President Trump Is Wrong On This One.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...enaming-trump/

This is a no win situation. These Bases, whether you agree are not, are named after men who lead an armed revolt against the United States of America in order to preserve the institution of Slavery.

This is NOT an issue worth defending. In fact, the President needs to support the renaming.

Is he every right trump is a pro Jew lefty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...enaming-trump/

This is a no win situation. These Bases, whether you agree are not, are named after men who lead an armed revolt against the United States of America in order to preserve the institution of Slavery.

This is NOT an issue worth defending. In fact, the President needs to support the renaming. Originally Posted by Jackie S

And yet you don’t have history right. It was about states rights, not slavery

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...enaming-trump/

This is a no win situation. These Bases, whether you agree are not, are named after men who lead an armed revolt against the United States of America in order to preserve the institution of Slavery.

This is NOT an issue worth defending. In fact, the President needs to support the renaming. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Why do things have to be renamed just because a few people don't like the history behind it?

Well, fuck me sideways!

Wasn't it the dim-retards who chose the original names?

Weren't all those bases built in states controlled by dim-retards?

Why weren't objections raised a century ago when the bases were christened with their current names?

And why wasn't there a peep of outrage or protest from the dim-retards for decades & decades afterwards?

Now all of a sudden the dim-retards wake up one morning and are soooo OFFENDED and ASHAMED to discover a few of our military bases were named after Civil War generals?

Well Jumping Jesus, I'm offended and ashamed to live in a country that elects such phony, two-faced, virtue-signaling (when it's safe to signal) jellyfish to represent us in the first place!

They have no backbone or moral principles they believe in, otherwise they would have brought this up decades ago!

They act strictly according to the whims of today's ignorant, impulsive, unruly street mobs - which now tell them what to think and how to vote!


Speaking of Jesus, BLM says He is next!

the same people attacking the names of the installations for being named after people who fought against united states forces for whatever reasons they had


are currently fighting against the united states

And yet you don’t have history right. It was about states rights, not slavery Originally Posted by farmstud60

I read a book, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. The war happened in large part because the Yankees hated the southerners and the southerners hated the Yankees. It might never have happened if not for some extreme Abolitionists in the north, like William Lloyd Garrison, who made Southerners out to be devils and who were not open to any compromise. Private charities and government could have paid money for the freedom of the slaves, which is what Britain did. The cost would have been minimal compared to the damage inflicted by the war. And there was a movement in the U.S. that was actually doing this, but Garrison and others shut it down.

Very few southerners were actually slave owners. Seemingly, there wasn't an economic motivation among the population at large in the south for the war. However, people in the south, and the north, were concerned about what would happen when you had millions of unemployed blacks if emancipation happened, maybe somewhat similar to concerns of the labor unions of yesterday and many of Trump's strongest supporters today about immigration. And more importantly there was public security. There was a slave revolt in Haiti where all the white people were killed, and something similar happened in the south in a couple of places where slaves led rebellions. Many southerners were afraid if blacks were empowered they'd kill whites.

Anyway, that's the reason for the title of the book, "A Disease in the Public Mind." People were too wrapped up in their emotions and not exercising common sense and not open to compromise.

While I don't view the Union cause as overwhelmingly right and just, and don't believe Lincoln is a great hero, I have to come down with Jackie on this one, if for no other reason than it's something that would help bring the country together and potentially get more Republicans elected to the Senate.

Btw, I would view Lincoln as the greatest American president if he'd ended slavery and avoided the deaths of 600,000 Americans, and avoided putting the South into penury for a couple of generations. But that's not what happened.

And yet you don’t have history right. It was about states rights, not slavery Originally Posted by farmstud60

No, it was about slavery. 800,000 white men died fighting over slavery.

More American white men have died for the rights of the non-white people of this world than vice versa yet we are universally hated and called racists.

Cancel leftism.

People were too wrapped up in their emotions and not exercising common sense. Perhaps there are parallels in the extreme partisanship you see in the USA today. Originally Posted by Tiny

No kidding. There are also big differences. If a popular political movement is driven by a tangible goal (e.g. abolish slavery in 1860, end the Vietnam War in 1968) then you can reasonably expect it to peter out once that goal has been achieved. The problem with today's demonstrations is their goal, insofar as it can be discerned, is something wholly intangible and amorphous - SOCIAL JUSTICE! That's a concept with 10 different meanings for 10 different people. It's not something we can measure and/or confidently proclaim when it has arrived.

Today's Social Justice Warriors aren't really interested in tangible goals anyway. They want a perpetual street revolution. They are caught up in the act of being heroic SJWs, it's part of their fucking self-identity. So they can never be satisfied, let alone appeased. They will forever be looking for new "causes" allowing them to posture as morally superior to a corrupt establishment. It's a mistake to think they can be reasoned with. Removing a few statues and re-naming a few military bases will only whet their appetite and lead to ever more outrageous and truly dangerous demands issued under the catch-all cloak of "social justice".

Like Shaun King said... Jesus is next!

Never thought I would see the day when Christianity and its millenia of moral teachings would come under attack by shallow, irreverent, sloganeering thugs pretending to have some kind of moral authority.

Are there no adults and no real Christians left in the room?

No kidding. There are also big differences. If a popular political movement is driven by a tangible goal (e.g. abolish slavery in 1860, end the Vietnam War in 1968) then you can reasonably expect it to peter out once that goal has been achieved. The problem with today's demonstrations is their goal, insofar as it can be discerned, is something wholly intangible and amorphous - SOCIAL JUSTICE! That's a concept with 10 different meanings for 10 different people. It's not something we can measure and/or confidently proclaim when it has arrived.

Today's Social Justice Warriors aren't really interested in tangible goals anyway. They want a perpetual street revolution. They are caught up in the act of being heroic SJWs, it's part of their fucking identity. So they can never be satisfied, let alone appeased. They will forever be looking for new "causes" allowing them to posture as morally superior to a corrupt establishment. It's a mistake to think they can be reasoned with. Removing a few statues and re-naming a few military bases will only whet their appetite and lead to ever more outrageous and truly dangerous demands issued under the catch-all cloak of "social justice".

Like Shaun King said... Jesus is next!

Never thought I would see the day when Christianity and its millenia of moral teachings would come under attack by irreverent thugs pretending to have morals or moral authority. Originally Posted by lustylad

Maybe 1968 actually isn't a bad analogy for what's happening today, and it offers some hope for the future. You had Abbie Hoffman, Elridge Cleaver, Huey Newton, Jerry Rubin and others pushing all types of causes, not just an end to the war in Vietnam. The street violence and demonstrations were as bad as now. Plus you had radical groups kidnapping people, planting bombs and robbing banks. What happened? Some of them grew up. Cleaver spent some time in exile in Algeria and figured out America wasn't so bad after all. He became a Mormon and a Republican. Rubin became a stockbroker and a businessman. Others like Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman either mellowed a bit or self destructed.

I read a book, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Originally Posted by Tiny

Finally!

When someone desires to sell books about a worn out topic, it's always a good idea to include ...

"An New Understanding" on the cover!

Here's a good idea .....

"Joseph Biden & Son" ... "A New Understanding"!

No, it was about slavery. 800,000 white men died fighting over slavery.

More American white men have died for the rights of the non-white people of this world than vice versa yet we are universally hated and called racists.

Cancel leftism. Originally Posted by friendly fred

That’s the point. It WAS about Slavery.

The myth of “the Cause” was created years after the war to propagate a sympathetic view of the “Old South”.

We can teach history without glorifying a institution that was WRONG.

Finally!

When someone desires to sell books about a worn out topic, it's always a good idea to include ...

"An New Understanding" on the cover!

Here's a good idea .....

"Joseph Biden & Son" ... "A New Understanding"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

"How I Completely Screwed the Pooch" ... "A New Understanding"

by Donald J. Trump

No, it was about slavery. 800,000 white men died fighting over slavery.

More American white men have died for the rights of the non-white people of this world than vice versa yet we are universally hated and called racists.

Cancel leftism. Originally Posted by friendly fred

According to the latest wikipedia estimate, there were 755,000 American deaths in the Civil War, nearly all white. That's an astounding 2.4% of the entire population. It would be equivalent to 8 million deaths today! By far our nation's bloodiest war. Even WW2 "only" saw 405,000 US fatalities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ualties_of_war

I think it is legitimate to ask - if the Union soldiers who shed their blood so profusely found it in their hearts afterwards to forgive and reconcile with their Southern counterparts, and if the Yankee descendants of those dead Union soldiers were not offended by the erection of statues and monuments depicting the generals their forefathers fought and died fighting against, then what gives these phony sanctimonious assholes in the streets today the moral right to act offended 150 fucking years later?

Never Create a Monument of a Demonicrat - A New Understanding

Rewriting History to Obscure Demonicrat Culpability - A New Understanding

Demonicrat Evils, Empires and those they Enslave - A New Understanding

I See Evil and it's name is Demonicrat - A New Understanding

Why the Dead always vote Demonicrat - A New Understanding

When the Know Nothing Party Became the Demonicrat Party - A New Understanding