More Traitor Monuments .....Gone

[Micawber]

Old white men matter less everyday there is something like 2 million Boomers in the ground now

Ah thank you. I needed a pick me up. There should be a piss on their graves day.

 

[Micawber]

What exactly does that mean? You don't think that the people of the community should have a say?

No, I don't. Your ilk do not have beliefs that lie within the bounds of reason and civility. I don't share a reality with you. Worshipping war criminals is unthinkable to me. Revering states in open rebellion with
the USA to defend the institution of slavery is unthinkable to me. Working around that issue by revisionist history to say it is not about slavery is unthinkable to me.

I am against slavery, lies, and liars and trolls who trade on that stuff. You and your kind are nothing but a tax on social discourse.

If you want to talk about the strides made by the south to create civil rights for minorities where they were more lacking, fine, but some of you people
don't agree that this is a virtue. So I have no use for your kind at all. Go to hell. Go fast. Your ilk supports a denial of science, defunding it, changing the language,
injecting religion in schools. All that is total shit. Again, if this is you, go to hell straight to hell do not pass go and do not collect $200. We could go issue after issue
and we don't agree on the ends to be achieved, even what virtue is, so fuck hearing your view as to the means or your alternate fact world. Fuck it and fuck tyou.

 

[j-mac]

It's funny, these people are technically traitors to the US even though its just beliefs and they are too cowardly to given action to the beliefs. They see the US Federal Government as "the other"
and therefore bristle at any action taking by it. That is why their party of choice is not really a representative to government, it is a representative with an agenda to dismantle government. So they want to starve it
for revenue, cut all its programs, limit its authority in the demarcation between state and federal, etc.

Well, that, at least IMHO, is simply not true...Conservatives believe that our Federal Government has thrown aside their Constitutional restraints, and therefore is becoming, slowly over time tyrannical....While I don't believe we have reached true tyranny yet, we do see recently, as in the past administration a propensity for such...

Even to the point that they support statues of people who once raised arms against this government. How can they argue they are not traitors.

Easy enough....I will let a pretty learned Black scholar explain it to you:

"During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.

At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace."

https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/06/17/were-confederate-generals-traitors

Reminds me of the old joke about the wealthy man who
offers the gentlewomen a million to sleep with him, she says yes, then he offers $100 and she says "what kind of woman do you take me for" He responds "we've already established that now we are
just negotiating price. Amazing these Republican scoundrels will admit to treason on the cheap.

Treason? I really don't follow. What "treason" have Republican's committed? Please be specific, and cite how they would have possibly violated the statute.

Thanks.

 

[katzgar]

Well, that, at least IMHO, is simply not true...Conservatives believe that our Federal Government has thrown aside their Constitutional restraints, and therefore is becoming, slowly over time tyrannical....While I don't believe we have reached true tyranny yet, we do see recently, as in the past administration a propensity for such...



Easy enough....I will let a pretty learned Black scholar explain it to you:

"During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.

At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace."

https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/06/17/were-confederate-generals-traitors



Treason? I really don't follow. What "treason" have Republican's committed? Please be specific, and cite how they would have possibly violated the statute.

Thanks.

every time you post you say you dont follow?

 

[j-mac]

every time you post you say you dont follow?

Really? When else did I post that....? Please share it.

 

[Micawber]

Well, that, at least IMHO, is simply not true...Conservatives believe that our Federal Government has thrown aside their Constitutional restraints, and therefore is becoming, slowly over time tyrannical....While I don't believe we have reached true tyranny yet, we do see recently, as in the past administration a propensity for such...



Easy enough....I will let a pretty learned Black scholar explain it to you:

"During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.

At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace."

https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/06/17/were-confederate-generals-traitors



Treason? I really don't follow. What "treason" have Republican's committed? Please be specific, and cite how they would have possibly violated the statute.

Thanks.

Sorry, not biting. I feel no need to argue whether or not someone is a traitor when they covet the loss of an imagined right to secede. You've confessed.

If you need erudition on the subject just read Texas v White and about seven other scotus decisions and appellate decisions ruling that the secsion declared by those several states in rebellion
were void and illegal acts. Not bothering.

No serious thinker armed with legal knowledge believes unilateral secession is a right enjoyed by the several states, and that includes originalist jurist
Antonin Scalia.

 

[Micawber]

every time you post you say you dont follow?

Neither does my cat. Not for lack of leadership.

 

[Airstrip One]

Sure looks like that is what progressive SJW's are trying to do....if I didn't know better I'd say y'all watched ISIS do these things in the ME and decide it was a good idea.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

We are choosing not to honor traitors. We are still going to remember what they did, and why southerners are beneath real Americans.

 

[Airstrip One]

How many Russian soldier & WWII war memorials are there in Berlin? I don't see the Germans tearing down those memorials yet, do you?

We don't have any other monuments to America's enemies on US soil. It is just the CSA that we have chosen to memorialize, and now we are starting to reverse that idiotic notion.

 

[j-mac]

Sorry, not biting. I feel no need to argue whether or not someone is a traitor when they covet the loss of an imagined right to secede. You've confessed.

If you need erudition on the subject just read Texas v White and about seven other scotus decisions and appellate decisions ruling that the secsion declared by those several states in rebellion
were void and illegal acts. Not bothering.

No serious thinker armed with legal knowledge believes unilateral secession is a right enjoyed by the several states, and that includes originalist jurist
Antonin Scalia.

I get the impression that you are misrepresenting Scalia, but that is neither here nor there. James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson disagree with you.

This country will never be the progressive authoritarian utopia you so wish it would be...

It is a shame, really I was looking to discuss the issue with you, but all you did was start with strawman, and insult, and degraded from there....While you won't change my mind, and I already know I won't change yours, it would seem that civil discourse is just too much for the likes of you.

Have a good night.

 

[Micawber]

I get the impression that you are misrepresenting Scalia, but that is neither here nor there. James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson disagree with you.

This country will never be the progressive authoritarian utopia you so wish it would be...

It is a shame, really I was looking to discuss the issue with you, but all you did was start with strawman, and insult, and degraded from there....While you won't change my mind, and I already know I won't change yours, it would seem that civil discourse is just too much for the likes of you.

Have a good night.

Yeah sure. Google Scalia and secession. Did you every take that flag off the capital grounds? Better stock up on your booze before Sunday.

Funny you acuse me of a straw man and then shove progressivvive authoritarian utopia in my mouth.

That's quite a leap of faith from my abhoring slavery and secession to progressive authoritarian utopia.

Utopia? Who the fuck isn't for that? Good night to you too. Go to five points and get slammed.

I provided you with a case citation to look up. You could have discussed it. Not upo to it.

 

[Airstrip One]

And Stalin oppressed half the German people after the war just like you lefties whine about the south doing to blacks before the Civil war. So what is the difference other than your fucked up logic? You justify one but not the other. What a fucking hypocrite you are.

It's very simple, really. This is not Doucheland or the Confederacy. In America, we choose not to have a culture as degenerate as that of the Nazis or the Confederates. We also do not need to honor their fallen, given that they represented evil and degenerate ways of life.

 

[j-mac]

Just as I thought....On Mica's suggestion, I looked up Scalia's letter to a movie producer named Turkewitz

He writes:



As everyone can see, Justice Scalia is speaking of post civil war, and I was speaking of pre....So, as I suspected he is misrepresenting, just not Scalia, but my argument....Dishonest to say the least.

 

[j-mac]

Yeah sure. Google Scalia and secession. Did you every take that flag off the capital grounds? Better stock up on your booze before Sunday.

Funny you acuse me of a straw man and then shove progressivvive authoritarian utopia in my mouth.

That's quite a leap of faith from my abhoring slavery and secession to progressive authoritarian utopia.

Utopia? Who the fuck isn't for that? Good night to you too. Go to five points and get slammed.

I provided you with a case citation to look up. You could have discussed it. Not upo to it.

I am sorry you are so miserable....

 

[Micawber]

I am sorry you are so miserable....

Not in the least. You quit.

I didn't misrep Scalia at all. Sorry his probity chafes your expectations of feilty to that ignominious cause of yours.

 

[Micawber]

Just as I thought....On Mica's suggestion, I looked up Scalia's letter to a movie producer named Turkewitz

He writes:

View attachment 5378

As everyone can see, Justice Scalia is speaking of post civil war, and I was speaking of pre....So, as I suspected he is misrepresenting, just not Scalia, but my argument....Dishonest to say the least.

In what way dishonest. He is an originalist. If he agreed with you that would have been an opportune time to say so, instead he agreed with me.
Your point was better during the articles of confederation and worse once the constitution was adopted, still worse after the civil war was won, and Texas v White the death knell.
To say nothing of 200 plus years of jurisprudence and absolutely zero support at all.

You are going to need to visit some neoconfederate websites to grab and paste some misrepresented support for your 100% false feigned belief.
You won't find it from ANY credible source any more than Shitshaper has any credible high impact scholarly journal support for his attack on climate science.

 

[j-mac]

"Kevin Williamson at NRO urges conservatives to do nothing. “The Left’s vandalism is intended mainly to get a rise out of the Right, in the hopes of getting some Republican to wrong-foot himself over a racial question,” he writes. Even if some conservatives sympathize with those who want to remove Confederate memorials—and plenty of prominent right-of-center writers clearly do—there’s no need to join them because the iconoclasm sweeping the country, says Williamson, “mainly consists of local authorities making democratic decisions about the disposition of public property,” and thus “there is a case for political quietism in this matter.”

That would be fine advice if it were true that this is really just about local authorities making democratic decisions about statues. It would even be fine if it were just about the moral preening of Democratic politicians and activists, seizing on an opportunity to shame and embarrass Southerners for gradually abandoning their party in favor of the GOP.

But the iconoclasm on display now is about more than anathematizing the Confederacy or scoring cheap political points against hapless Republicans. It’s part of the Left’s overarching critique of American constitutionalism, the goal of which is to overthrow that order."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/18/in-defense-of-the-monuments/

 

[j-mac]

In what way dishonest. He is an originalist. If he agreed with you that would have been an opportune time to say so, instead he agreed with me.
Your point was better during the articles of confederation and worse once the constitution was adopted, still worse after the civil war was won, and Texas v White the death knell.
To say nothing of 200 plus years of jurisprudence and absolutely zero support at all.

You are going to need to visit some neoconfederate websites to grab and paste some misrepresented support for your 100% false feigned belief.
You won't find it from ANY credible source any more than Shitshaper has any credible high impact scholarly journal support for his attack on climate science.

Is it beyond your ability to have civil discourse?

 

[Micawber]

Is it beyond your ability to have civil discourse?

You have no chops. Sorry. Ive made 20 points you've made none. Ive cited case law youve cited none. Ive cited YOUR favorite Scotus justice. Youve cited none. Troll intent is discerned. Block applied. Not my fault. You bring nothing. No facts, no law. You lose. Sigh.

Who is next? Who wants to lose to me next? Whatever this dumbass posts, I won't read it it or see it.

 

[Airstrip One]

"Kevin Williamson at NRO urges conservatives to do nothing. “The Left’s vandalism is intended mainly to get a rise out of the Right, in the hopes of getting some Republican to wrong-foot himself over a racial question,” he writes. Even if some conservatives sympathize with those who want to remove Confederate memorials—and plenty of prominent right-of-center writers clearly do—there’s no need to join them because the iconoclasm sweeping the country, says Williamson, “mainly consists of local authorities making democratic decisions about the disposition of public property,” and thus “there is a case for political quietism in this matter.”

That would be fine advice if it were true that this is really just about local authorities making democratic decisions about statues. It would even be fine if it were just about the moral preening of Democratic politicians and activists, seizing on an opportunity to shame and embarrass Southerners for gradually abandoning their party in favor of the GOP.

But the iconoclasm on display now is about more than anathematizing the Confederacy or scoring cheap political points against hapless Republicans. It’s part of the Left’s overarching critique of American constitutionalism, the goal of which is to overthrow that order."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/18/in-defense-of-the-monuments/

Southerners should be shamed and embarrassed before their American overlords.