G, sigh
I don't mean to be obtuse, but what exactly? It's just that the sentence structure makes it hard for me to zero in and I don't want to write a paragraph about something when you were asking about something else.
Would you like a side of hyperbole with your drama queen?:think:
Yes, ahem, well, I started off asking you about the subject of the true cause(s)of the Civil War...and liberals of today being cheesy....but these apparently bloomed into what was going to happen during World War II to Jews, Gypsies, and many others I can't name ...
And somewhere in there the guilt of the popular science of evolution stepped in...
So Tomo just anything you may want to say is going to be great! :embarrassed:
....Same as it ever was. may be.lain:
Acts of atrocity aren't a genocidal plan. There wasn't a "final solution" proposed for Native Americans. Doesn't excuse the numerous atrocities, but it does distinguish them and their motivation from what the Nazis were about.
In order, I do and no, he didn't. Which is why you won't show me the documentation and agreement among the heads of government to eradicate the Native American. But enough of this side bar nonsense.
No one has banned a Confederate flag. It's simply and appropriately being removed from seats of government and I've already answered on the remarkable difference between a flag conceived to forward an evil proposition and one that flew over evil acts and the corrections to them.
Right. Not understanding, however, is.
The process you use for one is the process you use for all. I'm not muddying anything by teaching you something, whether you take the lesson or not.
Does anyone else realize he's just determined to say no? Because what he just wrote was really funny if you do.
That's right.
Not event the first lie, but moving beyond your usual, what you either can't or won't get is that rush is a subjective. The problem with you is that you seem more concerned for a quick time line than getting it right. Or you simply don't understand that your sense of it invites mistakes that can't be undone.
Because it's rationally inescapable and that's the tradition of justice, the law. It's found in distinguishing between a child and an adult, the insane and the sane.
I don't care about your willful and proud ignorance where the law that controls here is concerned, but I do care about justice...and mercy.
You're going to have to find some new smoke. As with your "slavery was in the Union too" attempt it fails to account for any other history, meaning as I've noted that same flag that ended slavery and sought justice for the Native American flies over our nation today. We're a work in progress. We failed blacks and minorities in general and women and we've redressed most of that. Because that's how it goes, with men and nations worth keeping around.
Not in my house or any number. But if the liberal agenda is to remove a symbol of that South from seats of government then good on them. They're right and those of us outside that camp have been wrong on the point by allowing it and confusing that issue with some vague notion of honoring history and tradition. If you're of the mind there's a larger attempt under way it will depend on a case by case.
And that's the irrational nature of conspiracist thinking in a nutshell. It spills over into larger and darker conspiracies at the drop of a hat and gets soup all over everything.
I don't give a twisted fig about turning my back on people so either willfully ignorant of history that they advance an evil in the name of virtue or so indifferent to the truth in the service of their agenda that they'd cloud the issue willfully. The South I care about is a different one and most of the people in it, good, decent people, aren't the sort of yahoos who I have issue with. Either we live and grow and learn or we mistake every tradition with an unmeasured nobility that roots us in error and evil.
Cause?.....Well I suppose you could trace things back to the founders not sufficiently defining their intentions when they jettisoned the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry recognized this and it really should have been settled once and for all during the Nullification Crisis but it was just argued about, as usual.
Central to the argument of "who started it" is who had the more legitimate claim to Fort Sumter.
The fact remains that for all intents and purposes the Federalists have won the argument. What remains is the legacy of the fight itself...Was it worthwhile?
There is an old standby which I rely on when considering what actions to take on any given circumstance. It's not only the principle which is important but the actual hill you die on is just as important. The secessionists climbed up on a seriously foolish hill. There were more than enough tariff issues (particularly with S. Carolina involved) to make a fight of this but instead they chose to base their new Confederacy on the perceived necessity of slavery.
This could have been lived down since the vast majority of Confederate combatants were merely fighting to protect their homes not the institution of slavery but something else happened. The segregationists chose to use the Battle Flag of the Army Of Northern Virginia as their symbol....Nobody protested this use at the time so I find it kind of disingenuous to deny it now.
The blacks have reason to be offended....I don't blame them at all.
Of course the evils that men do still exist.....A scrap of cloth will not change that no matter what you do with it. However, the sacrifices which the rank and file Confederate soldier suffered to protect their families/land and their independence from a overbearing Federalist philosophy were tarnished and dragged through the mud by their own leaders, and to a lesser extent, by their own decedents.
You cannot champion the cause of liberty by fighting for the right to make men slaves or keep them in subordination.....No matter what your view of eugenics
I'm not sure I really answered anything here.
Cause?.....Well I suppose you could trace things back to the founders not sufficiently defining their intentions when they jettisoned the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry recognized this and it really should have been settled once and for all during the Nullification Crisis but it was just argued about, as usual.
Central to the argument of "who started it" is who had the more legitimate claim to Fort Sumter.
The fact remains that for all intents and purposes the Federalists have won the argument. What remains is the legacy of the fight itself...Was it worthwhile?
There is an old standby which I rely on when considering what actions to take on any given circumstance. It's not only the principle which is important but the actual hill you die on is just as important. The secessionists climbed up on a seriously foolish hill. There were more than enough tariff issues (particularly with S. Carolina involved) to make a fight of this but instead they chose to base their new Confederacy on the perceived necessity of slavery.
This could have been lived down since the vast majority of Confederate combatants were merely fighting to protect their homes not the institution of slavery but something else happened. The segregationists chose to use the Battle Flag of the Army Of Northern Virginia as their symbol....Nobody protested this use at the time so I find it kind of disingenuous to deny it now.
The blacks have reason to be offended....I don't blame them at all.
Of course the evils that men do still exist.....A scrap of cloth will not change that no matter what you do with it. However, the sacrifices which the rank and file Confederate soldier suffered to protect their families/land and their independence from a overbearing Federalist philosophy were tarnished and dragged through the mud by their own leaders, and to a lesser extent, by their own decedents.
You cannot champion the cause of liberty by fighting for the right to make men slaves or keep them in subordination.....No matter what your view of eugenics
I'm not sure I really answered anything here.
Which would put him squarely opposed to that flag we've been discussing.
Oh, I'd bet most Christians who are also black are pretty sure God wasn't on the side of slave holders in that war.
No, what's pathetic is defending the flying of that flag and what it symbolizes to most Americans over anything but a grave.
Then He was against that flag and you might want to consider why you aren't.
No, it's not.
Pretending I might have gotten self defense confused with murder doesn't make you a teacher.
The circumstances should change the outcome, not how we judge. We should always judge according to God's standards. That should never change.
You need to respond to what I say, not what you feel.
No, it's not. You think "crazy" people are not guilty of murder when they shoot up a church. Why? Because you say so? God says to "show no mercy."
It's the tradition of your compact. Your compact perverts God's standards, therefore it is no law.
It is.
I didn't and I am.
You still literally don't seem to know what you're actually saying there.
I'm not pretending and wouldn't make the determination. Like you, I'm unqualified.
If you think that's an accurate assessment it explains a lot.
That's not the example of Christ. God help you. If you think God would find a child or the insane guilty of murder it also explains a lot about what's going on in your noggin.
I'm discussing the case here and the law that controls it.
You're confused. Or you're sitting too close to your monitor.
It may be necessary to shoot a mad dog. It isn't justice. In this case, if those qualified can determine his mental competence to stand trial he will. If he isn't competent he won't.