Octopus Overlords

pr0ner wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:21 pm Trump is bleating about coal production being up this year on Twitter. Oy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 7708496897

Global warming is hurting people’s health a bit more than previously thought, but there is hope that the Earth — and populations — can heal if the planet kicks its coal habit, a group of doctors and other researchers said.

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:59 pm http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-r ... ert-e-lee/

Sums up my views on the "controversy".

We rob one group of citizens of their heritage to please another.

We rob one group of citizens of their heritage to please another.

hepcat wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:09 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:59 pm http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-r ... ert-e-lee/

Sums up my views on the "controversy".

We rob one group of citizens of their heritage to please another.

How dare them uppity blacks get upset that good ol’ boys wanna celebrate slavery.

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:59 pm http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-r ... ert-e-lee/

Sums up my views on the "controversy".

It’s true that those statues didn’t go up right away. The South lay impoverished. But monuments were erected as soon as the shattered South could raise the funds.

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:18 pm

hepcat wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:09 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:59 pm http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-r ... ert-e-lee/

Sums up my views on the "controversy".

We rob one group of citizens of their heritage to please another.

How dare them uppity blacks get upset that good ol’ boys wanna celebrate slavery.

Who said anything about celebrating.

Do you consider Memorial Day and Veterans Day celebrations? I don't.

We are simply talking about discussing history in a context that recognizes the realities of the day.

hepcat wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 pm While your attempt at trying to draw a false analogy would make Trump beam with pride, it’s not really the point, is it? Also, if you don’t think those folks flying confederate flags at the rallies weren’t celebrating then you’re also near Hannity levels of self delusion.

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:29 pmI have no interest in them. I am simply saying that Kelly wasn't wrong.

geezer wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:29 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:18 pm

hepcat wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:09 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:59 pm http://nypost.com/2017/10/31/kelly-is-r ... ert-e-lee/

Sums up my views on the "controversy".

We rob one group of citizens of their heritage to please another.

How dare them uppity blacks get upset that good ol’ boys wanna celebrate slavery.

Who said anything about celebrating.

Do you consider Memorial Day and Veterans Day celebrations? I don't.

We are simply talking about discussing history in a context that recognizes the realities of the day.

Placing them in the context of their times is appropriate, as is understanding that we can't assign the motivations of 160 years ago within the framework of today and hope to have an accurate picture of the reason they acted as they did. That said, there's no reason to continue to honor supporters of behavior that we now understand to be barbaric.

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:41 pm There is no reason to start condemning them either. There is a lot more depth to the issues of the times

Exodor wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:21 pm

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:41 pm There is no reason to start condemning them either. There is a lot more depth to the issues of the times

Lee and all the other confederates committed treason. It was treason in 1861 and it's treason today.

Why would we honor those who took up arms against our country?

General Grant saw to it that Confederate military personnel would not be charged. First, he wrote the surrender terms to include that provision. Second, when he learned that there was discussion of trying Lee, he explained to the Secretary of War that he had given his word to Lee, and he would resign his commission and let the press know why if charges were brought against Lee. He was a very popular man at the time. Grant was following what Lincoln’s policy would have been, but it’s pretty clear that he believed in it.

Second, treason is not as clearcut as people today want to think. Before the Civil War, the question of whether states could leave the Union really hadn’t been addressed (although some New England states—the very ones who wanted to try Confederate leaders—had almost seceded themselves 1814–1815.) When Lee was at West Point, the textbook on U.S. government said that secession was legal. To try Lee or any other leader for treason would have been to put secession on trial. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, was probably the greatest legal mind of his time, but he didn’t seem to believe that the case could be made.

And don’t drag out the “Lee took an oath and violated it” response. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S, Army before joining the Virginia military forces (which had not yet become part of the Confederate forces. Not all bad decisions amount to treason, as much as people not involved might want them to.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:10 am Plea bargaining does not change the facts.

President Andrew Johnson was another advocate of harsh treatment for Lee and his generals, but he was soon to learn his views were in direct contrast to those of the North’s war hero, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. The Appomattox terms of surrender offered and signed by Grant included the clause “…each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.” Grant had wanted peace and included this line to ensure there would be no future reprisals against the Confederates.

But on June 7, 1865, U.S. District Judge John C. Underwood in Norfolk, Virginia, handed down treason indictments against Lee, James Longstreet, Jubal Early, and others stating the terms of parole agreed upon with Lee were “a mere military arrangement, and can have no influence upon civil rights or the status of the persons interested.” When Lee, who was preparing to apply for amnesty, became aware of the indictments, he wrote Grant asking if the Appomattox terms were still in effect.

After reading Lee’s letter, Grant forwarded his own views to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton on June 16, 1865:

In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.

Scoop20906 wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:14 am I had no idea you were a confederate apologist too. If Kelly remarks the moon landing never happen will you be posting footage of how the American flag on the moon was blowing in the wind on the sound stage?
I see you trying your hardest to sound reasonable at times but it’s so insincere that at this point I do not think you can tell. Your only purpose when you post on here is to spin for your shill. And you are terrible at it too. Just like the flunkies you are supporting.
Zzzzz. Ok I’m bored with you again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rip wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:48 am I don't need to apologize for them, they no longer exist, like the Romans they were defeated and vanquished from existence.

Hopefully you realize this arrogant righteousness they are painted with is easily applied to all of America in how they treated native americans. No one's ancestors are without blood on their hands from barbaric acts in their history.

Rip wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:29 pm

hepcat wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 pm While your attempt at trying to draw a false analogy would make Trump beam with pride, it’s not really the point, is it? Also, if you don’t think those folks flying confederate flags at the rallies weren’t celebrating then you’re also near Hannity levels of self delusion.

I have no interest in them. I am simply saying that Kelly wasn't wrong.

“What’s so strange about this statement is how closely it tracks or resembles the view of the Civil War that the South had finally got the nation to embrace by the early 20th century,” she said. “It’s the Jim Crow version of the causes of the Civil War. I mean, it tracks all of the major talking points of this pro-Confederate view of the Civil War.”

Kelly makes several points. That Lee was honorable. That fighting for state was more important than fighting for country. That a lack of compromise led to the war. That good people on both sides were fighting for conscientious reasons. Both McCurry and David Blight, a history professor at Yale University and author of “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory,” broadly reject all of these arguments.


“This is profound ignorance, that’s what one has to say first, at least of pretty basic things about the American historical narrative,” Blight said. “I mean, it’s one thing to hear it from Trump, who, let’s be honest, just really doesn’t know any history and has demonstrated it over and over and over. But General Kelly has a long history in the American military.”

Blight described Kelly’s argument in similar terms as McCurry — an “old reconciliationist narrative” about the Civil War that, in the past half a century or so has “just been exploded” by historical research since.

Rip wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:48 am Hopefully you realize this arrogant righteousness they are painted with is easily applied to all of America in how they treated native americans. No one's ancestors are without blood on their hands from barbaric acts in their history.

pr0ner wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:38 am Trump is now, in his way, blaming Democrats for yesterday's attack in NYC thanks to watching Fox and Friends. Apparently the guy entered the US via a "Diversity Visa Lottery Program", which Trump called a "Chuck Schumer beauty", and that there can be no more "Democrat Lottery Systems".

Fox and Friends were tagged in two of the tweets.