Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hamilton Samuels]

From 2017

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Kind of the way MLK,Jr gets remembered.

Feet of clay, feet of clay.

Such a stupid, predictable comparison, designed purely to raise the hackles of others. I wish you would return to posting without intending to provoke and irritate.

Why is the comparison unfair?

Explain.

Oh, look.

A sea lion and it isn't even Ward.

"Stupid... intending to provoke and irritate."

If you want to assert that it's unfair, too, I will accept it.

Why don't you explain how the two are similar, Napoleon? After you do that, I will explain why it is a stupid comparison.

p.s. Given your idiotic use of Sealand as a country last time, I fully expect you to try something like, "well, if you can't say why it's unfair, then it must be fair." All that will do is illustrate your cowardice in making outlandish claims that you can't substantiate but won't back down from.

I guess you can't answer the question. But you don't have to lie, Josh. You brought up Sealand.

I did. I brought it up as the sort of answer you were likely to give.

And you confirmed it.

And of course you said "I guess you can't answer the question."

And you can't answer mine, which makes your statement stupid.

Or rather, illustrates what I already said.

Coward.

Your delusional behavior is noted.

Still no answer.

Still no basis for your comparison.

Still a coward.

My only delusion in this instance was thinking there might be something you could and would say to support your comparison.

So, coward, here is why it was a stupid comparison:

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country.
Robert E. Lee was a slave owner, for all that he claimed not to want to be.
Robert E. Lee oversaw the brutal punishment of his slaves, including dishing some out himself.
Robert E. Lee's image was intentionally polished to make him seem like a better person than he was over an extended period of time by people who benefited from hiding the truth about him.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a traitor to his country.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not own slaves.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not punish slaves nor is there any evidence to suggest he was brutal to anybody.
Martin Luther King, Jr's image has been intentionally warped [ii]by people with the same viewpoint as those who polished Lee's image, to make King seem less opposed to them than he was, co-opting his words and carefully trimming them.

Both were flawed human beings, but King's flaws were of a different degree and nature than Lee's, while the image-warping was done to elevate one and drag the other down a few notches - both the elevate whites who were and are anti-African-Americans.

Respond with substance or don't respond at all, Napoleon.

ŽZZZZ...You need a real relationship in your life besides that blow-up doll that came in the mail the other day. Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.

But that's you, josh. Ever ready to go off without taking time to really think that others' opinions are at least as valid as yours.

That trait likely explains why you are so alone and so lonely.

Ciao.

Loser.

”Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.”


Im gonna ask you explain this perspective.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/4/17193286/martin-luther-king-assassination-50th-anniversary-jeanne-theoharis


King is just a puppet, today, that is trotted out for political purposes...Lee was trotted out as a grand hero for political purposes.

There is a parallel.

If one can take the time to move past one's own biases and prejudices and political purposes.

Yeah, let’s equate the guy who fought against his country to maintain chattel slavery with the guy who dedicated his life to make the country that despised him a better place.

Said no one here but you and Josh.

Maybe read and THINK.

If you're able.

[Hairy Lime]

From 2017

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Kind of the way MLK,Jr gets remembered.[/b]

Feet of clay, feet of clay.

Such a stupid, predictable comparison, designed purely to raise the hackles of others. I wish you would return to posting without intending to provoke and irritate.

Why is the comparison unfair?

Explain.

Oh, look.

A sea lion and it isn't even Ward.

"Stupid... intending to provoke and irritate."

If you want to assert that it's unfair, too, I will accept it.

Why don't you explain how the two are similar, Napoleon? After you do that, I will explain why it is a stupid comparison.

p.s. Given your idiotic use of Sealand as a country last time, I fully expect you to try something like, "well, if you can't say why it's unfair, then it must be fair." All that will do is illustrate your cowardice in making outlandish claims that you can't substantiate but won't back down from.

I guess you can't answer the question. But you don't have to lie, Josh. You brought up Sealand.

I did. I brought it up as the sort of answer you were likely to give.

And you confirmed it.

And of course you said "I guess you can't answer the question."

And you can't answer mine, which makes your statement stupid.

Or rather, illustrates what I already said.

Coward.

Your delusional behavior is noted.

Still no answer.

Still no basis for your comparison.

Still a coward.

My only delusion in this instance was thinking there might be something you could and would say to support your comparison.

So, coward, here is why it was a stupid comparison:

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country.
Robert E. Lee was a slave owner, for all that he claimed not to want to be.
Robert E. Lee oversaw the brutal punishment of his slaves, including dishing some out himself.
Robert E. Lee's image was intentionally polished to make him seem like a better person than he was over an extended period of time by people who benefited from hiding the truth about him.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a traitor to his country.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not own slaves.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not punish slaves nor is there any evidence to suggest he was brutal to anybody.
Martin Luther King, Jr's image has been intentionally warped [ii]by people with the same viewpoint as those who polished Lee's image, to make King seem less opposed to them than he was, co-opting his words and carefully trimming them.

Both were flawed human beings, but King's flaws were of a different degree and nature than Lee's, while the image-warping was done to elevate one and drag the other down a few notches - both the elevate whites who were and are anti-African-Americans.

Respond with substance or don't respond at all, Napoleon.

ŽZZZZ...You need a real relationship in your life besides that blow-up doll that came in the mail the other day. Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.

But that's you, josh. Ever ready to go off without taking time to really think that others' opinions are at least as valid as yours.

That trait likely explains why you are so alone and so lonely.

Ciao.

Loser.

”Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.”


Im gonna ask you explain this perspective.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/4/17193286/martin-luther-king-assassination-50th-anniversary-jeanne-theoharis


King is just a puppet, today, that is trotted out for political purposes...Lee was trotted out as a grand hero for political purposes.

There is a parallel.

If one can take the time to move past one's own biases and prejudices and political purposes.

Yeah, let’s equate the guy who fought against his country to maintain chattel slavery with the guy who dedicated his life to make the country that despised him a better place.

Said no one here but you and Josh.

Maybe read and THINK.

If you're able.

Oh horse shit. That is typical: walk everything out to a level of commonality that pretty much covers everyone. Yeah, people use historic figures for political purposes. Lee. King. Washington. Lincoln. Twain. If anyone knew who Salmon Phucking Chase was they would use Salmon Phucking Chase. The problem with Lee is not they use fim for political purposes. And that has absolutely nothing to do your original comment. Which likened King to the mythology built up around Lee.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Motherfucking Moderate Democrats fuck us every time.

Whine some more. Some folks understand the Constitution, and respect it. Others? Not so much.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Where does it say the Senate majority must allow the minority a veto?

Article One, Section 5, Paragraph two.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

[josh]

From 2017

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Kind of the way MLK,Jr gets remembered.

Feet of clay, feet of clay.

Such a stupid, predictable comparison, designed purely to raise the hackles of others. I wish you would return to posting without intending to provoke and irritate.

Why is the comparison unfair?

Explain.

Oh, look.

A sea lion and it isn't even Ward.

"Stupid... intending to provoke and irritate."

If you want to assert that it's unfair, too, I will accept it.

Why don't you explain how the two are similar, Napoleon? After you do that, I will explain why it is a stupid comparison.

p.s. Given your idiotic use of Sealand as a country last time, I fully expect you to try something like, "well, if you can't say why it's unfair, then it must be fair." All that will do is illustrate your cowardice in making outlandish claims that you can't substantiate but won't back down from.

I guess you can't answer the question. But you don't have to lie, Josh. You brought up Sealand.

I did. I brought it up as the sort of answer you were likely to give.

And you confirmed it.

And of course you said "I guess you can't answer the question."

And you can't answer mine, which makes your statement stupid.

Or rather, illustrates what I already said.

Coward.

Your delusional behavior is noted.

Still no answer.

Still no basis for your comparison.

Still a coward.

My only delusion in this instance was thinking there might be something you could and would say to support your comparison.

So, coward, here is why it was a stupid comparison:

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country.
Robert E. Lee was a slave owner, for all that he claimed not to want to be.
Robert E. Lee oversaw the brutal punishment of his slaves, including dishing some out himself.
Robert E. Lee's image was intentionally polished to make him seem like a better person than he was over an extended period of time by people who benefited from hiding the truth about him.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a traitor to his country.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not own slaves.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not punish slaves nor is there any evidence to suggest he was brutal to anybody.
Martin Luther King, Jr's image has been intentionally warped [ii]by people with the same viewpoint as those who polished Lee's image, to make King seem less opposed to them than he was, co-opting his words and carefully trimming them.

Both were flawed human beings, but King's flaws were of a different degree and nature than Lee's, while the image-warping was done to elevate one and drag the other down a few notches - both the elevate whites who were and are anti-African-Americans.

Respond with substance or don't respond at all, Napoleon.

ŽZZZZ...You need a real relationship in your life besides that blow-up doll that came in the mail the other day. Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.

But that's you, josh. Ever ready to go off without taking time to really think that others' opinions are at least as valid as yours.

That trait likely explains why you are so alone and so lonely.

Ciao.

Loser.

”Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.”


Im gonna ask you explain this perspective.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/4/17193286/martin-luther-king-assassination-50th-anniversary-jeanne-theoharis


King is just a puppet, today, that is trotted out for political purposes...Lee was trotted out as a grand hero for political purposes.

There is a parallel.

If one can take the time to move past one's own biases and prejudices and political purposes.

Yeah, let’s equate the guy who fought against his country to maintain chattel slavery with the guy who dedicated his life to make the country that despised him a better place.

Said no one here but you and Josh.

You can't even own your own pigshit.

[josh]

Motherfucking Moderate Democrats fuck us every time.

Whine some more. Some folks understand the Constitution, and respect it. Others? Not so much.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Where does it say the Senate majority must allow the minority a veto?

Article One, Section 5, Paragraph two.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

In other words, it's optional.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Motherfucking Moderate Democrats fuck us every time.

Whine some more. Some folks understand the Constitution, and respect it. Others? Not so much.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Where does it say the Senate majority must allow the minority a veto?

Article One, Section 5, Paragraph two.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

In other words, it's optional.

In other words each House adopts it’s own rules.

[LarryBnDC]

Motherfucking Moderate Democrats fuck us every time.

Whine some more. Some folks understand the Constitution, and respect it. Others? Not so much.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Where does it say the Senate majority must allow the minority a veto?

Article One, Section 5, Paragraph two.


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Which means the filibuster is not in the Constitution and the Senate can drop it if it wants to.

[josh]

Ward is, of course, right.

We saw that when the GOP Senate refused to have hearings, let alone a vote, on Merrick Garland.

We saw that when the GOP Senators refused to allow a bi-partisan committee to look into 1/6/2021, pretending that they oppose political purpose committees, when they solely oppose Democratic Party majority committees or those that might make them look bad, even when even representation on it would be the case.

And therefore, (a) we can anticipate that the GOP will get rid of the filibuster if it serves their purposes, while they champion it now.

Or (b) if the Democratic members move to get rid of it, the GOP can put it back in when they get in power.

Yeah, right.

[bambu.]

Free Britney!

XXXXXXXXXXX

My world is allowing some Afghans ...ones who helped us... migrate to downunder.
Others who applied have been refused...something about "security risk".

[bambu.]

* Riots in Cuba.
* South Africa overrun by looting and riots...20,000 troops deployed.
* Riots in France at Macron's "Pass Sanitaire" Covid "vaccination passport" laws.
Rioting on Bastille Day...as happened...in 1789 to start the French Revolution.
"Liberte" they're crying out.
Yes, the unvaccinated objecting to not being able to move freely in French society.
Only the vaccinated allowed to travel on trains, planes, and coaches etc.
In bambuland the People would be giving Macron a medal...once everyone has had access to vaccination and those who want to be vaccinated have been.

[Hamilton Samuels]

From 2017

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Kind of the way MLK,Jr gets remembered.[/b]

Feet of clay, feet of clay.

Such a stupid, predictable comparison, designed purely to raise the hackles of others. I wish you would return to posting without intending to provoke and irritate.

Why is the comparison unfair?

Explain.

Oh, look.

A sea lion and it isn't even Ward.

"Stupid... intending to provoke and irritate."

If you want to assert that it's unfair, too, I will accept it.

Why don't you explain how the two are similar, Napoleon? After you do that, I will explain why it is a stupid comparison.

p.s. Given your idiotic use of Sealand as a country last time, I fully expect you to try something like, "well, if you can't say why it's unfair, then it must be fair." All that will do is illustrate your cowardice in making outlandish claims that you can't substantiate but won't back down from.

I guess you can't answer the question. But you don't have to lie, Josh. You brought up Sealand.

I did. I brought it up as the sort of answer you were likely to give.

And you confirmed it.

And of course you said "I guess you can't answer the question."

And you can't answer mine, which makes your statement stupid.

Or rather, illustrates what I already said.

Coward.

Your delusional behavior is noted.

Still no answer.

Still no basis for your comparison.

Still a coward.

My only delusion in this instance was thinking there might be something you could and would say to support your comparison.

So, coward, here is why it was a stupid comparison:

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country.
Robert E. Lee was a slave owner, for all that he claimed not to want to be.
Robert E. Lee oversaw the brutal punishment of his slaves, including dishing some out himself.
Robert E. Lee's image was intentionally polished to make him seem like a better person than he was over an extended period of time by people who benefited from hiding the truth about him.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a traitor to his country.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not own slaves.
Martin Luther King, Jr. did not punish slaves nor is there any evidence to suggest he was brutal to anybody.
Martin Luther King, Jr's image has been intentionally warped [ii]by people with the same viewpoint as those who polished Lee's image, to make King seem less opposed to them than he was, co-opting his words and carefully trimming them.

Both were flawed human beings, but King's flaws were of a different degree and nature than Lee's, while the image-warping was done to elevate one and drag the other down a few notches - both the elevate whites who were and are anti-African-Americans.

Respond with substance or don't respond at all, Napoleon.

ŽZZZZ...You need a real relationship in your life besides that blow-up doll that came in the mail the other day. Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.

But that's you, josh. Ever ready to go off without taking time to really think that others' opinions are at least as valid as yours.

That trait likely explains why you are so alone and so lonely.

Ciao.

Loser.

”Apparently, you can't see a parallel between each man being lionized in order to propagate a false narrative and move the political needle towards an intended outcome.”


Im gonna ask you explain this perspective.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/4/17193286/martin-luther-king-assassination-50th-anniversary-jeanne-theoharis


King is just a puppet, today, that is trotted out for political purposes...Lee was trotted out as a grand hero for political purposes.

There is a parallel.

If one can take the time to move past one's own biases and prejudices and political purposes.

Yeah, let’s equate the guy who fought against his country to maintain chattel slavery with the guy who dedicated his life to make the country that despised him a better place.

Said no one here but you and Josh.

Maybe read and THINK.

If you're able.

Oh horse shit. That is typical: walk everything out to a level of commonality that pretty much covers everyone. Yeah, people use historic figures for political purposes. Lee. King. Washington. Lincoln. Twain. If anyone knew who Salmon Phucking Chase was they would use Salmon Phucking Chase. The problem with Lee is not they use fim for political purposes. And that has absolutely nothing to do your original comment. Which likened King to the mythology built up around Lee.

Well, you're wrong on your assessment. Mythology is at the core of politics. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply a fool.

Hello, fool.

[Holly Martins]

 14 stacked quote boxes?   Only need to quote the part of a previous post you're replying to - we have scroll buttons,  if we need to see the entire chat history.   

And yes,  the old "these two people are alike in this way,  ergo they are alike in other ways" is garbage logic.    REL and MLK were both bipeds...


Supermajority rule “contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail….  a poison …one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory…[It] substitutes the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

                           Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 22, December 14, 1787


Writing 234 years ago, Alexander Hamilton cast supermajority rule as a poison causing a foreboding “weakness” in democracy — presciently describing America’s plight today.   

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/04/07/the_founding_fathers_rejected_filibusters_771612.html

[josh]

14 stacked quote boxes?   Only need to quote the part of a previous post you're replying to - we have scroll buttons,  if we need to see the entire chat history.   

And yes,  the old "these two people are alike in this way,  ergo they are alike in other ways" is garbage logic.    REL and MLK were both bipeds...


Supermajority rule “contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail….  a poison …one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory…[It] substitutes the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

                           Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 22, December 14, 1787


Writing 234 years ago, Alexander Hamilton cast supermajority rule as a poison causing a foreboding “weakness” in democracy — presciently describing America’s plight today.   

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/04/07/the_founding_fathers_rejected_filibusters_771612.html

They rejected them, but not only did not forbid such rules from being put in place, but subscribed to them a part of the time, themselves, while debating independence together.

[REDSTATEWARD]

14 stacked quote boxes?   Only need to quote the part of a previous post you're replying to - we have scroll buttons,  if we need to see the entire chat history.   

And yes,  the old "these two people are alike in this way,  ergo they are alike in other ways" is garbage logic.    REL and MLK were both bipeds...


Supermajority rule “contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail….  a poison …one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory…[It] substitutes the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

                           Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 22, December 14, 1787


Writing 234 years ago, Alexander Hamilton cast supermajority rule as a poison causing a foreboding “weakness” in democracy — presciently describing America’s plight today.   

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/04/07/the_founding_fathers_rejected_filibusters_771612.html

Funny how the filibuster did not stop such landmark legislation like Civil Rights and Voting Rights in the face of bitter democrat resistance.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Will they buy food and clothing or the latest iphone?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/14/politics/child-tax-credit-payments-explainer/index.html