies want take it too far doesn't mean thinking individuals on the right shouldn't support taking it far enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh me, I am usually up for these debates, but I just seem to lack the energy lately. I guess, for one thing, it just goes on and on regarding various subjects and no one ever seems to be convinced that the other person has valid points, or at least very few valid points. Which is usually fine, I am up for the battles which must be fought, but I seem to not have the juice lately. I have observed this thread from the beginning, but have been putting off my response.

For one thing: where to start on such an involved subject, in this country where freedoms are continuously gobbled up by a government and people who are determined to make other people live and speak the way they want them to. ( not saying that you want that, Mr. right of Limbaugh Flatliner, just speaking in general). I guess I must start with this caveat: I hate the concept of slavery. And I'm glad it is gone from this nation and other nations vis Christian principles getting rid of it. ( Yes, I know that certain probably so called whackos misread their Bibles to say it argued for slavery, but it did not) Keep in mind the writing of "Amazing Grace"(that saved a wretch like me) by former slave trader and licentious libertine John Newton. But I digress. I am glad slavery is gone, and in fact I view the Civil War as possibly a divine punishment or discipline on a Christian nation( South AND North equally) that embraced such cruelty.

But now that I have said that, does any one here really believe that ending slavery was a primary reason for the War Between the States(indeed, the sovereign states, remember those?), rather than just an almost coincidental consequence of it? Surely you folks have read the many quotes from Lincoln himself before and even after his election saying that he had no intention of, or constitutional right to, end slavery? Sure, there were some actual abolitionists among the northern invaders, but the were a distinct minority. These folks invaded for other reasons, and it was not for defense of the north from the south! Must I quote Lincoln on these matters, or even Sherman(or Sheridan) and his thoughts of exterminating southerners and giving their lands to deserving northern folks? (same attitude he had towards the plains Indians went he was sent to fight them after the war).

Without even having to quote northern folks, it should be self evident that the reasons for invading the south were anything other than the noble cause of ending slavery considering the fact that the Union had 4 or 5 slave holding states! And these states did not free their slaves until roughly a year AFTER the end of the war and Lincolns death, and 2+ years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves ONLY in the states that were still in rebellion. Even the slaves in TN and New Orleans, which were now back under Union control, were not freed. Please, please folks, stop claiming the noble cause of freeing the slaves as the reason the Union to invaded and destroyed the south, and stole everything that could be moved, and later stole even the ownership of the land.

If they had stayed home and let people alone, let the south go and have their freedom from people they no loner wanted to associate with, not one single soul would have died in that war. Hell, there was not even one person killed at Ft. Sumter(except 1 by accident while firing at the Confederates), I think the 2 commanders had dinner the night before. If they would have stayed home no one would have died and slavery would have dies the natural death that the industrial revolution would soon cause.

Now I agree that some of the rich political leaders of the south proclaimed that slavery was the main reason for the secession. But we also know that slave owning southerners were a distinct minority. Why on earth would a poor farm boy gladly spill his blood to protect the property of a rich planter, and also to protect the system which depressed his wages, since he competed with free slave labor? And of course, these men- rich slave owner or poor farm boy- regardless of whether they were gung ho slavery or not- never had a passing thought of invading the north and forcing them to live the way we wanted them to live. Much as today, that crap only goes one way, from the leftists today. But they fought to defend their homeland from a brutal, scorched earth rape/invasion by northern hordes, many of whom were fresh off the boat immigrants who didn't even speak a word of English.

But because Lincoln invaded, 300,000 Union soldiers were sacrificed, and they killed another 300,000 soldiers. And who will ever know how many southern civilians, women, children including blacks, died in the shelling of civilian filled cities and towns? Or died of hunger or disease after the soldiers stole everything they could and burned the rest of their farm, leaving them with no food or shelter at the start of winter? Indeed, possibly the very 1st soul killed by Sherman's shelling of Atlanta was a free black barber named (ironically) Lucky Solomon(sp?). The local docs tried to amputate his mutilated leg, but he bled to death before they could save him. But some say it was a little girl that was the first victim of Sherman's shells on Atlanta.

So were the men that gave their lives to defend against this invasion honorable men? You are damned right they were! Flatliner, you say "With that said, this is a case where the left is 100% correct. Succession was treason and many in leadership of that movement and there beliefs should be abhorred, not celebrated.". I just totally disagree, brother! Of course, secession was deemed treason by the north, but where in that Constitution the individual sovereign states signed does it say that no one can ever leave no matter how badly the other states are treating them? I don't think it says that. ( and remember the late great 10th amendment that says everything not spelled out here as a power of the feds belongs to the states and the people?) If you read the founding papers of the Confederacy and of Jefferson Davis, you will see many references to that other Jefferson, the founding father: "IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness................................But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies;....................We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor...."

Now no doubt King George called this treason, and the Yanks said the same when the south proclaimed and repeated these very words in their own "Declaration of Independence". But clearly all the founding and signing fathers considered each state sovereign. Just because they came together and gave up a few of their sovereign powers does not mean they agreed to stay in that relationship no matter what kind of abuse the other states might come up with. In fact, it was either Massachusetts or NY or both that threatened secession way before the south ever did. But if what the south did was treason, how is it one bit worse than what the founders did and what indeed they said it was a peoples duty to do? If I honor Washington and Jefferson, why should I not honor Lee?

I will put my last thought in the next post since this one is already so danged long!
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: American values

#12

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat May 27, 2017 8:31 pm

Now on the subject of removing statues and flags because some folks find them offensive and don't like my ancestors who fought and died under them: What about the American flag, Old Glory? Considering that slavery only existed for 4 years under the Confederate flag and that no slave ship ever sailed under it's banner, then if it(as well as statues and monuments to the men who fought the invading Union) is offensive and must go shouldn't Old Glory go?

After all, slavery existed for about 100 years(not counting the years before our revolt from and treason against England) under the Stars and Stripes BEFORE the Confederate flag ever flew, and for about 1 year after. All the slave ships that ever purchased Africans from other Africans and brought them here sailed under Old Glory(after our revolt/secession from England). Now before you say: "but, in the end, it was this flag under which men died to set the slaves free", just remember that slave states invaded the south. The Union was just fine with these slave states having slaves as long as they helped in the invasion against the seceding states. There was no problem at all with them having slaves, and they kept their slaves for almost a year after the south surrendered and all of their slaves were freed.

Now is anyone here going to argue that slave states invaded and destroyed other slave states in order to free the slaves? No? The if you still insist that all signs of our ancestors and citizens of sovereign states who fought against the brutal invasion of the Union states(including slave states) must go because some are offended, then I hope you will at least be consistent and demand that Old Glory be put in a museum, and maybe replaced by a rainbow flag.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: American values

#13

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat May 27, 2017 8:41 pm

sarge wrote:
Flatliner wrote:Sam Houston is a LONG way from Nathan Bedford Forest. Please don't misread me here I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart liberal. With that said, this is a case where the left is 100% correct. Succession was treason and many in leadership of that movement and there beliefs should be abhorred, not celebrated. Just because some left crazies want take it too far doesn't mean thinking individuals on the right shouldn't support taking it far enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, actually, its the crazies who are leading this.

Nobody gave a rosy red rat's rump what Mitch Landrieu thought about statues a month ago. Now, we're supposed to be dicussing how he's a Hero.

And the criteria being used here is "White Supremecists" (you know, like Sam Houston was). I've got news for you: the way they describe that pretty much describes every white person on the planet from the beginning of time until a week ago. The only white people who aren't White Supremecists are the ones tearing the statues down. Its a great system, you get to define who is evil, then when someone objects to your definition, you label them as being sympathetic to White Supremecists. You know, like those slave owners George Washington and Andrew Jackson.
And while we are describing white supremacists, please don't forget Abraham Lincoln, as well as virtually every other white man(except for a small # of true abolitionists) on the continent at that time and long after. Quotes from Abe provided upon request. Plus, if you request, I can throw in a few quotes from some famous- and not hated- black supremacists. Maybe whites should just commit mass suicide to do penance because so many whites have been white supremacists? But the black racists and supremacist, no problem, they are cool. We should give them their own safe spaces at universities and other places, where evil whitey is banned. As long as you don't ban any blacks from anywhere, all will be cool and called equal.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: American values

#14

Post by sarge » Sat May 27, 2017 10:34 pm

That's the problem with the entire concept---and why the goal is different from the expressed one.

EVERYBODY was a White Supremecist by thier definition---including the founders and writers of the Constitution.

Even the abolitionists believed that Black people were a sub species---they were against enslaving them, but they still thought that they were something less than white folks.

When that's your definition, you've set things up to make you able to dismantle the current political/economic structure of the Nation, all in the name of Peace and Unity.

And when you listen to thier rhetoric about Christains, its not too far from improbable that thier next goal will be to start taking down churches.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: American values

#15

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat May 27, 2017 11:54 pm

sarge wrote:That's the problem with the entire concept---and why the goal is different from the expressed one.

EVERYBODY was a White Supremecist by thier definition---including the founders and writers of the Constitution.

Even the abolitionists believed that Black people were a sub species---they were against enslaving them, but they still thought that they were something less than white folks.

When that's your definition, you've set things up to make you able to dismantle the current political/economic structure of the Nation, all in the name of Peace and Unity.

And when you listen to thier rhetoric about Christains, its not too far from improbable that thier next goal will be to start taking down churches.
Of course, that is next and already in progress. After all, Christianity has always claimed things which some- many- now find offensive. Calling some behaviors sinful is now considered the biggest sin, really the only sin. Before it is done, they not only will have to keep that offensive speech and thought behind closed doors, hidden inside the church, but will be required to celebrate what they consider sin. They must not even see Christians because they are an offense. Just an extension of what is happening with the monuments or flags, though for different reasons. Very different offenses, but unapprove behavior and thinking that must not be tolerated.
http://adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-d ... ent-allows

Sorry if that is too far off topic, but it all seems the same thing to me, more or less. Much as with Soviet Gulags, only approved thinking is allowed. And you may NOT honor your Confederate ancestors, as they have been declared evil while all who slaughtered them are good.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest