In Defense of General Lee
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- HokieDan95
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Contact:
In Defense of General Lee
"What's best in life?","To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Re: In Defense of General Lee
I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
You really do just go with whatever it was that you last looked at, don't you?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HokieDan95 just posted an article chock full of things you have in the past breathlessly (dare I say giddily?) taken great exception to, and disagreed with. Like when you last posted a Lee article, and said later in thread commentary something akin to "no one would think that way" and thinking a certain way was the very premise of the article you had just posted. When confronted with that fact, you simply ran away. Again.
Your posting here is encouraged, and welcomed. I just wish you would think sometimes. I know you can do it. Try it out.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
then you totally refute everything you posted on race and the confederacy since Cville riot, right?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: In Defense of General Lee
Should I not agree with parts of an opinion piece that I agree with? I'm sorry that hurts your feelings.RiverguyVT wrote:You really do just go with whatever it was that you last looked at, don't you?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HokieDan95 just posted an article chock full of things you have in the past breathlessly (dare I say giddily?) taken great exception to, and disagreed with. Like when you last posted a Lee article, and said later in thread commentary something akin to "no one would think that way" and thinking a certain way was the very premise of the article you had just posted. When confronted with that fact, you simply ran away. Again.
Your posting here is encouraged, and welcomed. I just wish you would think sometimes. I know you can do it. Try it out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
hypocrisy is what drives people nuts, and you are loaded with it, take a stand and stick to itnolanvt wrote:Should I not agree with parts of an opinion piece that I agree with? I'm sorry that hurts your feelings.RiverguyVT wrote:You really do just go with whatever it was that you last looked at, don't you?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HokieDan95 just posted an article chock full of things you have in the past breathlessly (dare I say giddily?) taken great exception to, and disagreed with. Like when you last posted a Lee article, and said later in thread commentary something akin to "no one would think that way" and thinking a certain way was the very premise of the article you had just posted. When confronted with that fact, you simply ran away. Again.
Your posting here is encouraged, and welcomed. I just wish you would think sometimes. I know you can do it. Try it out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
unless it is about bakeries
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
But, but, but, but, but..Mom.. he "fought against the United States", mom..period.. he's a "traitor".. never mind ANY historical context..nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:42 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: In Defense of General Lee
Huh?cwtcr hokie wrote:then you totally refute everything you posted on race and the confederacy since Cville riot, right?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: In Defense of General Lee
It's accurate to state he fought against the US.CFB Apologist wrote:But, but, but, but, but..Mom.. he "fought against the United States", mom..period.. he's a "traitor".. never mind ANY historical context..nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: In Defense of General Lee
The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
My feelings aren't hurt. I note once again you go straight to "feelings". Facts don't give an eff about anyone's feelings.nolanvt wrote:Should I not agree with parts of an opinion piece that I agree with? I'm sorry that hurts your feelings.RiverguyVT wrote:You really do just go with whatever it was that you last looked at, don't you?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HokieDan95 just posted an article chock full of things you have in the past breathlessly (dare I say giddily?) taken great exception to, and disagreed with. Like when you last posted a Lee article, and said later in thread commentary something akin to "no one would think that way" and thinking a certain way was the very premise of the article you had just posted. When confronted with that fact, you simply ran away. Again.
Your posting here is encouraged, and welcomed. I just wish you would think sometimes. I know you can do it. Try it out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think, Nolan. Think. Seriously, I'm trying to help here.
In this thread, you nearly undermine your entire posting history, because dan's posted link made you feel something when you read it.
Should thinking matter here on UWS?
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
It is more accurate to say he defended his state from invading armies of other states.nolanvt wrote:It's accurate to state he fought against the US.CFB Apologist wrote:But, but, but, but, but..Mom.. he "fought against the United States", mom..period.. he's a "traitor".. never mind ANY historical context..nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
The kid needs principles that can be broadly applied; instead, he bathes in fleeting "feeeelinnngs" which are of no service in a variety of contexts.cwtcr hokie wrote:hypocrisy is what drives people nuts, and you are loaded with it, take a stand and stick to itnolanvt wrote:Should I not agree with parts of an opinion piece that I agree with? I'm sorry that hurts your feelings.RiverguyVT wrote:You really do just go with whatever it was that you last looked at, don't you?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HokieDan95 just posted an article chock full of things you have in the past breathlessly (dare I say giddily?) taken great exception to, and disagreed with. Like when you last posted a Lee article, and said later in thread commentary something akin to "no one would think that way" and thinking a certain way was the very premise of the article you had just posted. When confronted with that fact, you simply ran away. Again.
Your posting here is encouraged, and welcomed. I just wish you would think sometimes. I know you can do it. Try it out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
unless it is about bakeries
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
But of course in Lib Land the reverse is NOT true.. nope, it's 100% fine to re-write history through the modern lens- like removing statues and grinding down Stone Mountain.. because of - Racism of course. long dead people are racist according to today's standards.nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
Blacks hold black slaves today, 2017.cwtcr hokie wrote:try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Re: In Defense of General Lee
In English, please.CFB Apologist wrote:But of course in Lib Land the reverse is NOT true.. nope, it's 100% fine to re-write history through the modern lens- like removing statues and grinding down Stone Mountain.. because of - Racism of course. long dead people are racist according to today's standards.nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Re: In Defense of General Lee
..................................cwtcr hokie wrote:try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
Atta boy!
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
you seem to be using the Eye Pee method of conversation... hint.. its not very productive but make sure you add the emojis he usesnolanvt wrote:..................................cwtcr hokie wrote:try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: In Defense of General Lee
You're making up arguments and want me to defend arguments I haven't made. I answered WestEnd's question.cwtcr hokie wrote:you seem to be using the Eye Pee method of conversation... hint.. its not very productive but make sure you add the emojis he usesnolanvt wrote:..................................cwtcr hokie wrote:try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
You're making up arguments and want me to defend arguments I haven't made. I answered WestEnd's question.cwtcr hokie wrote:you seem to be using the Eye Pee method of conversation... hint.. its not very productive but make sure you add the emojis he usesnolanvt wrote:..................................cwtcr hokie wrote:try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote:What do you disagree with?nolanvt wrote:I agree with a lot of that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
this is what you wrote "It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies", my post was in response to your words. The FACT is at that time in world history slave labor is how the agriculture was done. So it had nothing to do with racism, it was how agriculture was done
Re: In Defense of General Lee
this is what you wrote "It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies", my post was in response to your words. The FACT is at that time in world history slave labor is how the agriculture was done. So it had nothing to do with racism, it was how agriculture was done[/quote]cwtcr hokie wrote:You're making up arguments and want me to defend arguments I haven't made. I answered WestEnd's question.cwtcr hokie wrote:you seem to be using the Eye Pee method of conversation... hint.. its not very productive but make sure you add the emojis he usesnolanvt wrote:..................................cwtcr hokie wrote:try and figure out this occurred in the 1800's. not today. AT THAT TIME slavery was used all over the planet and in the USA, racism had nothing to do with it, it was just how things were done BACK THEN. Keep in mind that opposing tribes THAT WERE BLACK PEOPLE sold other black people into slavery, so I guess the black sellers were the first racists, right?nolanvt wrote:The most striking one was the insinuation that Lee wasn't a racist because he abhorred slavery. It strikes me as an attempt to re-write history in order to position one's side for modern political arguments. It's FAKE NEWS! to suggest that Lee and most people of that time weren't racist in some fashion. It's okay to acknowledge he had racist tendencies, but I would also caution not to apply modern standards unconditionally in judging people of that time period.WestEndHokie39 wrote: What do you disagree with?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You didn't read my response to WestEnd then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30300
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: In Defense of General Lee
Sigh
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.