[Cardfan1]

Yep, 10 years if I heard right.

"President Trump announced Friday that he signed an executive order to protect American monuments, memorials and statues and threatened those who try to pull them down with “long prison time.”


“I just had the privilege of signing a very strong Executive Order protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues - and combatting recent Criminal Violence,” Trump tweeted. “Long prison terms for these lawless acts against our Great Country!”


The new order enforces laws prohibiting the desecration of public monuments, the vandalism of government property, and recent acts of violence, withholds federal support tied to public spaces from state and local governments that have failed to protect public monuments, and withdraws federal grants for jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies that fail to stop their desecration.

It also provides assistance for protecting the federal statues."

Thank God.

We have a raging pandemic, and foreign powers hiring terrorists to kill our troops, yet this week he has focused on protecting statues, selling beans, golfing, and griping about toilets and showers.

There is one problem. These aren't American monuments.

[Cardfan1]

Laws are just made to be broken by mobs of like minded cowards. I see. You're such a good little Marxist. Mommy must be proud of her little man.

Founding Fathers fit in that description?

The hills you're willing to die on...:hilarious:

[TheRealThing]

Thank God.

We have a raging pandemic, and foreign powers hiring terrorists to kill our troops, yet this week he has focused on protecting statues, selling beans, golfing, and griping about toilets and showers.

There is one problem. These aren't American monuments.

No now it was the last administration which based it's legacy in things like bathrooms and showers. But I agree there is one problem from your perspective. Whereas at one time you used revisionists anti-American propaganda such as you just posted to win debate points, now you actually don't know the difference.

[TheRealThing]

Jail time for Americans destroying monuments of men who led armies against the United States to protect the institution of slavery.... good Lord

:lame:

You have a gift for slander by omission. Aside from the fact that American mobs are out destroying public property to the tune of trillions in public and private property damage and committing felonious assault on other Americans, your premise though inflammatory, is devoid of fact.

I must have missed hearing about the confederate army Ulysses S Grant led. And I know I missed hearing about the confederate army Abraham Lincoln led. As well as Andrew Jackson and George Washington and Christopher Columbus. The anarchy afoot in this land is excelled in scope only by the deceit being fabricated in it's support. It has nothing to do with slavery, which BTW was eradicated here in this land a century and a half in the past. What it does have a lot to do with is insurrection and lawlessness.

[Hoot Gibson]

Founding Fathers fit in that description?

The hills you're willing to die on...:hilarious:

Are you suggesting that those who topple defenseless statues are committing acts of war against our democratically elected government? As such, should they be held accountable in the same way that the British would have held all of the Founding Fathers accountable for their efforts to topple their government had the British won the war?

Do you honestly believe that the statue tippers would be engaging in such a cowardly activity if they faced the same consequences as Patrick Henry and his fellow revolutionaries faced, had they been captured?

You really must harbor a deep seated hatred of this country to compare its founders to the semi-literate cowards who take such delight in defacing and destroying public property.

[Cardfan1]

Are you suggesting that those who topple defenseless statues are committing acts of war against our democratically elected government? As such, should they be held accountable in the same way that the British would have held all of the Founding Fathers accountable for their efforts to topple their government had the British won the war?

Do you honestly believe that the statue tippers would be engaging in such a cowardly activity if they faced the same consequences as Patrick Henry and his fellow revolutionaries faced, had they been captured?

You really must harbor a deep seated hatred of this country to compare its founders to the semi-literate cowards who take such delight in defacing and destroying public property.

TBH, I thought that protesters wouldn't face harsh penalties, but the more this administration does I'm starting to wonder if we may see some of the harsh punishments our founding fathers faced.

No, an act of war is seceding and marching armies on American states. You must really have a deep seated hatred for this nation supporting statues that represent semi-literate cowards who fought against their own country.

nicker:

[Cardfan1]

You have a gift for slander by omission. Aside from the fact that American mobs are out destroying public property to the tune of trillions in public and private property damage and committing felonious assault on other Americans, your premise though inflammatory, is devoid of fact.

I must have missed hearing about the confederate army Ulysses S Grant led. And I know I missed hearing about the confederate army Abraham Lincoln led. As well as Andrew Jackson and George Washington and Christopher Columbus. The anarchy afoot in this land is excelled in scope only by the deceit being fabricated in it's support. It has nothing to do with slavery, which BTW was eradicated here in this land a century and a half in the past. What it does have a lot to do with is insurrection and lawlessness.

I'm not sure why they destroyed the Grant statue. Maybe that group didn't know he was. It happens. Hell, your president thinks there is a statue of Teddy Roosevelt in the his office, and it's just a cowboy statue called "The Broncho Buster." Morons exist everywhere.

Your history major isn't worth much if you don't know the problems behind Columbus and Jackson and even Washington. The Lincoln problem is the statue and not the man.

Of course has to do with slavery. If we still are celebrating people who owned slaves then it has to do with slavery.

[TheRealThing]

I'm not sure why they destroyed the Grant statue. Maybe that group didn't know he was. It happens. Hell, your president thinks there is a statue of Teddy Roosevelt in the his office, and it's just a cowboy statue called "The Broncho Buster." Morons exist everywhere.

Your history major isn't worth much if you don't know the problems behind Columbus and Jackson and even Washington. The Lincoln problem is the statue and not the man.

Of course has to do with slavery. If we still are celebrating people who owned slaves then it has to do with slavery.

Obviously you can (and do) twist anything pertaining to reality in order to streamline it to your particular episodic psychosis du-jour. And save therefore for the sake of the prophetic self-profiling of your seemingly and demonstrably darkened mind, I can assure my perception of reality or history, to the extent that it may be molded in any degree by you is less than zero.

The statuette looks like it could be Roosevelt. I can see how people would expect that any such art displayed within the White House would be of former Presidents. To demonstrate the point I didn't hear Brian Kilmeade correct the President at the time of the mistake. In any case the entire nothing-made-mountain event amounted to an entirely forgivable aside at best. You and the rest of the contempt filled left looking for an excuse to attack this President didn't seem to have any problem whatever with Obama referring to a wounded sailor as a "Navy Corpse-man." TWICE

I have been served quite well by my history major thank you very much, as I do not helplessly flounder about like flotsam on the recent incoming tide of lies and misinformation on which you so proudly bob. The point was like you, who only has enough courage to lie or otherwise justify the lawlessness of those who actually commit the pillaging and looting and set ablaze everything they can't steal, that their and your opinions are GIVEN by others. Puppets who stand to lose everything in exchange for nothing buy misery. They can't ID Washington and the rest because they don't have the first clue who they were. Nor are they connected to US History or Heritage by the thinnest microscopic filament of truth.

NONE of this has to do with slavery. From my vantage point, concerning you and them, it has to do with anarchy, blind hatred and racial bias.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[Hoot Gibson]

TBH, I thought that protesters wouldn't face harsh penalties, but the more this administration does I'm starting to wonder if we may see some of the harsh punishments our founding fathers faced.

No, an act of war is seceding and marching armies on American states. You must really have a deep seated hatred for this nation supporting statues that represent semi-literate cowards who fought against their own country.

nicker:

I don't support or oppose statues. I support the U.S. Constitution and the laws under which my fellow citizens have consented to be governed. There are processes in place to remove statues, buildings, and anything else from public venues. If you publicly announce your intention to destroy the United States as we know it and proceed to destroy statues, torch government buildings, and loot lawful businesses, then you are at war with this nation.

As a supporter of those who are at war with this nation, you are a traitor. Good luck with that...the internet never forgets.

[Cardfan1]

I don't support or oppose statues. I support the U.S. Constitution and the laws under which my fellow citizens have consented to be governed. There are processes in place to remove statues, buildings, and anything else from public venues. If you publicly announce your intention to destroy the United States as we know it and proceed to destroy statues, torch government buildings, and loot lawful businesses, then you are at war with this nation.

As a supporter of those who are at war with this nation, you are a traitor. Good luck with that...the internet never forgets.

:hilarious:

The guy who argues the Confederacy wasn't a group of traitors is calling me a traitor.

:lmao:

Surreal.

[Cardfan1]

Obviously you can (and do) twist anything pertaining to reality in order to streamline it to your particular episodic psychosis du-jour. And save therefore for the sake of the prophetic self-profiling of your seemingly and demonstrably darkened mind, I can assure my perception of reality or history, to the extent that it may be molded in any degree by you is less than zero.

The statuette looks like it could be Roosevelt. I can see how people would expect that any such art displayed within the White House would be of former Presidents. To demonstrate the point I didn't hear Brian Kilmeade correct the President at the time of the mistake. In any case the entire nothing-made-mountain event amounted to an entirely forgivable aside at best. You and the rest of the contempt filled left looking for an excuse to attack this President didn't seem to have any problem whatever with Obama referring to a wounded sailor as a "Navy Corpse-man." TWICE

I have been served quite well by my history major thank you very much, as I do not helplessly flounder about like flotsam on the recent incoming tide of lies and misinformation on which you so proudly bob. The point was like you, who only has enough courage to lie or otherwise justify the lawlessness of those who actually commit the pillaging and looting and set ablaze everything they can't steal, that their and your opinions are GIVEN by others. Puppets who stand to lose everything in exchange for nothing buy misery. They can't ID Washington and the rest because they don't have the first clue who they were. Nor are they connected to US History or Heritage by the thinnest microscopic filament of truth.

NONE of this has to do with slavery. From my vantage point, concerning you and them, it has to do with anarchy, blind hatred and racial bias.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Actually, I'm just discussing this for sport. The real problem is the Pandemic that has now gripped the South thanks to ignorance.

Kilmeade wouldn't correct Trump if he said the White House was pink.

I wonder if Obama would struggle with that pesky Montreal Cognitive Assessment? I hear those last 5 questions are doozies. :hilarious:

There are plenty that can identify those folks, and you did a great job of trying to swirl the toilet instead of acknowledge that there are issues.

[Hoot Gibson]

:hilarious:

The guy who argues the Confederacy wasn't a group of traitors is calling me a traitor.

:lmao:

Surreal.

You are probably the biggest liar on BGR. What I said was that the Soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were not traitors. A strong argument could be made that Jefferson Davis and those who were in the chain of command involved in taking Fort Sumter engaged in treason - but the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought and often died protecting their homes and families were simply doing what 99 percent of us would have done under the same circumstances. It is idiotic to argue that a poor farmer living in the deep South should have refused to fight along side his family and neighbors. Traveling hundreds of miles during wartime to enlist with the Union was not an option for most of those who fought and died for the Confederacy.

It is also idiotic to assume that the majority of Soldiers who fought for the Union were eager to die to set southern slaves free. In every war that the American men and women have engaged during our history, the combatants really did not have many options available to them.

You, on the other hand, have a choice. Your choice is to support the lawless, treasonous acts of ignorant thugs who could not pick U.S. Grant or Abraham Lincoln out of a line up. In my book, that makes you no better than them.

[TheRealThing]

Actually, I'm just discussing this for sport. The real problem is the Pandemic that has now gripped the South thanks to ignorance.

Kilmeade wouldn't correct Trump if he said the White House was pink.

I wonder if Obama would struggle with that pesky Montreal Cognitive Assessment? I hear those last 5 questions are doozies. :hilarious:

There are plenty that can identify those folks, and you did a great job of trying to swirl the toilet instead of acknowledge that there are issues.

Well don't worry about it, like I said most of the time I'm talking past you anyway. So I don't expect you to acquiesce.

At any rate, the 'real problem' is in the fact that you come in decades after the historical events in question actually took place to try and redefine those events in the minds of myself and others who saw those things all go down. Undeterred, you proceed then in continuing to believe that you will still be successful to that end even in the face of solid argument.

Relabel, repackage, rename, revise, repeat as required, I got it believe me. Only problem is I was there, I saw, I heard. America had learned and accepted each other, and for awhile all was forgiven and forgotten. In the movie "Rocky," Carl Weathers danced to James Brown singing "Living in America", and for the most part it was all good. But then just as the left was able to resuscitate the farcical global warming under the auspices of the Oblame-a administration, so too was the dead at that time issue of racial bias. In my book you guys are somewhere underneath low.

[Hoot Gibson]

Obviously you can (and do) twist anything pertaining to reality in order to streamline it to your particular episodic psychosis du-jour. And save therefore for the sake of the prophetic self-profiling of your seemingly and demonstrably darkened mind, I can assure my perception of reality or history, to the extent that it may be molded in any degree by you is less than zero.

The statuette looks like it could be Roosevelt. I can see how people would expect that any such art displayed within the White House would be of former Presidents. To demonstrate the point I didn't hear Brian Kilmeade correct the President at the time of the mistake. In any case the entire nothing-made-mountain event amounted to an entirely forgivable aside at best. You and the rest of the contempt filled left looking for an excuse to attack this President didn't seem to have any problem whatever with Obama referring to a wounded sailor as a "Navy Corpse-man." TWICE

I have been served quite well by my history major thank you very much, as I do not helplessly flounder about like flotsam on the recent incoming tide of lies and misinformation on which you so proudly bob. The point was like you, who only has enough courage to lie or otherwise justify the lawlessness of those who actually commit the pillaging and looting and set ablaze everything they can't steal, that their and your opinions are GIVEN by others. Puppets who stand to lose everything in exchange for nothing buy misery. They can't ID Washington and the rest because they don't have the first clue who they were. Nor are they connected to US History or Heritage by the thinnest microscopic filament of truth.

NONE of this has to do with slavery. From my vantage point, concerning you and them, it has to do with anarchy, blind hatred and racial bias.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

I would like to add that not only did Obama use the term "Navy corpse man" twice, he used it twice in the same speech. It was more than a slip of the tongue. The Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces at the time obviously did not know any better. Obama never displayed much intelligence when he went off-prompter, but Joe Biden makes both Obama and Trump look like real geniuses in comparison.

It is going to be very interesting to see whether a campaign strategy of avoiding unscripted events and hiding in his basement will work for Biden.

[vector]

You are probably the biggest liar on BGR. What I said was that the Soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were not traitors. A strong argument could be made that Jefferson Davis and those who were in the chain of command involved in taking Fort Sumter engaged in treason - but the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought and often died protecting their homes and families were simply doing what 99 percent of us would have done under the same circumstances. It is idiotic to argue that a poor farmer living in the deep South should have refused to fight along side his family and neighbors. Traveling hundreds of miles during wartime to enlist with the Union was not an option for most of those who fought and died for the Confederacy.

It is also idiotic to assume that the majority of Soldiers who fought for the Union were eager to die to set southern slaves free. In every war that the American men and women have engaged during our history, the combatants really did not have many options available to them.

You, on the other hand, have a choice. Your choice is to support the lawless, treasonous acts of ignorant thugs who could not pick U.S. Grant or Abraham Lincoln out of a line up. In my book, that makes you no better than them.

the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers
were men of modest means rather than large plantation
owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that
the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery.
The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon
secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent
of white families owned enslaved people. Some states had
far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina,
49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less
(20 percent of families in Arkansas).
But as Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion point out in Slate,
the percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the
antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation
of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford
enslaved people aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity.
In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that
served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and
terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a
Black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way,
many Confederates who did not enslave people went to war to
protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of
the only way of life they knew.
in other words there words they was just trying to live the
american dream

https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery

[TheRealThing]

^^ In my opinion you need to spread your sourcing around a bit. Always quoting History.com hasn't served you well.

To that end allow me to point something out about the free-lance writer and frequent contributor to History.com, Sarah Pruitt.

Sticking with the most obvious, little Sarah only just graduated in 2005 from an extremely liberal, private liberal arts college up in the highly strictured, nasal and uppity region of Vermont. I can tell you this, accurate history was not the norm then or now. Consequently the rabidly liberal staff at these institutions select only the text books which suit their political palates. Taking certain 'liberties,' in relating the historical record is commonplace among the leftist authors whose intent is to properly indoctrinate students against America. And liberal arts schools are very brazen in their intentions to graduate good little liberals. And from what I've read of her writings in her case they succeeded.

The last person I want interpreting for me an account of the days of Lincoln, would be a flaming lib.

If you want to Google your way to an awareness of history all I can say is good luck with that. But in any case if I were you I'd pick on a historian who graduated college back as far as possible. Preferably the 70's at the latest. Maybe then you'd get an account of history that's sole intention was not to slant history towards influencing people not to vote Republican.

[Cardfan1]

You are probably the biggest liar on BGR. What I said was that the Soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were not traitors. A strong argument could be made that Jefferson Davis and those who were in the chain of command involved in taking Fort Sumter engaged in treason - but the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought and often died protecting their homes and families were simply doing what 99 percent of us would have done under the same circumstances. It is idiotic to argue that a poor farmer living in the deep South should have refused to fight along side his family and neighbors. Traveling hundreds of miles during wartime to enlist with the Union was not an option for most of those who fought and died for the Confederacy.

It is also idiotic to assume that the majority of Soldiers who fought for the Union were eager to die to set southern slaves free. In every war that the American men and women have engaged during our history, the combatants really did not have many options available to them.

You, on the other hand, have a choice. Your choice is to support the lawless, treasonous acts of ignorant thugs who could not pick U.S. Grant or Abraham Lincoln out of a line up. In my book, that makes you no better than them.

So with this post you are telling me that the leaders of the South were racists and traitors, and you just don't like the way the statues are coming down after 155 years (which is not exactly correct for most of the statues, because those were erected decades after the war to intimidate the rising class of African Americans.) :lame:

As far as the regular Johnny Reb goes, several soldiers in the South did fight for the North. That argument of just following orders has never flown throughout history. There are several examples we could get into on that.

It's idiotic to believe that those folks didn't buy into the Southern system of enslaving another race. You don't have to be a Trump level stable genius to recognize the true southern sentiment that oppressed generations of Black folks for over a century following the war.

You have defended real traitors in your posts and continue to do so by attempting to revise history. Your opinion on what happening today is obsolete.

[Cardfan1]

Well don't worry about it, like I said most of the time I'm talking past you anyway. So I don't expect you to acquiesce.

At any rate, the 'real problem' is in the fact that you come in decades after the historical events in question actually took place to try and redefine those events in the minds of myself and others who saw those things all go down. Undeterred, you proceed then in continuing to believe that you will still be successful to that end even in the face of solid argument.

Relabel, repackage, rename, revise, repeat as required, I got it believe me. Only problem is I was there, I saw, I heard. America had learned and accepted each other, and for awhile all was forgiven and forgotten. In the movie "Rocky," Carl Weathers danced to James Brown singing "Living in America", and for the most part it was all good. But then just as the left was able to resuscitate the farcical global warming under the auspices of the Oblame-a administration, so too was the dead at that time issue of racial bias. In my book you guys are somewhere underneath low.

:hilarious: Got to love a vacuum!

You were around in the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow South, etc.?nicker:

No, your generation accepted atrocious acts from "great men" and whitewashed their evil actions in your history books. You're still doing it.
TRT, you gripe and moan about Obama like he participated in genocide or slavery, but love those statues of men who actually did murder and enslave people. That's ironic isn't it?

[Cardfan1]

I would like to add that not only did Obama use the term "Navy corpse man" twice, he used it twice in the same speech. It was more than a slip of the tongue. The Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces at the time obviously did not know any better. Obama never displayed much intelligence when he went off-prompter, but Joe Biden makes both Obama and Trump look like real geniuses in comparison.

It is going to be very interesting to see whether a campaign strategy of avoiding unscripted events and hiding in his basement will work for Biden.

I hate getting off topic, but hanging your hat on Trump's genius over Biden is a losing strategy. The guy just bragged about identifying an elephant and counting backwards by 7. nicker:

Why would Biden do anything unscripted out of his basement? Trump has turned the country into a dumpster fire and has destroyed his own campaign.

[Cardfan1]

the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers
were men of modest means rather than large plantation
owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that
the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery.
The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon
secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent
of white families owned enslaved people. Some states had
far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina,
49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less
(20 percent of families in Arkansas).
But as Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion point out in Slate,
the percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the
antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation
of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford
enslaved people aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity.
In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that
served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and
terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a
Black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way,
many Confederates who did not enslave people went to war to
protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of
the only way of life they knew.
in other words there words they was just trying to live the
american dream

https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery

Those numbers are hard to deny, and when we examine what came next after the war it's not a big leap to realize the South was in support of enslaving Blacks.

[TheRealThing]

:hilarious: Got to love a vacuum!

You were around in the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow South, etc.?nicker:

No, your generation accepted atrocious acts from "great men" and whitewashed their evil actions in your history books. You're still doing it.
TRT, you gripe and moan about Obama like he participated in genocide or slavery, but love those statues of men who actually did murder and enslave people. That's ironic isn't it?

Let me put a finer point on it for you there Cardfan. I am blessed in that among other things, I was educated and grew up before liberals gained any particular degree of control over institutions of learning, therefore the subject matter was far more pure of liberal doctrine; And before politicians lied every breath, and while the media were still generally honest, only occasionally laying suggestive anti-American inflection between the lines. I am very grateful for that. But there is tremendous merit and benefit in the truthful handing down of factual heritage. That's one of the big reasons why the Lord mandated that His people the Jew, maintain racial purity. And that's why Satan has always tried to confuse fact with revision. He first did it at the Garden of Eden when he induced Eve to take of the forbidden fruit and it's been downhill for mankind ever since. George Orwell's 1984 was predicated on the virtues of truthful heritage. And very similarly, that's why the minions who want to remake America in the liberal view are out trying their best to rewrite US history.

As to your dishonest assertion. I did not say I was around for reconstruction. What I said was this; I was around to see the inhabitants of this land at peace with one another. And I said I and others like me, don't take their cues from torch bearing indoctrinated libs who after the fact try to convince us, (the very people who actually saw much of the history go down in REAL time), that we don't know what we're talking about. No, according to you we should take your word for it. :please:
For example I saw the Party of JFK, a great man who BTW, like FDR before him and DJT after him happened not to be morally perfect. But immediately after his death Democrats took a hard veer to the left. I saw his VP ascend to the Presidency and I saw LBJ put our feet on the path to social unrest and rioting for which you now show such relish. That's when the party left me. Now the party has left Democrat stalwarts like Doug Schoen and Dem civil rights attorney Leo Terrell behind as well. Further, I saw under a relentless barrage of misinformation, a peaceful people over time become a violent people. Now if the left's interpretation of history was correct, as is falsely proffered, and the left did have their ducks in a row... under your brand of propaganda, the good folks back in the 50's and 60's should have been the ones out doing all the pillaging and looting etc.. The evidence would have been fresh and beyond question. Not people who are at the minimum, 2 generations downstream operating on embellishments and myth. What we're seeing in Seattle and other places has ZERO to do with slavery. And the Democrat Party BTW? Well it is long gone. Replaced, relabeled, repackaged, renamed, revised, repeat as required

Nor do folks of my generation allow ourselves to be led around by revisionists with a pseudo-ideological ax to grind against our nation. The Constitution is clear enough, people certainly don't need or want leftist muppet's constant assaults on the correct interpretation. I gripe and moan about Obama because he did not represent the American people. He only represented minorities and special interests and he picked winners. IMO he ran over the law and fomented civil unrest. But worse was his open disdain for white people and truthful US heritage. The fact-- with overwhelming evidence of his biases in plain sight, you choose to excuse and embrace his behavior, while on the other hand being such a fan of vacuums and all LOL, you in complete absence of any evidence at all, choose to prosecute insurrection against DJT airing all manner of falsehood and slander as oft as you come on this forum, speaks volumes.

But what IS ironic is the fact that in response to my post, and despite the fact that anybody with a glimmer can go back at any time to reread it, you immediately tried to revise what I said anyway like I wouldn't notice or something. No surprise, you do the same thing to yourself every time you paint yourself into a corner.

[Cardfan1]

Let me put a finer point on it for you there Cardfan. I am blessed in that among other things, I was educated and grew up before liberals gained any particular degree of control over institutions of learning, therefore the subject matter was far more pure of liberal doctrine; And before politicians lied every breath, and while the media were still generally honest, only occasionally laying suggestive anti-American inflection between the lines. I am very grateful for that. But there is tremendous merit and benefit in the truthful handing down of factual heritage. That's one of the big reasons why the Lord mandated that His people the Jew, maintain racial purity. And that's why Satan has always tried to confuse fact with revision. He first did it at the Garden of Eden when he induced Eve to take of the forbidden fruit and it's been downhill for mankind ever since. George Orwell's 1984 was predicated on the virtues of truthful heritage. And very similarly, that's why the minions who want to remake America in the liberal view are out trying their best to rewrite US history.

As to your dishonest assertion. I did not say I was around for reconstruction. What I said was this; I was around to see the inhabitants of this land at peace with one another. And I said I and others like me, don't take their cues from torch bearing indoctrinated libs who after the fact try to convince us, (the very people who actually saw much of the history go down in REAL time), that we don't know what we're talking about. No, according to you we should take your word for it. :please:
For example I saw the Party of JFK, a great man who BTW, like FDR before him and DJT after him happened not to be morally perfect. But immediately after his death Democrats took a hard veer to the left. I saw his VP ascend to the Presidency and I saw LBJ put our feet on the path to social unrest and rioting for which you now show such relish. That's when the party left me. Now the party has left Democrat stalwarts like Doug Schoen and Dem civil rights attorney Leo Terrell behind as well. Further, I saw under a relentless barrage of misinformation, a peaceful people over time become a violent people. Now if the left's interpretation of history was correct, as is falsely proffered, and the left did have their ducks in a row... under your brand of propaganda, the good folks back in the 50's and 60's should have been the ones out doing all the pillaging and looting etc.. The evidence would have been fresh and beyond question. Not people who are at the minimum, 2 generations downstream operating on embellishments and myth. What we're seeing in Seattle and other places has ZERO to do with slavery. And the Democrat Party BTW? Well it is long gone. Replaced, relabeled, repackaged, renamed, revised, repeat as required

Nor do folks of my generation allow ourselves to be led around by revisionists with a pseudo-ideological ax to grind against our nation. The Constitution is clear enough, people certainly don't need or want leftist muppet's constant assaults on the correct interpretation. I gripe and moan about Obama because he did not represent the American people. He only represented minorities and special interests and he picked winners. IMO he ran over the law and fomented civil unrest. But worse was his open disdain for white people and truthful US heritage. The fact-- with overwhelming evidence of his biases in plain sight, you choose to excuse and embrace his behavior, while on the other hand being such a fan of vacuums and all LOL, you in complete absence of any evidence at all, choose to prosecute insurrection against DJT airing all manner of falsehood and slander as oft as you come on this forum, speaks volumes.

But what IS ironic is the fact that in response to my post, and despite the fact that anybody with a glimmer can go back at any time to reread it, you immediately tried to revise what I said anyway like I wouldn't notice or something. No surprise, you do the same thing to yourself every time you paint yourself into a corner.

This is the danger of living in a vacuum.

I hate to tell you, a good portion of your post is politely racist. Here are a few examples...
1. You left the Democratic party over the push for civil rights?
2. "A peaceful people become violent?" Any idea why they were peaceful?
3. Obama represented minorities, but "did not represent the American people?"

You are right about one thing; what is happening in Portland has nothing to do with slavery or statues anymore. It has evolved into Americans versus Trump trying his hand at authoritarianism, and you applaud him as he oversteps states and cities to promote unrest.

I'm sorry this country has left you behind in its attempts to provide equal rights and representation to all of its citizens.

Better buckle up, Buttercup

[TheRealThing]

This is the danger of living in a vacuum.

I hate to tell you, a good portion of your post is politely racist. Here are a few examples...
1. You left the Democratic party over the push for civil rights?
2. "A peaceful people become violent?" Any idea why they were peaceful?
3. Obama represented minorities, but "did not represent the American people?"

You are right about one thing; what is happening in Portland has nothing to do with slavery or statues anymore. It has evolved into Americans versus Trump trying his hand at authoritarianism, and you applaud him as he oversteps states and cities to promote unrest.

I'm sorry this country has left you behind in its attempts to provide equal rights and representation to all of its citizens.

Better buckle up, Buttercup

Reasonable people reading my post know better. Reasserting--- Obama did not represent all the people of the United States, only minorities. He is a fomenter of civil unrest. And he did it again during his heavily edited and otherwise faked interview with Joe Biden.

Obama-Biden video ---
Mr. Obama, comfortable and relaxed, had many of the pithier lines, talking about racial discrimination by saying that in a job application, “If your name is John, you might get called back; if your name’s Jamaal, you might not.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/arts/...6f4fb0e01e

Honesty in any degree is impossible for you. I did not say that the Democrat Party left me behind, I said they "left me." Meaning they went in a direction which was so offensive morally that I, could not in good conscience go along with them. Like for example, your party's mindless insistence of murdering the innocents. I can't go there and I will not vote for any candidate who openly admits, as do Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, that they will do everything in their power to enshrine and guarantee to continue the barbarism of unfettered abortion in our system of law. Or I should say system of lawlessness?

Reasonable people know the Dems are lying about their opposition to the abolition of slavery. I mean, it's not like the official historical record is in any way unclear about the matter. And the practice of slavery has been around as long as mankind. The Jews were taken into slavery in Egypt around 1400 BC, and again in 597 BC by the Persian King Nebuchadnezzar. America did not conceive the practice of slavery, but in her short 300 year existence she has been HIGHLY instrumental in abolishing the practice. We should be proud to point that out. Not tear down the civilization which has been the leader in salt and light in this world.

Ironically even today slavery exists in the world, in the multiplied millions.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countr...ve-slavery

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ro...ay-n612038

https://phys.org/news/2020-02-slavery-cr...world.html

https://fortune.com/2019/04/14/human-sex...s-slavery/

Here are the facts, you my friend are an epic hypocrite where it comes to this issue of slavery and Dems and Republicans. If you had a shred of concern you'd be attacking the issue head on in real time. Not dredging up revisionist lies and prosecuting a personal insurrection against the President. As if he'd the remotest thing to do with it all. I'm proud of his efforts to make overtures with those who've been indoctrinated and misled. Again, I defy you to list or otherwise name even one incident proving MR Trump's racial bias. You can't.


But the most hilarious piece of clinical projection in your post was your warning to me to get ready. As if you are exempted and somehow above it all. Thanks but I just can't help but feel I have a handle on the nightmarish scope and the imminency of the apocalypse.

[TheRealThing]

[SIZE="3"]This is the danger of living in a vacuum.

I hate to tell you, a good portion of your post is politely racist. Here are a few examples...
1. You left the Democratic party over the push for civil rights?
2. "A peaceful people become violent?" Any idea why they were peaceful?
3. Obama represented minorities, but "did not represent the American people?" [/SIZE]

You are right about one thing; what is happening in Portland has nothing to do with slavery or statues anymore. It has evolved into Americans versus Trump trying his hand at authoritarianism, and you applaud him as he oversteps states and cities to promote unrest.

I'm sorry this country has left you behind in its attempts to provide equal rights and representation to all of its citizens.

Better buckle up, Buttercup

Your 'points' section deserved a dedicated post.

I cited and you ignored my point about MR Leo Terrell. A black civil rights attorney who for decades has publicly championed the black man's cause against what he at one time viewed to be a white system of justice, but who now says (quite often) that the Democrat Party has been hijacked, and because of that he will vote
Republican. I know how he feels when he says the party has been hijacked. But by no means is Leo by himself, many black people feel the same.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauman...a-n2572579


The madness today, which Leo saw get it's running start during the Obama administration, caused him to change his mind and his overall outlook to include (not at the least) his views on politics. MR Terrell is now unashamedly a Trump supporter. As are many black folks who unlike Leo Terrell, choose to do so secretly because they would rather not suffer the outrage of their friends and relatives for supporting the President publicly. Leo has said repeatedly on national TV that he will most definitely vote for President Trump in 2020. And he is actively seeking the President's audience, and very actively urging the black community to vote for Trump.

So what's your excuse for Leo Terrell there Cardfan? Does the Democrat Party own civil rights, or does a noted civil rights attorney stand on his own on the matter of civil rights? Did "the country" (which rather inconveniently BTW, includes the Millions of Republican voters across this land,) "leave him behind too in it's attempts to provide civil rights"? Or did Terrell make his own notable contribution to that end and do you merely feign the high ground in the name of those who actually may have valid complaint? For those like yourself who like a tick, are just along for the ride, I don't see the validity of your rationale. In any case for those who either deny or who have trouble remembering; the founders took care of the problem at this land's inception...

Preamble to the US Constitution--

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:


The Declaration of Independence--

"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights, based on Natural Law, are "God-given." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that are subject to government restriction or license are called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."


The historical record speaks for itself, and the facts are less than kind to Democrats of the Civil War era. ABTW, as to the Dems and Rino's of this era, the federal government is to insure "domestic tranquility," not let anarchists decimate hundreds of years of blood, sacrifice, sweat, tears and an incalculable number of American livelihoods. The term "petition government" is in the Constitution. Perhaps you could point out where the word protest is found?

[Cardfan1]

That sure was a lot of blather, yet you didn't even really clear up the uncouth things you said. But whatever...I guess. :lame:

Civil Rights Attorney Leo Terrell :biglmao:
That dude must be in serious need of a paycheck. Or maybe he is hanging around Fox News hoping the next sexual assault victim will hire him.

If Trump is on the right side of history, why is he so hell-fired against changing the names of military bases named after Confederate generals, the banning of the Confederate flag, the removal of Confederate statues, etc., etc., etc?

Any stable genius can make the easy argument that the Democrat party was involved in the Confederacy over a century ago, BUT who is trying to prop up the Confederate memory today? :eyeroll:

oh yeah...You mean the freedom of assembly?

Dude, you are going to have to turn off Fox News. They are scaring you to death with this whole narrative of anarchists destroying cities. nicker:
If Trump would shut up and call his goons home the situation will
deescalate, but we know that's not what he wants. He wants to set fire to a powder keg, so he can spin it into a national crisis and "invade" more cities who are facing the terrors of graffiti and fireworks.

It's amazing how much Trump wants to assist cities and states in a manufactured national crisis where they don't want his help, but those same entities have begged for Coronavirus support (A REAL CRISIS) and "sorry, that's a state thing.":flush:

[TheRealThing]

That sure was a lot of blather, yet you didn't even really clear up the uncouth things you said. But whatever...I guess. :lame:

Civil Rights Attorney Leo Terrell :biglmao:
That dude must be in serious need of a paycheck. Or maybe he is hanging around Fox News hoping the next sexual assault victim will hire him.

If Trump is on the right side of history, why is he so hell-fired against changing the names of military bases named after Confederate generals, the banning of the Confederate flag, the removal of Confederate statues, etc., etc., etc?

Any stable genius can make the easy argument that the Democrat party was involved in the Confederacy over a century ago, BUT who is trying to prop up the Confederate memory today? :eyeroll:

oh yeah...You mean the freedom of assembly?



Dude, you are going to have to turn off Fox News. They are scaring you to death with this whole narrative of anarchists destroying cities. nicker:
If Trump would shut up and call his goons home the situation will
deescalate, but we know that's not what he wants. He wants to set fire to a powder keg, so he can spin it into a national crisis and "invade" more cities who are facing the terrors of graffiti and fireworks.

It's amazing how much Trump wants to assist cities and states in a manufactured national crisis where they don't want his help, but those same entities have begged for Coronavirus support (A REAL CRISIS) and "sorry, that's a state thing.":flush:

I didn't say one word that was untrue or otherwise untoward, much less politely racist. In fact you lied like a dog in trying to say I was being "politely racist." And let's understand this one point, your spins and ducks and dives aren't very effective, nor are they very well executed.

The freedom to PEACEFULLY assemble, and to PETITION the government for redress of grievances.

Not congregate in the middle of the night with intentions to burn down and pillage and loot and destroy the businesses and lives of the law abiding citizen's whose property they target on any given night. It's quite a leap to think that peaceful assembly covers parading around in paramilitary gear or motorcycle helmets and gas masks, armed with baseball bats, and bricks, and frozen water balloons or water bottles, or power tools, or garden implements, or commercial grade fireworks; or with incendiary devices purposely designed to quickly get buildings burning past the point of being salvageable by the fire department. And the carnage certainly does not stop with buildings, the burning smashing or destroying other people's vehicles and anything else of value they happen to come across, all of which BTW drives up everyone's liability insurance costs. Looting hundreds of millions of dollars from the rightful shop and store owners is not peaceful. Thousands of buildings have been burned or otherwise damaged by these so-called protesters. There is absolutely nothing peaceful about what we have seen across this land.

And the whole thing has been predicated on a lie. The fate of the cop that killed George Floyd was sealed even while he still had his knee on MR Floyd's neck. His own life was forfeit before the event was even over. We didn't need the trillions of dollars in property damage and dozens of people killed by the anarchial aftermath, which has now gone on for over 2 straight months, to spur public officials to act on the matter. And worse, Seattle has not the remotest connection with George Floyd in Minneapolis. They used the incident as an excuse to basically go to war with America.

To wit barricading federal agents inside a federal building and trying to burn them in the blaze is not peaceful assembly. If they want to petition government the best example I can think of is the Declaration of Independence. A signed petition the citizens of the 13 colonies sent to King George to redress the grievances they had with his oppressive rule. The vast majority of these thugs operate by cover of darkness and face coverings.


Your throwing Terrell under the bus is par for the liberal course. And I guarantee he'll influence far more people to vote than you will.

One last thing. Even though your interpretations of what may be the responsibilities of State or of Federal Government don't quite rise to the cartoonish level, please do continue with the Cardfan civics. They're nonetheless hilarious.

The word protest is not in the Constitution, but if it was it would no doubt have been preceded by the word peaceful. The petitioning of government is the honorable remedy. The nightly 'purging' we see is anarchy.

[Cardfan1]

I didn't say one word that was untrue or otherwise untoward, much less politely racist. In fact you lied like a dog in trying to say I was being "politely racist." And let's understand this one point, your spins and ducks and dives aren't very effective, nor are they very well executed.

The freedom to PEACEFULLY assemble, and to PETITION the government for redress of grievances.

Not congregate in the middle of the night with intentions to burn down and pillage and loot and destroy the businesses and lives of the law abiding citizen's whose property they target on any given night. It's quite a leap to think that peaceful assembly covers parading around in paramilitary gear or motorcycle helmets and gas masks, armed with baseball bats, and bricks, and frozen water balloons or water bottles, or power tools, or garden implements, or commercial grade fireworks; or with incendiary devices purposely designed to quickly get buildings burning past the point of being salvageable by the fire department. And the carnage certainly does not stop with buildings, the burning smashing or destroying other people's vehicles and anything else of value they happen to come across, all of which BTW drives up everyone's liability insurance costs. Looting hundreds of millions of dollars from the rightful shop and store owners is not peaceful. Thousands of buildings have been burned or otherwise damaged by these so-called protesters. There is absolutely nothing peaceful about what we have seen across this land.

And the whole thing has been predicated on a lie. The fate of the cop that killed George Floyd was sealed even while he still had his knee on MR Floyd's neck. His own life was forfeit before the event was even over. We didn't need the trillions of dollars in property damage and dozens of people killed by the anarchial aftermath, which has now gone on for over 2 straight months, to spur public officials to act on the matter. And worse, Seattle has not the remotest connection with George Floyd in Minneapolis. They used the incident as an excuse to basically go to war with America.

To wit barricading federal agents inside a federal building and trying to burn them in the blaze is not peaceful assembly. If they want to petition government the best example I can think of is the Declaration of Independence. A signed petition the citizens of the 13 colonies sent to King George to redress the grievances they had with his oppressive rule. The vast majority of these thugs operate by cover of darkness and face coverings.


Your throwing Terrell under the bus is par for the liberal course. And I guarantee he'll influence far more people to vote than you will.

One last thing. Even though your interpretations of what may be the responsibilities of State or of Federal Government don't quite rise to the cartoonish level, please do continue with the Cardfan civics. They're nonetheless hilarious.

The word protest is not in the Constitution, but if it was it would no doubt have been preceded by the word peaceful. The petitioning of government is the honorable remedy. The nightly 'purging' we see is anarchy.

Not a lie when you said it, I questioned it.
IF your disagreement with a party was it's move toward Civil Rights, you ignore that oppression kept African Americans "peaceful," and you suggest minorities aren't Americans...the shoe fits.

Let's not act like all police officers always answer for violence. A lot of the frustration in the Black community is the fact they don't. Public outrage forced the hand in Minnesota on the officers in the George Floyd killing, but Minnesota and this nation has had several instances of ignoring despicable actions of bad officers. See Louisville.

Are you seriously arguing that protesters should take the actions of the colonists versus the British? I'm no History major, but I do know the violence and destruction would be much greater. Or are you just saying write a letter? nicker: How well did that work for colonists?

Again escalation happened when DJT tried to imitate a dictator. So here we are. I guarantee the same would have happened if someone would have tried to smash the OPEN the US protests like they have tried to crush the BLM protests, but the govt. didn't do that. For example, none of those rallies were dispersed with tear gas even though they blocked traffic, defaced property, and hung effigies too. Before you say they were peaceful most of the BLM protests were to until the push for "law and order."

I can't help it that the lackeys Faux News wheels out are jokes.

:hilarious: You totally sidestepped the conversation of this thread so I'll just add that back in.

If Trump is on the right side of history, why is he so hell-fired against changing the names of military bases named after Confederate generals, the banning of the Confederate flag, the removal of Confederate statues, etc., etc., etc?

Who is trying to prop up the Confederate memory today?

[mr.fundamental]

"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value." ---Thomas Paine: The American Crisis

Thomas Paine was for the idea of Universal Basic Income...

[mr.fundamental]

Tell me how Lincoln and Grant were traitors. Confederate soldiers were not traitors. The overwhelming majority of people fighting for the South were not slave owners and fought because their families and neighbors were under attack.

These people who are making cowardly attacks on statues are no better than the Taliban and show the same historical illiteracy. Their real enemy is a dysfunctional public school system that has produced an unprecedented level of ignorance in this country. Diplomas for dullards.

Do you favor the destruction of Mount Rushmore? Do you support the cause of those who want to destroy statues of Jesus that in their opinion, make him look like a European white man?

Where do you think the line should be drawn against BLM violence?

Well, the Confederate States of America declared their independence from the United States. The United States fought them and brought them back into the Union. The United States maintained that the states were always in good standing but inside of the states were rebels. Therefore, the United States was not fighting the states but instead the rebels inside of said states. The United States won the war, therefore, they get to dictate terms. So the United States was in fact fighting traitors, by their own definition. Also, on a personal note, I thought Hoot would be in crowd that states "Everyone does not get a trophy especially the losers which in this case would be Confederate States of America, rebels,".

As far as the rest about Jesus and so forth, what does that have to do with a bunch of losers(literally) getting a trophy (statues) in the United States?

[mr.fundamental]

You are probably the biggest liar on BGR. What I said was that the Soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were not traitors. A strong argument could be made that Jefferson Davis and those who were in the chain of command involved in taking Fort Sumter engaged in treason - but the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who fought and often died protecting their homes and families were simply doing what 99 percent of us would have done under the same circumstances. It is idiotic to argue that a poor farmer living in the deep South should have refused to fight along side his family and neighbors. Traveling hundreds of miles during wartime to enlist with the Union was not an option for most of those who fought and died for the Confederacy.

It is also idiotic to assume that the majority of Soldiers who fought for the Union were eager to die to set southern slaves free. In every war that the American men and women have engaged during our history, the combatants really did not have many options available to them.

You, on the other hand, have a choice. Your choice is to support the lawless, treasonous acts of ignorant thugs who could not pick U.S. Grant or Abraham Lincoln out of a line up. In my book, that makes you no better than them.

I agree with some of what you have said about Jefferson Davis and such but the area that I bolded I disagree. In Kentucky, of all places it was brother against brother and a choice had to be made. To think for a second that a person did not have a choice to fight for a side or not to fight at all. I can not go down that line of thinking.