He honored Booth's actions.
Show by citation where he said that, and how what he posted amounts to hatefulness, that he hated someone, as with odium and burning despite.
Everyone else is pulling their load around here -- when you say someone said something, it isn't good enough. You have a history of twisting what people say in your own posts -- you came onto this thread in the first 100 posts and immediately mischaracterized someone. Wanna know where? Cite and quote nolu chan like you ought to, and I'll show you the same courtesy, and show you why what you posted was a mischaracterization. But then you know you did it, because that's what you do. I suspect that mischaracterizing other people's thoughts so you can evacuate your own emotional load on them is one of the principal attractions FR has for you -- but, hey, let's not get into posting like you do, okay?
[Me] B. "Typical"
[You] You guys never disagree with each other.
Counterfeit answer. Agreement among a group doesn't amount to being a "typical" or exemplary Neoconfederate. National Park Rangers agree that forest fires are bad for you -- but that doesn't make them Neoconfederates. What is the essential value of the Neoconfederate, that makes him a Neoconfederate -- and do any of us share it other than stand_watie? Cite and quote.
And for the record, we do disagree with one another. I disagree with stand_watie about breaking up the Union; he wants out, and I'd prefer to keep my options open. Right now I incline more toward kicking New England and the east bank of the Hudson River as high as the Fishkill River out of the Union, rather than withdrawing Dixie from it -- but that's just a notional, working position. But if you'd been paying attention to what you so easily run your mouth about, you'd know that.
[me] C. Neoconfederate
You live in the past....
Search on my posts, then come back here for your platter of cold crow, jerk.
..... and blame Lincoln for everything and the south for nothing,.....
Wrong again, I've blamed the South and Bobby Lee for plenty -- but you'd know that if you'd been paying attention before you decided to run your mouth about someone you don't know.
........and you deny historical documents such as the Declarations of Secession.
Black falsehood -- I've never denied historical documents. I defer to GOPcapitalist on the study of the Declarations of Secession, since he analyzed both the Declarations and the secession ordinances themselves, as well as other important, similar documents bearing on the Southern States' withdrawal from the Union.
I don't deny those documents. Like other people, I want them taken in context, not waved around like burning flags the way Marxist pseudohistorians like to do, and read from narrowly to make a Marxist troll's mendacious points about "liberation wars" and "vanguard leadership".
See above. [X2]
Nonresponsive times two. Points taken as conceded.
[me] And as long as your mouth's open, cite and quote something I posted that evinces certifiable hatred of someone or something.
Your post you said something like someone's grandpa was SS or something....Your first post.
dwills posted up that the descendant of a black Confederate soldier was a) suffering from Stockholm syndrome and b) ought to be deeply ashamed, that his ancestor had been a holocaust "collaborator". This manner of expression evokes specifically World War II, quislings, and the freiwilliger-SS who rallied to the Nazi cause from the occupied countries -- the lowest of the low, the moral lepers of the 20th century. dwills reviled this man in this way, for honoring his ancestor and claiming a part of the South's tradition of valor for his family and his race.
I gave it right back to dwills, and if you go back and read the post for comprehension, you will see that I made a cheap point on dwills's facile grammar to turn his odious spear back on him, and simultaneously make a point that dwills had tried to smear the man's grandfather by comparing him to quislings and SS camp guards, and then hanging the grandfather around his neck -- something called "taint of blood", which we conspicuously do not do in America. My point was that, while heaping contempt and moral odium on the long-ago black Confederate, dwills showed that he himself operates in a moral gutter of his own, one familiar to Marxist agitprop bores and revisionist historians, as they lay about them with their broad brushes dripping with tar.
Capiche?
I'm not going back 900 posts to look for it. He said it.
Everyone else is pulling their load around here -- when you say someone said something, it isn't good enough. You have a history of twisting what people say in your own posts -- you came onto this thread in the first 100 posts and immediately mischaracterized someone. Wanna know where? Cite and quote nolu chan like you ought to, and I'll show you the same courtesy, and show you why what you posted was a mischaracterization.
You seem to have the impression I care about what you think. I don't give a rat's behind what you think. Most of you guys are messed up beyond redemption. I'm just here countering your falsehoods.
But then you know you did it, because that's what you do. I suspect that mischaracterizing other people's thoughts so you can evacuate your own emotional load on them is one of the principal attractions FR has for you -- but, hey, let's not get into posting like you do, okay?
I'm here because I like to talk about politics. Sometimes it's necessary straighten out the lies about the hometown hero though.
Counterfeit answer. Agreement among a group doesn't amount to being a "typical" or exemplary Neoconfederate.
Yes it does.
National Park Rangers agree that forest fires are bad for you -- but that doesn't make them Neoconfederates. What is the essential value of the Neoconfederate, that makes him a Neoconfederate -- and do any of us share it other than stand_watie? Cite and quote.
Living in the past, revising history, blaming everyone but the south.
And for the record, we do disagree with one another. I disagree with stand_watie about breaking up the Union; he wants out, and I'd prefer to keep my options open. Right now I incline more toward kicking New England and the east bank of the Hudson River as high as the Fishkill River out of the Union, rather than withdrawing Dixie from it -- but that's just a notional, working position. But if you'd been paying attention to what you so easily run your mouth about, you'd know that.
I'm running my mouth because all you guys are posting to me at once. I have the peanut gallery all worked up. Funny how quoting the Constitution angers you guys so.
Search on my posts, then come back here for your platter of cold crow, jerk.
You live in the past.
Wrong again, I've blamed the South and Bobby Lee for plenty -- but you'd know that if you'd been paying attention before you decided to run your mouth about someone you don't know.
You haven't said a word about it. What do you blame them for?
Black falsehood -- I've never denied historical documents. I defer to GOPcapitalist on the study of the Declarations of Secession, since he analyzed both the Declarations and the secession ordinances themselves, as well as other important, similar documents bearing on the Southern States' withdrawal from the Union.
Like I said, you deny them. He denys them.
I don't deny those documents. Like other people, I want them taken in context, not waved around like burning flags the way Marxist pseudohistorians like to do, and read from narrowly to make a Marxist troll's mendacious points about "liberation wars" and "vanguard leadership".
They were the official word of the secessionists.
Nonresponsive times two. Points taken as conceded. dwills posted up that the descendant of a black Confederate soldier was a) suffering from Stockholm syndrome and b) ought to be deeply ashamed, that his ancestor had been a holocaust "collaborator". This manner of expression evokes specifically World War II, quislings, and the freiwilliger-SS who rallied to the Nazi cause from the occupied countries -- the lowest of the low, the moral lepers of the 20th century. dwills reviled this man in this way, for honoring his ancestor and claiming a part of the South's tradition of valor for his family and his race. I gave it right back to dwills, and if you go back and read the post for comprehension, you will see that I made a cheap point on dwills's facile grammar to turn his odious spear back on him, and simultaneously make a point that dwills had tried to smear the man's grandfather by comparing him to quislings and SS camp guards, and then hanging the grandfather around his neck -- something called "taint of blood", which we conspicuously do not do in America. My point was that, while heaping contempt and moral odium on the long-ago black Confederate, dwills showed that he himself operates in a moral gutter of his own, one familiar to Marxist agitprop bores and revisionist historians, as they lay about them with their broad brushes dripping with tar.
See...hatred.
free dixie,sw