Trump Announces Plans To Bring Back Fort ROBERT E. LEE

[Mike Honcho]

39 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Has there ever been anyone more stupid than Metal Helmet when she moves the goal posts a mile and then argues semantics like a 3 year old to avoid admitting she's wrong?  

Didn't you once spend a day arguing that "I could care less" is correct?  

[EternalShinyAndChrome]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Link?

You need a link for that? Really? I mean come on, Tim.  You know better than this and you know that's exactly what your side of the aisle is saying everyday. 

Playing dumb is not a good look for you.

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

You need a link for that? Really? I mean come on, Tim.  You know better than this and you know that's exactly what your side of the aisle is saying everyday. 

Playing dumb is not a good look for you.

They haven’t said we haven’t made any progress since the civil war lol.   They’ve said there’s still a long way to go.

EternalLies again.

[Horseman]

Amazing that people actually think the slavery was THE reason for the Civil War.   That all of a sudden the Yankees cared that much.  Unreal.  

[Maximum Overkill]

7 hours ago, TimHauck said:

And even if there was segregation in the north, doesn’t change the fact that slavery was the primary reason the South seceded.

They're still segregated up North. What would happen if a Black Family moved next to Bruno in Little Italy? 

Theres Black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods. That's still how it is up North. Not in South Carolina,  even though you think you know. 

[Ron_Artest]

5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Amazing that people actually think the slavery was THE reason for the Civil War.   That all of a sudden the Yankees cared that much.  Unreal.  

So you're saying that most historians are wrong?

[jbycho]

30 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

So you're saying that most historians are wrong?

Gutterboy picking and choosing which historians he says are right. 

[Maximum Overkill]

7 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

Why do you hate women so much?

Why do you like Men so much? 

[TimHauck]

44 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Amazing that people actually think the slavery was THE reason for the Civil War.   That all of a sudden the Yankees cared that much.  Unreal.  

Not “the” reason, the primary reason.  It’s ok to admit you were wrong about claiming “the north was going to starve to death.”  

[Horseman]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Not “the” reason, the primary reason.  It’s ok to admit you were wrong about claiming “the north was going to starve to death.”  

100% they were. They declared war be cause they were going to lose the ports. FACT. 

[TimHauck]

1 minute ago, Horseman said:

100% they were. They declared war be cause they were going to lose the ports. FACT. 

Can you please provide a credible source which states this.  Thanks in advance.

[Horseman]

Should have called it the war of State's Rights vs. Federal Government. That way the lemmings aren't crying about race every time they see a confederate statue.  

[squistion]

I keep expecting Trump to announce a fort named after Confederate General Jubilation T Cornpone (if he saw the film he might think that J.T. Cornpone was a real general and not from the Broadway play and film). 

Lil Abner - Jubilation T Cornpone

 

[seafoam1]

10 minutes ago, squistion said:

I keep expecting Trump to announce a fort named after Confederate General Jubilation T Cornpone (if he saw the film he might think that J.T. Cornpone was a real general and not from the Broadway play and film). 

Lil Abner - Jubilation T Cornpone

 

We'll see. But for now, it's simply Fort Lee. 

[Meglamaniac]

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

I keep expecting Trump to announce a fort named after Confederate General Jubilation T Cornpone (if he saw the film he might think that J.T. Cornpone was a real general and not from the Broadway play and film). 

Lil Abner - Jubilation T Cornpone

 

I didn't think you could more stupid things

I stand corrected

[seafoam1]

5 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

I didn't think you could more stupid things

I stand corrected

Liberals never fail to impress. 

[TimHauck]

39 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Can you please provide a credible source which states this.  Thanks in advance.

 

35 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Should have called it the war of State's Rights vs. Federal Government. That way the lemmings aren't crying about race every time they see a confederate statue.  

I’ll take that as a no.  Thanks.

[seafoam1]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

I’ll take that as a no.  Thanks.

I honestly don't think anyone cares how you "take it". 

[Maximum Overkill]

13 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Not “the” reason, the primary reason.  It’s ok to admit you were wrong about claiming “the north was going to starve to death.”  

You're terribly mistaken, take the L. They told you it was about slavery but it had NOTHING to do with Slavery. The North didn't want the blacks, that's why they immediately segregated them. It was about control, the South had the deepest ports, best trade access and most fertile land. Most blacks in the South were already free and living normal lives before the Civil War, and many identified as Confederate. HARD TO BELIEVE ISN'T IT?? And did you know that there were Black slave owners?? Your Northern History Books are lying. 

 

 

[Ron_Artest]

11 hours ago, Horseman said:

100% they were. They declared war be cause they were going to lose the ports. FACT. 

Here is the Mississippi letter of secession.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

No mention of ports.

 

[Ron_Artest]

South Carolina letter of secession 

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/south-carolina-declaration-of-secession-1860

Thank you @Horseman once again proving how incredibly dumb you are.

[Ron_Artest]

Virginia...

the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

 

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, Maximum Overkill said:

it had NOTHING to do with Slavery. 

 

LOL. That’s not what the Vice President of the Confederacy said. 

Even @Horseman disagrees with you

[MDC]

1 hour ago, Maximum Overkill said:

They told you it was about slavery but it had NOTHING to do with Slavery.

This is a mortal lock for Stupidest Post of the Day and it’s not even 8:30.  

[Mike Honcho]

57 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

LOL. That’s not what the Vice President of the Confederacy said. 

Even @Horseman disagrees with you

 

45 minutes ago, MDC said:

This is a mortal lock for Stupidest Post of the Day and it’s not even 8:30.  

 

The revisionist history regarding The Civil War disgusts me. 

[TimHauck]

3 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said:

You're terribly mistaken, take the L. They told you it was about slavery but it had NOTHING to do with Slavery. The North didn't want the blacks, that's why they immediately segregated them. It was about control, the South had the deepest ports, best trade access and most fertile land. Most blacks in the South were already free and living normal lives before the Civil War, and many identified as Confederate. HARD TO BELIEVE ISN'T IT?? And did you know that there were Black slave owners?? Your Northern History Books are lying. 

 

 

Your “evidence” is randos being interviewed on YouTube…are you @RLLD’s alt account?

Not to mention he didn’t even offer any evidence that slavery wasn’t a primary reason for why the South seceded.  He’s just claiming the North were hypocrites, and that black people had white slaves.  He said there were blacks that fought for the Confederacy but about that specifically said “the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don’t know.”  That’s not exactly a glowing recommendation of their life in the South.

I like his comment criticizing people for being offended by a “piece of cloth” though.  Good to know you have no issue with the tranny flag.

[RLLD]

35 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Your “evidence” is randos being interviewed on YouTube…are you @RLLD’s alt account?

Not to mention he didn’t even offer any evidence that slavery wasn’t a primary reason for why the South seceded.  He’s just claiming the North were hypocrites, and that black people had white slaves.  He said there were blacks that fought for the Confederacy but about that specifically said “the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don’t know.”  That’s not exactly a glowing recommendation of their life in the South.

I like his comment criticizing people for being offended by a “piece of cloth” though.  Good to know you have no issue with the tranny flag.

I am always bemused by the sudden sensitivity of liberals to validity of sources when it suits them

[TimHauck]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am always bemused by the sudden sensitivity of liberals to validity of sources when it suits them

Randos being interviewed on YouTube are pretty much never a valid source.  HTH

[RLLD]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Randos being interviewed on YouTube are pretty much never a valid source.  HTH

Perhaps you would hold their opinions in higher value if they instead were criticizing Trump.   You will have to excuse me if I decide to not hold your opinion as anything other than a partisan bit of nonsense.  Were you to apply that stance evenly, your words might hold value.

[TimHauck]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Perhaps you would hold their opinions in higher value if they instead were criticizing Trump.  

No, I wouldn’t.

[RLLD]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

No, I wouldn’t.

You may say that, but to date I have only observed your morality to arise when it suits your political positions. I allow that you might be maturing in this area, but will need to see something tangible to believe it.

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

You may say that, but to date I have only observed your morality to arise when it suits your political positions. I allow that you might be maturing in this area, but will need to see something tangible to believe it.

Please link to me using a rando being interviewed on YouTube as evidence.  Thanks in advance 

[RLLD]

20 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Please link to me using a rando being interviewed on YouTube as evidence.  Thanks in advance 

Normally...I would not spend too much time, but since you asked so nicely, and I have time to search through years of posts....lets just get down this road, shall we? 

Let's start with this post....

Now, you used the term "reportedly" as if you ingested that thought or position from some random source, but gave it enough credence to post about it.. Now while you backpeddal, spin it....reframe it....all that jazz, I will keep looking....since you are so sure you are impartial....

[RLLD]

34 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Please link to me using a rando being interviewed on YouTube as evidence.  Thanks in advance 

I like this one because you just beleive anyone with a blog is a "phd"....or that having a PHD matters...

But linking to a blog for your position?  What, was wikipedia down?

[RLLD]

40 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Please link to me using a rando being interviewed on YouTube as evidence.  Thanks in advance 

Hold the phone.....I see a trend here...

OK, you little whiney b!tch.....you are in every thread asking over and over again link link? link? link..  like you have some perverted version o-f Tourette's...

And then when you get the link, yo just pretend it is not valid...

I am  sorry dood, that is a total b!tch move..

[Meglamaniac]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Hold the phone.....I see a trend here...

OK, you little whiney b!tch.....you are in every thread asking over and over again link link? link? link..  like you have some perverted version o-f Tourette's...

And then when you get the link, yo just pretend it is not valid...

I am  sorry dood, that is a total b!tch move..

T minus 5 before he calls you sheep

[RLLD]

1 minute ago, Meglamaniac said:

T minus 5 before he calls you sheep

I am sorta p!ssed myself here, I should have noticed this......but did not until invited to provide some proof, now I see him for what he really is....

[Strike]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am sorta p!ssed myself here, I should have noticed this......but did not until invited to provide some proof, now I see him for what he really is....

He once got in to an argument with me about whether Sam Bankman Fried was going to testify in front of congress.  My evidence was a well sourced article from a reputable source like the AP or something, and his was a chat message from some random gamer in a gaming chat room. And he argued with me the entire night over whether SBF was going to testify.  Of course, he finally had to admit I was right but the point is don't waste your time with him.  It's truly a WASTE of time.

[RLLD]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

He once got in to an argument with me about whether Sam Bankman Fried was going to testify in front of congress.  My evidence was a well sourced article from a reputable source like the AP or something, and his was a chat message from some random gamer in a gaming chat room. And he argued with me the entire night over whether SBF was going to testify.  Of course, he finally had to admit I was right but the point is don't waste your time with him.  It's truly a WASTE of time.

Sadly, I see it now.....

[TimHauck]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

He once got in to an argument with me about whether Sam Bankman Fried was going to testify in front of congress.  My evidence was a well sourced article from a reputable source like the AP or something, and his was a chat message from some random gamer in a gaming chat room. And he argued with me the entire night over whether SBF was going to testify.  Of course, he finally had to admit I was right but the point is don't waste your time with him.  It's truly a WASTE of time.

I admitted I was wrong that he “was planning” to testify for that particular hearing, but he did refuse to testify for a different one.  And he never did end up testifying since he got arrested, so technically you were never proven totally correct there.

You STILL won’t admit that you believed an incorrect CBS article about the kid in North Dakota…