I LOVE UWS!awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I LOVE UWS!awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
UWS, correcting John Oliver style liars and idiots since 2001.nolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't have to mock anyone when you do a good enough job on your own with such takes. [emoji106]awesome guy wrote:UWS, correcting John Oliver style liars and idiots since 2001.nolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At some point even you have to recognize that you're not honest or smart enough to pull off the mocker shtick.
My take was dead on. Try again fool.nolanvt wrote:I don't have to mock anyone when you do a good enough job on your own with such takes. [emoji106]awesome guy wrote:UWS, correcting John Oliver style liars and idiots since 2001.nolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At some point even you have to recognize that you're not honest or smart enough to pull off the mocker shtick.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So Great Britain, Germany and Italy are enemies now as well?nolanvt wrote:Today's standards are irrelevant. The difference with me is if you fought against my country, and that's why I don't shed a tear when a Confederate statue/symbol goes down. Under no circumstance should symbols of the Founders come down.133743Hokie wrote:You have no problem judging people and events from 150 years ago by today's standards though.nolanvt wrote:I certainly don't favor removing statues of the Founders who shaped this nation.133743Hokie wrote:150 years ago was a different time, a different era. You can't compare the goings on then to today.nolanvt wrote:Pretty simple. One can favor removing statues of traitors while keeping statues up of Americans who didn't fight against this nation.HokieJoe wrote:
I predict they'll keep their mouths shut.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, 150 years ago it was roundly believed that the union was a confederation of states and that the states had the right to leave. Times were much different then. You can't view it through today's lens, and that is the problem in saying they were traitors, etc.nolanvt wrote:Reconciliation was critical after the war, but it didn't absolve the fact that they betrayed the United States.HokieFanDC wrote:If they were thought to be traitors, they would have been tried and hung.nolanvt wrote:Today's standards are irrelevant. The difference with me is if you fought against my country, and that's why I don't shed a tear when a Confederate statue/symbol goes down. Under no circumstance should symbols of the Founders come down.133743Hokie wrote:You have no problem judging people and events from 150 years ago by today's standards though.nolanvt wrote:I certainly don't favor removing statues of the Founders who shaped this nation.133743Hokie wrote:150 years ago was a different time, a different era. You can't compare the goings on then to today.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nolan you do realize how entrenched the textile industry of the North was in the cotton "industry" of the South don't younolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nolan's true enemies are facts and reason!133743Hokie wrote:So Great Britain, Germany and Italy are enemies now as well?nolanvt wrote:Today's standards are irrelevant. The difference with me is if you fought against my country, and that's why I don't shed a tear when a Confederate statue/symbol goes down. Under no circumstance should symbols of the Founders come down.133743Hokie wrote:You have no problem judging people and events from 150 years ago by today's standards though.nolanvt wrote:I certainly don't favor removing statues of the Founders who shaped this nation.133743Hokie wrote:150 years ago was a different time, a different era. You can't compare the goings on then to today.nolanvt wrote: Pretty simple. One can favor removing statues of traitors while keeping statues up of Americans who didn't fight against this nation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who said they're enemies?133743Hokie wrote: So Great Britain, Germany and Italy are enemies now as well?
It was the law. The Civil War changed the law to default slavery of the states with the federal government as master. Secession was ended as a right by the states via the war of northern aggression.133743Hokie wrote:Again, 150 years ago it was roundly believed that the union was a confederation of states and that the states had the right to leave. Times were much different then. You can't view it through today's lens, and that is the problem in saying they were traitors, etc.nolanvt wrote:Reconciliation was critical after the war, but it didn't absolve the fact that they betrayed the United States.HokieFanDC wrote:If they were thought to be traitors, they would have been tried and hung.nolanvt wrote:Today's standards are irrelevant. The difference with me is if you fought against my country, and that's why I don't shed a tear when a Confederate statue/symbol goes down. Under no circumstance should symbols of the Founders come down.133743Hokie wrote:You have no problem judging people and events from 150 years ago by today's standards though.nolanvt wrote: I certainly don't favor removing statues of the Founders who shaped this nation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.Major Kong wrote:nolan you do realize how entrenched the textile industry of the North was in the cotton "industry" of the South don't younolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So much so that Governors and other politicians of several New England states although proclaiming anti-slavery stances also had very heavy pro manufacturing stances. William Haile, Hiland Hall, William Fessenden and Lot Morrill were among just a few who wanted slavery to stay as an institution in the South.
No, nolan that wasn't the point of my post.nolanvt wrote:I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.
As it pertains to slavery and the Civil War, my position is clear. The South seceded to protect slavery (as evidenced in the Articles of Secession). Lincoln's primary motivation for war was preservation of the Union. Emancipation became a rallying point later on in the war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Damn you can't even keep up with your own nonsense and complete non-understanding of the issue.awesome guy wrote:
It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
And yet you can't see how Lincoln enslaved the emancipated south. Their right of secession was rebuked with war as Lincoln wanted their taxes and raw materials.nolanvt wrote:I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.Major Kong wrote:nolan you do realize how entrenched the textile industry of the North was in the cotton "industry" of the South don't younolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So much so that Governors and other politicians of several New England states although proclaiming anti-slavery stances also had very heavy pro manufacturing stances. William Haile, Hiland Hall, William Fessenden and Lot Morrill were among just a few who wanted slavery to stay as an institution in the South.
As it pertains to slavery and the Civil War, my position is clear. The South seceded to protect slavery (as evidenced in the Articles of Secession). Lincoln's primary motivation for war was preservation of the Union. Emancipation became a rallying point later on in the war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In that case, AG's point made no sense at all, and I'm not really sure what your point is then either.Major Kong wrote:No, nolan that wasn't the point of my post.nolanvt wrote:I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.
As it pertains to slavery and the Civil War, my position is clear. The South seceded to protect slavery (as evidenced in the Articles of Secession). Lincoln's primary motivation for war was preservation of the Union. Emancipation became a rallying point later on in the war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My response was in re to your response to AG:Damn you can't even keep up with your own nonsense and complete non-understanding of the issue.awesome guy wrote:
It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
[emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91]awesome guy wrote:And yet you can't see how Lincoln enslaved the emancipated south. Their right of secession was rebuked with war as Lincoln wanted their taxes and raw materials.nolanvt wrote:I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.Major Kong wrote:nolan you do realize how entrenched the textile industry of the North was in the cotton "industry" of the South don't younolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So much so that Governors and other politicians of several New England states although proclaiming anti-slavery stances also had very heavy pro manufacturing stances. William Haile, Hiland Hall, William Fessenden and Lot Morrill were among just a few who wanted slavery to stay as an institution in the South.
As it pertains to slavery and the Civil War, my position is clear. The South seceded to protect slavery (as evidenced in the Articles of Secession). Lincoln's primary motivation for war was preservation of the Union. Emancipation became a rallying point later on in the war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#idiot
[emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300] [emoji300]nolanvt wrote:[emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91][emoji91]awesome guy wrote:And yet you can't see how Lincoln enslaved the emancipated south. Their right of secession was rebuked with war as Lincoln wanted their taxes and raw materials.nolanvt wrote:I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.Major Kong wrote:nolan you do realize how entrenched the textile industry of the North was in the cotton "industry" of the South don't younolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So much so that Governors and other politicians of several New England states although proclaiming anti-slavery stances also had very heavy pro manufacturing stances. William Haile, Hiland Hall, William Fessenden and Lot Morrill were among just a few who wanted slavery to stay as an institution in the South.
As it pertains to slavery and the Civil War, my position is clear. The South seceded to protect slavery (as evidenced in the Articles of Secession). Lincoln's primary motivation for war was preservation of the Union. Emancipation became a rallying point later on in the war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#idiot
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They were when they attacked us! Hypocrite! It just shows how unaware and vapid your statements are. If a confederate action 150 years ago sets you off, then how about something from 70 years ago. Please, please start thinking thru what you are posting before doing so. You just look more and more unaware.nolanvt wrote:Who said they're enemies?133743Hokie wrote: So Great Britain, Germany and Italy are enemies now as well?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I, for one, am offended by the name of the red-umbrella insurance company!USN_Hokie wrote:This is what happens when you capitulate to little petulant children.
LOLnolanvt wrote:Pretty simple. One can favor removing statues of traitors while keeping statues up of Americans who didn't fight against this nation.HokieJoe wrote:I predict they'll keep their mouths shut.Vienna_Hokie wrote:In less than a week we've gone from confederate general's statues to all founding father statues and now to horses with names similar to confederate general statues.
Nope...no slippery slope there.
Any of you that support removing statues want to explain how the "first they came for......" isn't happening?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wha?133743Hokie wrote:They were when they attacked us! Hypocrite! It just shows how unaware and vapid your statements are. If a confederate action 150 years ago sets you off, then how about something from 70 years ago. Please, please start thinking thru what you are posting before doing so. You just look more and more unaware.nolanvt wrote:Who said they're enemies?133743Hokie wrote: So Great Britain, Germany and Italy are enemies now as well?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's wrong about that? It's perfectly reasonable to be against statues of Confederates while being in favor of statues of those who didn't fight against this country.RiverguyVT wrote:LOLnolanvt wrote:Pretty simple. One can favor removing statues of traitors while keeping statues up of Americans who didn't fight against this nation.HokieJoe wrote:I predict they'll keep their mouths shut.Vienna_Hokie wrote:In less than a week we've gone from confederate general's statues to all founding father statues and now to horses with names similar to confederate general statues.
Nope...no slippery slope there.
Any of you that support removing statues want to explain how the "first they came for......" isn't happening?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WRONNNNNGGG.
It's memorials of people attacked by this nation. Try and be more Fox and less Jon Oliver by getting the facts straight in the meltdown.nolanvt wrote:What's wrong about that? It's perfectly reasonable to be against statues of Confederates while being in favor of statues of those who didn't fight against this country.RiverguyVT wrote:LOLnolanvt wrote:Pretty simple. One can favor removing statues of traitors while keeping statues up of Americans who didn't fight against this nation.HokieJoe wrote:I predict they'll keep their mouths shut.Vienna_Hokie wrote:In less than a week we've gone from confederate general's statues to all founding father statues and now to horses with names similar to confederate general statues.
Nope...no slippery slope there.
Any of you that support removing statues want to explain how the "first they came for......" isn't happening?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WRONNNNNGGG.
[emoji106][emoji106]awesome guy wrote:My take was dead on. Try again fool.nolanvt wrote:I don't have to mock anyone when you do a good enough job on your own with such takes. [emoji106]awesome guy wrote:UWS, correcting John Oliver style liars and idiots since 2001.nolanvt wrote:I LOVE UWS!awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At some point even you have to recognize that you're not honest or smart enough to pull off the mocker shtick.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thus.....your non-understanding of the issue. God, I LoVe The Unusuals on UWS.....nolanvt wrote:In that case, AG's point made no sense at all, and I'm not really sure what your point is then either.Major Kong wrote:No, nolan that wasn't the point of my post.nolanvt wrote:I understand not all individuals in the North wanted to abolish slavery.
As it pertains to slavery and the Civil War, my position is clear. The South seceded to protect slavery (as evidenced in the Articles of Secession). Lincoln's primary motivation for war was preservation of the Union. Emancipation became a rallying point later on in the war.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My response was in re to your response to AG:Damn you can't even keep up with your own nonsense and complete non-understanding of the issue.awesome guy wrote:
It's hilarious how you can't see that you yankees established the states as the real slaves in the Civil War.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk