The Cult of Trump

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s not exactly the lefts motto these days...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Says the person who needs to respond to almost every post in this forum that they disagree with for how many years. All hours of the day and night, week days and week nights.

At least you have provided a good. there.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Says the person who needs to respond to almost every post in this forum that they disagree with for how many years. All hours of the day and night, week days and week nights.

At least you have provided a good. there.

snarky

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

snarky

You must be rubbing off on me.

I did leave out weekends.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Says the person who needs to respond to almost every post in this forum that they disagree with for how many years. All hours of the day and night, week days and week nights.

At least you have provided a good. there.

i don’t see responding, and having the ability to move on, as being mutually exclusive. Your frustration is showing. Remember to save yourself some room for foaming at the mouth, for when we get closer to the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t see responding, and having the ability to move on, as being mutually exclusive. Your frustration is showing. Remember to save yourself some room for foaming at the mouth, for when we get closer to the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What would lead you to believe I was frustrated? As I said, I don't feel the need to constantly post - pretty much every day of the year, multiple times a day like you do.

I'm not foaming at the mouth. If you want to see a real angry guy, look at the loser who made this post:


vague insults from a little
twerp who can never criticize his own side or compliment the other side. bleating of the sheep XXXX, that’s 90% of what you do. what did i stay exactly, that was wrong?

from a guy who literally couldn’t bring himself
to showup here for weeks after the election.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'm not foaming at the mouth.

.

ummmm...you want to dig up dead people....sooooo

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

ummmm...you want to dig up dead people....sooooo

scummy traitors. They were dug up 1x before.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

scummy traitors. They were dug up 1x before.

Maybe you could deface a statue or headstones or something to help with that anger. Be sure to headbutt them a few times for good measure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

scummy traitors. They were dug up 1x before.

They were not traitors. Perhaps you couldn't answer if states are necessary because you don't understand why they were not traitors.

At the time, states had a lot more of their sovereignty intact than they do now. Their states had seceded from the union. They were patriots of the states they fought for, not traitors.

I understand Lincoln's argument that states could not secede without approval of the other states with whom they had a legal compact. But it wasn't clear then, nor totally so now, that the southern states did not have the right to secede. It certainly would be unfair to ask the average southerner what the complicated legal arguments were.

They fought with the same fidelity for their country as did the Union soldiers. Their sovereign states were their primary country, and the Confederacy was the new union to which their states belonged.

Lincoln understood that and saw no need to compound unnecessary animosities and to recognize the tragedy of brothers, literal or national, who were called to so brutally slaughter each other. Lincoln was not at all happy about having to kill so much of the flowering manhood of the South. He would have been repulsed by your point of view.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They were not traitors. Perhaps you couldn't answer if states are necessary because you don't understand why they were not traitors.

At the time, states had a lot more of their sovereignty intact than they do now. Their states had seceded from the union. They were patriots of the states they fought for, not traitors.

I understand Lincoln's argument that states could not secede without approval of the other states with whom they had a legal compact. But it wasn't clear then, nor totally so now, that the southern states did not have the right to secede. It certainly would be unfair to ask the average southerner what the complicated legal arguments were.

They fought with the same fidelity for their country as did the Union soldiers. Their sovereign states were their primary country, and the Confederacy was the new union to which their states belonged.

Lincoln understood that and saw no need to compound unnecessary animosities and to recognize the tragedy of brothers, literal or national, who were called to so brutally slaughter each other. Lincoln was not at all happy about having to kill so much of the flowering manhood of the South. He would have been repulsed by your point of view.

Lighten up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

scummy traitors. They were dug up 1x before.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't understand how anybody can support those POS still being in the same spots w/our heroes. Too bad you don't understand.

350 thousand Union soldier casualties and thousands of others to keep this country together and yet we are re-litigating everything today all over again.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

They were pardoned Paul, every single one of them. In order to heal the country and move forward. I know that’s a foreign concept to those still pissing and moaning about Columbus Day, but I’ve moved on from it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

^^^ This.

Originally Posted by detbuch

They were not traitors. Perhaps you couldn't answer if states are necessary because you don't understand why they were not traitors.

At the time, states had a lot more of their sovereignty intact than they do now. Their states had seceded from the union. They were patriots of the states they fought for, not traitors.

I understand Lincoln's argument that states could not secede without approval of the other states with whom they had a legal compact. But it wasn't clear then, nor totally so now, that the southern states did not have the right to secede. It certainly would be unfair to ask the average southerner what the complicated legal arguments were.

They fought with the same fidelity for their country as did the Union soldiers. Their sovereign states were their primary country, and the Confederacy was the new union to which their states belonged.

Lincoln understood that and saw no need to compound unnecessary animosities and to recognize the tragedy of brothers, literal or national, who were called to so brutally slaughter each other. Lincoln was not at all happy about having to kill so much of the flowering manhood of the South. He would have been repulsed by your point of view.

Col Robert E Lee resigned his commission from the US Army when he was asked by General Winfield Scott to take the reigns of the US Army. But to take command of the US Army would required Lee to invade his home state of Virginia. Would you attack CT if directed so from New York regardless of the reason? I do not condone his fighting for the CSA but I can understand when he said he had no desire to draw a sword except in the defense of his home state, which was Virginia, and his home, which is now (appropriately IMO) Arlington National Cemetery.

A terrible war, mismanaged by both sides, as a result of bad politicians and politics on both sides, and a horrible reconstruction afterward.

Many of the points being re-litigated today were resolved then and the ones that were not (subjugating black people for example) we need to a better job on fixing and making fair today. Revisionist history and re-contesting of 150 years ago under today's standards is entirely unfair, unjust, and impossible without serious consequences.

The debt to keep this country together was paid for in blood, 150 years ago.