The Right Side of the News

Here are 4 calm, respectful responses to Faith; Your picture is painted about as well as every picture liberals paint.

So it's okay for the left to hate, but the right can't "fight fire with fire" when it sees the need? Hate in the U.S. has been in high gear since Nov. 8th 2016, and it hasn't come from the right.

This is very telling about today's Democrat party. Do you know what Lee's views were on slavery?

quote:

---

Lee held slavery to be an evil institution

---

and;

quote:

---

Lee in his well-known analysis of slavery from an 1856 letter called it a moral and political evil.

---

Robert E. Lee - WikipediaLet me guess, you don't care. All the civil war was, was a fight between those who loved slavery and those who disagreed with it, and that's the end of it as far as you're concerned, right?The war was much more complex than that. To pretend it wasn't, to pretend that you know what the mindset of people was back in those days is typical of the knee-jerk thinking that is increasingly going on with liberals. Lee seems to have believed that if slavery was slowly phased out by the free will of the largely Christian mindset of those days, and increasing technology in the uses of steel and machines, that the transition away from it could be much smoother than new laws passed and ending it abruptly. He knew that many of the suddenly freed slaves wouldn't know what to do with themselves. That problem was very clear in the decades following the war, and the problem isn't completely gone today.It's not fair to say that Lee was ~one of~ the most prominent, respected people involved in the southern cause. He was THE MOST prominent respectful person of the south in that war. You might want to check out his many accomplishments in the above Wikipedia link. My elementary school history book portrayed him as a decent man, and I even happen to have a close-by, personal reference to him. And that reference agrees perfectly with the picture most good history books paint of him. My great-grandfather was a boy in Maryland during that war, his father was a staunch Union supporter, he was a guide for one of the union armies. Yet here is what my great-grandfather said about Lee;

quote:

---

"Gen. Lee was at Austin Poffenbarger's house where he made his headquarters. Austin and my father were friends and neighbors. Us boys wanted to see what Gen. Lee looked like, so we went over there. That's another time I won't ever forget.

​

"Gen. Lee came out in the yard to talk to us. I thought then that I had never seen such a handsome man and I'm sure I haven't since; at least not one who made the impression on me that Lee did.
"The general talked to us kindly, asked us about our schools and our farms and warned us to keep out of danger. It didn't make any difference to us boys whether our fathers were Unionists or Confederates; Gen. Lee was a hero to us.

---

My great-grandfather died before I was born, but Message 727 (another thread from awhile back) explains where I got this from. If there'd have been a black boy in that group, do you think Lee would have said the same thing? That he wouldn't have wanted to see a 10 year old black boy killed in crossfire any more than he would have wanted it to happen to one of those white boys? Just how hate-filled and distorted is your view of him?If you don't care about any of this, if you just close your eyes and hold your ears and call him a racist, then what you're doing is calling pretty much half of the U.S. racist, as it was 155 / 160 years ago. Does that mean the ENTIRE U.S. was racist in 1820, or 1830? As Trump referred in the video Faith put up a few dozen messages back, does that mean George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were racists too, since they owned slaves?Trump and other Republicans often claim how much they love and respect their country. But when liberals claim they do as well, it just doesn't go along with the disrespect they show for it's history and it's prominent historical figures.The point of all this? There really were "fine people" in Charlottesville defending the statue, and Trump really wasn't a racist by saying it.

And it would be really nice if the 12 haters against her here were that honest.

I remember you from a few years back, you're a pretty good poster and I appreciate it.I think there is a big difference in Christian standards when the subject is a one on one, personal conflict between a Christian and another person, versus expressing opinions about differing societal ideologies. There's no way to define just where the line is between "hate", and "strong opposition" to a differing political view. That's why the liberals are having such a hard time with Faith's posts. They also don't understand how tough, and challenging it is to defend ones views against a group of 10 to 15 people, but I've been there and I understand it very well. There's not a liberal poster here who would last one hour against a group of 10 or 15 concise, polite conservatives. If they think I'm wrong about that, I'd invite them to link me to proof of that. It's true that Democrats/liberals don't agree with Trump when it comes to environmental standards, tax cuts, immigration, foreign relations etc., but it's impossible not to see their hatred of him personally, whether it's in places like these forums or mainstream news reports. It's partly understandable, the news media is used to people like Reagan, or Bush 41 or 43, who just used to smile and get red in the face and take their insults and do their best to answer their stupid questions. They resent Trump's bluntness to them. It helps them to somewhat, or completely forget about what's good for the country, and makes getting even with him personally their top priority. It's impossible to have "protection of the environment" as described by a self-serving government, without a loss of individual freedom. It's impossible to have "social justice" (redistribution of earnings by a self serving government) without a loss of the individual freedoms of those who earn those confiscated earnings. History always has shown BIG losses of individual freedoms when a self serving government wants only itself to have guns. You seem to desire utopia in an imperfect world. And trust the government to make it happen. And there's seldom an option to turn it all back if it doesn't work. The main factor that the U.S. seems to use to determine if a president is doing a good job is the economy. I think a lot of voters that voted against him in 2016 will be voting for him in 2020 for that reason alone. I'm also seeing evidence that those voters who voted against him in 2016 are getting tired of the witch-hunts against him. What has the Democrat majority in the house accomplished since they took over? Nothing at all, other than attacks against Trump. CNN, and other mainstream news outlets don't even seem to make a secret of the fact that attacking Trump are more important to them than actually reporting news. I've no doubt that some organization, or individual like George Soros, has dangled a major cash prize in front of any Democrat or journalist who can make THE significant contribution to ending his presidency before 4 years is up. They all just keep trying and failing, and the anger builds.

Primarily yes, but it wasn't that simple. The North at that time seems to have been very similar to the sanctuary cities of today. They wanted slavery to end suddenly, but they didn't want to deal with all the problems it would cause. Most slaves were in the south, and they wanted only the south to deal with the aftermath. Just like today's sanctuary cities, they want illegals to come to the U.S. but they don't want to deal with too many of them. Trump made that clear when he offered to bus all the illegals he could to sanctuary cities, and then we all watched them cry about that. Contrary to politically correct beliefs, the North, in 1865, wasn't all lovie dovie at the thought of newly freed blacks running around in their cities. There is evidence of RACISM toward blacks in northern cities, by businesses and politicians, for 70, 80, 90 years after the civil war ended. Would you like to see a little of that evidence? There's nothing in those paragraphs that changes the brief summaries I posted about Lee's views.

quote:

---

Several historians have noted the paradoxical nature of Lee's beliefs and actions concerning race and slavery.

---

It's "paradoxical" only because it's not possible for anyone today to go back in time and understand that generation's views of the world, when they couldn't see how the future would play out. YOU DID, IN Message 1464 I LOVE THIS PLACE! I largely don't because 80 years later, business leaders and politicians in northern cities were fine with not admitting blacks to many movie theaters and restaurants. But since they were from the north, I guess they weren't racists. But it means respecting the views of others in your country who don't want traditional, time honored monuments to be torn down because of nothing more than emotional whims.

Because you made a false statement, and got busted for it. So you now agree that your statement was FALSE? Let's look at it again;

quote:

---

We have an entire group of calm, respectful people.

---

"Cherry picking" is not the issue, if you claim an entire group of people to be calm and respectful, it only takes one example of one of them going into an emotional, profanity laced rant that would make an Origin-of-Species thumping middle school child blush, to make your statement 100% false. You don't agree? Can we say that Jeffery Dahmer was an absolutely fine person because it was only a comparative few minutes of his several million minute long life where he killed and ate people? Does one of your calm, respectful people get a pass just because he lost his calmness and respectfulness just for one sentence? "The floor"? A floor that consists of nothing more than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's base?

What the North's intentions were undoubtedly varied greatly among northerners in the times leading up to, and in the early stages of the war. I believe the general consensus of the North WAS to end slavery as quickly as possible, considering their aggression in starting the war (they fired the first shots, in southern territory) and the following Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment. And my point is that that is ALL the North was concerned with, they showed little if any concern about how the suddenly freed slaves were supposed to fit in to society at that time. While society at that time was primitive compared to today, it was more complex than the African areas where most of the slaves came from. (largely against their will) The implication of sanctuary cities is that illegals don't have problems, that they seeking a better life, seeking to do jobs that Americans aren't willing to do, will be almost nothing but a benefit to their cities. Their sudden realization that too many of them could cause them unforeseen problems, is them admitting something they've probably known all along, that there are good reasons for immigration laws. But San Francisco for example, wants as many of them as possible in the country for their votes, but they'd rather others far from them, in border towns, deal with their illiteracy and all their problems. Democrats will get their votes, that's the only thing sanctuary cities want from immigrants.All the North seemed to want was for recently immigrated blacks to not be slaves, yet they expected the South to deal with their likely problems in adjusting to life in the U.S. Yet the problem was much more minor with those freed slaves than it is today with illegal immigration. There was no free stuff in those days, and no political party was constantly calling for it. Forcing them to finally admit that illegal immigration DOES have problems is a big first step, thank you Trump. If there were "racists everywhere", then it makes sense (160 years later) to attempt to either get even with all of them, or none of them. If we can't do anything to the arrogant business owners in northern cites who refused to admit blacks into their businesses as late as 1950, then we don't need to attempt to get even with Robert E. Lee and all those today who have an admiration for him.Why would anyone today have an admiration for Robert E. Lee? My guess is that most soldiers during that war were far more concerned with their own skin than they were with 11 or 12 year old boys blundering onto a battlefield and getting killed. I'd guess that Lee had other things to think about when he saw those boys gathered outside his headquarters. I don't think his questions about "their schools and farms" was high on his list of things to know. He was taking a little time to gain their admiration and respect, so they'd listen to him when he warned them to "stay out of danger". It means something to me, and I don't see a knowledge or interest of U.S. history when I see people just refer to him as a racist and want to rip his memorials down and try to erase history.If there were "racists everywhere", and none of us can thoroughly understand what times were like back then, maybe accusations of racism of past generations isn't appropriate, in going so far as stirring up conflict by removing monuments that some people don't want removed. Why can't some things be left alone?As has been pointed out, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is there a timeline when THEIR memorials come down? Is that future time a secret, of does it happen at the whim of some future gangs of angry Democrats? And that quote shows nothing more than a sloppy generalization, and lack of interest in actual American history. Apparently to whom? The black racists that are so vocal in the U.S. today? To Jussie Smollett? My point is that memorials were put into place in the past, by people who were closer to those moments in history than we are. My point is that if changing something for the sake of change creates conflict, then LEAVE IT ALONE.

Hellllooooooo down there!!!!!!!!! If I have a shovel, you're on the world's biggest excavator, and you're halfway to China!I have no idea what it's like to post as part of a gang of 10 or 15 people, to mercilessly hammer on one person of another view, being part of a group constantly stumbling and falling over each other trying to cover for, prop up, come at the person from several directions etc. I wouldn't feel the need to do it, I'm confident enough in my own position to depend on myself. But I see that some members of those groups are sometimes too frantic to carefully enough read what their allies say, then make a laughable generalization about how well they all work together! HahahahaI'm sure you clearly see what you did, and you might even try to avoid it in the future. But I'm not expecting any miracles on that front either. So I'll leave you alone now, go ahead and fire up that excavator and enjoy your last word. I'm sure your helpers will support you.

That's strange, I've seen more than once on these forums people who are not extreme left wing Democrats refer to ANYONE else as "Trump's base". I don't agree with everything Trump says - is there anything that AOC says that you disagree with? I can't imagine what it would be.Here's something Trump said that I don't agree with, he said that no future president should have to put up with a witch-hunt investigation like he did. I don't agree, it there's something questionable about any Democrat president, it should be gone after by Republicans with the same passion that Democrats did with Trump. For example, I'm sure many to Republicans wish there would have been a 2 year investigation on just where Obama was born. All the mystery and secrecy concerning his birth certificate should have been clearly exposed. I wish it would have happened, I'd really like to know if his miserable presidency was 100% unconstitutional. If so, I'd like to see the 3 story high mural of him in a downtown Cincinnati ghetto painted over.

"Using human beings as pawns", that's a pretty ironic accusation. When Bill Clinton's EPA director mandated that certain areas in certain states implement auto emission testing 20 years ago, (crippling and destroying the lives of many working U.S. citizens) those states were informed that if they ignored federal law, they would lose certain federal funding. Yet today, when some cities declare themselves sanctuary cities (in comparable, identical) violation of federal law, they don't seem to receive those threats. I guess the EPA has more supreme power than other government agencies. Maybe something can be done about that during the Trump administration.P.S. I'll try to get to your following message later, if this thread isn't closed.

"Without their consent", and often also, without their objection. Governments shouldn't have free reign to be the sole judges of when the third party is objecting. And the U.S. government doesn't, according to the 9th and 10th amendments. That's an individual, one-on-one case that should be decided on an individual basis. What often figures in on cases like that though, is that the owner knows it only costs $500's to "dispose of it properly", while the other $500's goes into some special interest's pocket, like a politician or bureaucrat. Individual cases like that are much less controversial than others concerning freedoms, like all-encompassing auto emissions testing for example. (4th amendment) People, not government should decide these issues. 10th amendment again. I've sure been on both sides of that issue, I used to smoke and I loved it. Now I'm old and I've quit and am less tolerant of smoke. Smokers and non-smokers used to be able to coexist - the tolerance went both ways. Maybe smokers started not caring who they bothered, maybe non-smokers were jealous of them enjoying it. Probably a combination of both.Anyone gets in my car with me and wants to smoke, and I say "sure, just put your window down a little and be considerate. I'll live". Free markets aren't perfect. But in most cases, they self correct better than a government that has less accountability for it's actions. Governments by nature, don't have the accountability for their actions that those in free markets do.

What's your source for that historical fact? The Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment are historical facts too - well documented ones. The problems of not being able to support themselves. Just how cruel and mean slave owners were, or how much that cruelty varied among slave owners is impossible to measure, today or back then, but slaves did have one thing, a secure place to live and work. There might not have been many, but there were at least a few black people who wore Confederate uniforms.

That IS it, plain and simple.

For now. What keeps it from changing later? One of the more notable moments of the recent State of the Union speech by Trump was when he said "The U.S. will never become a socialist country". In the mostly fanfare nature of State of the Union speeches, any vague, honeyed statement by the president always gets polite applause from the vice president, and speaker of the house seated behind him. In that case, Pelosi sat silent. It wasn't just her personally who sat silent, she was representing millions of her constituents with that action. Her and those millions don't have any more respect for Washington and Jefferson than they do for Lee.Mural of George Washington May Be Removed Because It 'Traumatizes Students'

quote:

---

The group recommended having the mural, which includes numerous panels that make up the “Life of Washington,” removed because the artwork “glorifies oppression instead of eliminating it” and “has nothing to do with equity or inclusion at all.”

---

Do you agree with this? Trump's wall isn't a "change". We've always had a southern border. It's merely a method for increasing security in an increasingly insecure area.