Clinton signed legislation to make Robert E. Lee day a holiday - WILL DEM LEADERS DISAVOW?

a reply to: namehere

Interesting. These were formed by confederate veterans right after the civil war? Or were these groups formed in the 1970's and 1980's long after confederate soldiers were all dead?

a reply to: kaylaluv

of course they wouldn't speak up after being demoralized by war and being told as part of the union propaganda campaign that all their suffering was caused by blacks being slaves, honestly all jim crow laws did was make use of that manufactured resentment to spread already existing northern segregation to the south.

blacks were used from the beginning by the union/US government to keep the south divided so they could never rise up in rebellion again.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

But, but what Trump said and did in the 1990s is irrelevant today, right?

This is funny....

a reply to: kaylaluv

i never said confederates did such a thing and why would they? you think the US government would let such a useful thing be stopped? it was the perfect tool to control possible rebellion by redirecting their hatred towards blacks.

a reply to: kaylaluv

What's interesting is the KKK was formed by Clintons party as the terrorist arm of the body politic.

JUST LIKE the Copperheads DURING the civil War.

a reply to: namehere

So far, no one has provided any evidence that "many" confederate soldiers changed their stance regarding slavery and spoke out against it after the war.

None of the three movements called generically "the KKK" was founded by the Democratic party.

Zero, nada, zippo ... it's a damned lie.

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

If you're against a community/municipality taking their own legal actions as they see fit, you're against the primacy of local determination that you guys are always crying for ... therefore, hypocritical.

a reply to: Gryphon66

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

Tax payers own them.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

Tax payers own them.

Nope. City, county and State governments own them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

Tax payers own them.

Nope. City, county and State governments own them.

Using tax payers money.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

Tax payers own them.

Nope. City, county and State governments own them.

Using tax payers money.

So you were wrong in your first statement, and you're wrong in this one as well.

In fact, many were donated to these local governments along with the lands they sit on.

I await your "strike three."

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

Tax payers own them.

Nope. City, county and State governments own them.

Using tax payers money.

So you were wrong in your first statement, and you're wrong in this one as well.

In fact, many were donated to these local governments along with the lands they sit on.

I await your "strike three."

Again, the money came from the people.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

These statues that have so many so up in arms are being removed by the local governments that own them and own the land they sit on.

Tax payers own them.

Nope. City, county and State governments own them.

Using tax payers money.

So you were wrong in your first statement, and you're wrong in this one as well.

In fact, many were donated to these local governments along with the lands they sit on.

I await your "strike three."

Again, the money came from the people.

Strike three.

You're either wrong, intentionally lying or both in these statements.

None the less, legally, these are the property of local governments and those governments have the legal right to dispose of them as they wish. In most cases (Charlottesville for example) there have been over two years of public meetings on the matter, so the people have been able to make their will known.

The statues are coming down. This is a country of the rule of law, not what a few fringe radicals want to impose on the rest of us.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How hard is it to admit that the money came from the people?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

How hard is it to admit that the money came from the people?

It's not hard; you're merely wrong.

How hard is it to admit you're wrong?

How hard is it to admit that you want to enforce your will over local governments elected by the People?

Pfft.

Who likes any Clinton?

a reply to: Gryphon66

How hard is it to admit that you want to enforce your will over local governments elected by the People?

I do? When did I say that?

All I said was that the tax payers paid for those statues.

a reply to: kaylaluv

No they weren't NICE try at history alteration,maybe after service making them NON Confederate( CONFEDERACY No longer existed),HOWEVER THEY WERE DEMOCRATS alone.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

How hard is it to admit that you want to enforce your will over local governments elected by the People?

I do? When did I say that?

All I said was that the tax payers paid for those statues.

And you're mistaken in that claim as I've clearly demonstrated.

So, why don't you get on the record ... should the Confederate Statues stay were they are, or can they be removed by the governments that own them?