Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.
51st attempt.
You are simply not going to steal hours of my day every day.
“Forced on them in that the slave owners had no choice in the matter.”
It is my understanding that anytime anything is forced onto someone they have no choice in the matter. Does your answer imply the existence of another type of coercion policy?
Too bad you couldn't find something I have written to prove your claim that my reference to economic and political self interest is hated hate speech.
So you invoke the name of the Gentlelady from Up Nawth, Minnesota's Fifth District. Her scary visage should have the desired effect on your auxiliary homies.
They are probably right now shaking in their boots.
Well... seems obvious, "hate speech" describes the entire Lost Cause -- hatred for the United States, hatred for the Union, hatred for "Up Nawth", hatred for Republicans, for Lincoln, Grant and that whole "hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean", as Robert Toombs famously said.
So what part of Lost Cause is not built on hatred?
But more specifically, when the delirious Rep Omar said, in reference to Israel, "It's all about the Benjamins, baby" she merely put a colorful turn on your own frequent references to "economic and political self interest".
So in Omar's case we quickly recognize that as hate speech.
In what sense is it not for jeffersondem?
“But just to be clear on this, we’re talking about our current President, so, if his words or deeds make Democrats howl, are you guys OK with that, or no?”
Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of your post 1102: “He makes them howl! Now there’s a word with some historical echoes...”
Your phrase “a word (howl) with some historical echoes” brought to mind Lincoln’s war against civilians in Georgia and the often-quoted federal promise to “make Georgia howl.”
But you have “just to be clear” indicated you were referring only to President Trumps historical echoes from the last rally.
OK, I accept that. I can’t, right this second, remember you ever deploying chaff. Or evading responsibility.
Are you equating being required to do something with use of force?
“Are you equating being required to do something with use of force?”
Yes, force or the threat of use of force.
Otherwise, the stop sign is just a suggestion.
No "chaff", just looking for your discernment principle here, if any.
It appears now that you do indeed favor Republicans making Democrats "howl" if, like, say, today's Democrat Rep. Omar they're from "Up Nawth".
But if they're jes' ole' boys from Georgia, then not so much.
Do I have that about right?
Interesting. But not surprising.
“Interesting. But not surprising.”
I am feeling generous. Keep your sword.
And the equine you rode in on.
I have never said anything about it before, but Lincoln's invasion of the South was illegal.
Again, not a surprising response.
So you say. But Lincoln didn't think so, and his duty under the Constitution required that he suppress rebellion. So using your definition then wouldn't you say Lincoln was forced to take the steps he took?
“So you say. But Lincoln didn’t think so, and his duty under the Constitution required that he suppress rebellion.”
It is not just me saying “consent of the governed.” Just a few years before Lincoln invaded the South, some really famous people up North were saying this:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”
And? The South did rise up. They did try to shake off the existing government. What they lacked was the power and, when you get right down to it, the motivation to win. Nothing in Lincoln’s speech guarantees those who resort to rebellion success.
Especially so since it happened long before Confederates formally declared war on the United States and began fighting Union troops in Union states, right?
Oh wait...
jeffersondem: "Yes, force or the threat of use of force.
Otherwise, the stop sign is just a suggestion."
Sorry, FRiends, I've stayed out of this one in hopes that at least one of you would eventually stumble onto the key point: one purpose of constitutionally defined representative government is to guarantee that laws authorizing use of government force against citizens are, by definition, the consent of the governed.
So issues addressed beginning in 1861 included 1) whether some people could arbitrarily declare themselves in "non-consent" and therefore removed from US citizenship, and whether, 2) if these same people then declared & waged war against their "previous country", they could & should be defeated militarily, then forced to comply with US laws?
The answers provided by history & constitutional law are: no and yes.
They leveraged a huge and impressive Might, fueled by considerable intonations of lofty virtue-signalling Right. Unfortunately for them the other guys's Might was greater. As a result they eschew the argument as crass and unseemly - even though the rebels built their unholy proposition squarely upon it.
Historians sympathetic to Lincoln and his invasion of the South have cobbled together some good-faith explanations of President Lincoln's decision to reverse his earlier advocacy of the Declaration of Independence.
Those explanations do not hold up to investigation but, arguably, are good-faith.
I know you must have been stunned to learn of the authority of the stop sign, but that does not completely explain your decision to forfeit this discussion.
Our back and forth is not sustainable unless you agree to make serious responses. Or at least write something humorous.
Grade B-plus for the intro . . . absolutely wonderful slap-down of your hapless associates. It must have rankled you to see them routed by the authority of the stop sign.
Grade A-minus for clarity of the text of the body of your post. There can be no mistaking your rejection of the Declaration of Independence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.