No, I’m saying that when someone says that men who fought for the South deserved to be exterminated is wrong. How you conflate that with being Democrat is your problem.
If a Southerner says, ‘we’ll fight for victory or we’ll be exterminated.” is a far cry from a Southerner saying, “The Northerners all have to be exterminated,” The first is a will to fight or die. The second is a desire for holocaust. It’t not my fault you don’t know the difference.
You can use Saul Alynsky all you want to try and demonize my values and defense of the men in grey, but you’re the one being exposed, not me. You lost the argument when you slandered me as a Democrat...what’s next NAZI? HOMOPHOBE? RACIST? My God don’t to the distance and claim I’m a TRUMP SUPPORTER!
What a tool you are.
But if we understand the word "exterminated" in the same sense Jefferson Davis meant it, then it really only means: killed or defeated in battle.
Jefferson Davis, I'm certain, did not intend to imply that anyone other than soldiers in battle should be "exterminated".
You disagree?
panzerkamphwageneinz: "How you conflate that with being Democrat is your problem."
Because Democrats are all about, among other things, speech police, which you might understand better if I translate it to your own language: Rede Polizei.
Before the Civil War Democrats imposed a gag order on Congress to prevent any discussion of slavery there.
Today Democrats declare a long list of words & topics "off limits" as not "politically correct".
So, whenever you find yourself trying to control the language & words of others, that's your little inner Democrat at work.
panzerkamphwageneinz: "If a Southerner says, ‘we’ll fight for victory or we’ll be exterminated.”
is a far cry from a Southerner saying, “The Northerners all have to be exterminated,”
The first is a will to fight or die. "
Of course, but it's very easy to get sloppy with language and say something you don't intend.
For example, if you say, "We are fighting for our independence and that, or extermination, we will have," think about just who that "we" might refer to and what form "extermination" might take.
Of course it's all just hyperbole, but when is hyperbole OK and when not?
OK when you use it but not OK when I do?
panzerkamphwageneinz: "The second is a desire for holocaust.
It’t not my fault you don’t know the difference."
Of course I know the difference, but there was no Holocaust in the Civil War, either literal or figurative, regardless of hyperbole.
Therefore, a discussion of Civil War "extermination" cannot refer to something which didn't yet exist.
panzerkamphwageneinz: "You can use Saul Alynsky all you want to try and demonize my values and defense of the men in grey, but you’re the one being exposed, not me. "
But nobody is demonizing anyone, except when you accused Jefferson Davis of not being a gentleman for using the word "extermination" of his own people!
I merely pointed out that "extermination" does not always mean literal or figurative Holocaust.
panzerkamphwageneinz: " You lost the argument when you slandered me as a Democrat..."
Well, real Democrats can't be slandered, because they take it as a badge of honor.
If the President calls them "fake news" they love it, because it makes them legit in their viewers eyes.
So, if you feel somehow slandered to be called Democrat, then you aren't really one, regardless of your latent speech-police tendencies.
panzerkamphwageneinz: "...what’s next NAZI? HOMOPHOBE? RACIST?
My God don’t to the distance and claim I’m a TRUMP SUPPORTER!"
No, only Democrats do cr*p like that, and your inability to grasp the point here suggests you may be more of one than you wish to admit.