The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

The US military was not desegregated until 1948.

WW II was won, looking at the American forces, by those white males the Left hates so much.

Thus, will Antifa try to destroy the WW II memorial?

Jesus H. Chrisis, johnny, this idiotic thread is beneath even you.

Agree.

JJ....You should damn well know better than that shit.

The FDR Prayer is part of history.....
yet I recall there was outrage that it was going to be added to the Memorial...
Have not had the opportunity to see the Memorial so don't know if it was ever added to it.... :o

AssClown Sambo professes outrage as his butt buddy Oreo twin, with his nose jammed firmly up his master's ass, supports his claim without having any idea what's going on.

These two fags are, in the word of Elkindoofus, "Priceless!"

So why are you always professing outrage, AssClown Sambo Insipid?

But I agree, you and your butt buddy namandgulf ARE priceless. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Silly ass word games from the queen of silly ass word games.
Sambo AssClown, summon all the power of your empty headed moron mind and TRY to come up with something original, just once.

You are not being a credit to your race, all you are doing is reinforcing stereotypes, homie.

Dog and Clown, what is the difference between the moral stance of pulling down Confederate statues and destroying the WW II memorial.

In the dazed eyes of the Left, everybody is a racist but them.

So this thread poses a serious question for the moral posturing of the Left.

Was WW II worth winning without a Politically Correct military?

Or, if the Left could think, was perhaps its lack of Political Correctness one of the keys to victory?

johnny, no one tore down a Confederate statue because the Confederate army was segregated, you moron.

The U.S. Army was not fighting for slavery in WWII.

That's the difference in moral stance, you imbecile.

The difference, Johnny, is that we WON WWII. Even the Germans don't allow statues and flags from the Nazis. But you KNOW that.

Those statues have been there since the early 1900s, and they would still be there if all he confederate flag-waving assholes weren't using that stuff as a racist hate message. You fucktards have brought all this stuff onto yourselves.

Dog, it's the libtards branding the statutes as hateful. ISIS destroys ever symbol they feel is hateful, in some countries it's against the law to have a bible, liberals have brought the not demanding they be burnt, I find Obama statutes also to be offensive, but I'm not demanding they be torn down. You starting to see the difference between us?

I can't wait to see Dog protesting in front of Strom... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes....The libs ARE protesting the civil war stuff because of racism. Again.....those statues are not inherently "racist"....they are historical, but the crazy supremacists have used them in a racist way. And now they're suffering the consequences of those actions.

Personally, I'm proud of my Southern heritage, and I don't see the slavery as part of that pride, but it IS history. I would support the statues and memorials STAYING in place, but I would also support the criminalization of flying the confederate or nazi flags.

You fuckers are making a real mess.

For anybody with half a brain, the Civil War was about states' rights and not merely plantation labor supply.

But the leftist idiots at Charlottesville wouldn't know who Lee was.

The Left today wants to destroy American history because they hate the country.

Yes....The libs ARE protesting the civil war stuff because of racism.

Bingo!!! Yep, most of the libtards are racist but 100% of them are intolerant of views or thoughts they don't share.

"For anybody with half a brain, the Civil War was about states' rights"-johnflubs

Sure, johnny, the states' rights to own slaves.
You're living in denial of the claims of the very people who seceded.


They said in so many words that the war was about slavery:
http://www.portside.org/2013-11-04/abso ... ut-slavery

All you need to do is read the Declaration of Causes from four of them:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/a ... ssion.html

"It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."-Mississippi's first reason to secede

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."-Mississippi's second reason secede

"It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain."-Mississippi's fourth reason to secede

"It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."-Mississippi's fifth reason to secede

Then there's this:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell.""-Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens

They said it themselves, johnny, not me.
If you don't trust them to know what their reasons were, who are you pretending knows better?

Mississippi's fifth reason to secede

Why are you referencing only Mississippi?

I didn't, dimwit. Read the entire post, including the links. I can't spoon feed you everything.

And the Confederate Vice President is not "Mississippi", dummy.

Clowntoker's hairline is receding, but he knows nothing about seceding, and thus we are proceeding.

^^^^ See? All johnforbes could do is give up because he was called out on his gross ignorance again.

To view the Civil War as merely about a source of agri labor is so remarkably superficial that it is shocking.

Talk about the Left dumbing down history to the level of a comic book.

johnny, read the documents. Of course nothing is a simple as 'mere' agri labor, but you aren't paying attention.

I was fed the same load of bull by those 'liberal' college professors you despise so much, and I thought like you, but until a few years ago I never bothered to read the primary sources.
Neither did you, as we can all see today. You stopped questioning things long ago. You believe you already know all you need to know about the world and people. But you're obviously wrong.

You need to take them at their word. White Supremacists mean what they say, both then and now.

I agree the primary sources are often eyeopening or simply disappointing.

But life isn't that simple.

Washington and Jefferson used slave labor in part, but was that the sum total of them?

Should "Washington" be deleted from American history because he was not perfect by modern standards?

Another thing to bear in mind about primary sources is that people long ago were honest about their racial notions. Today, the Left is very dishonest in what it says, and that gives rise to speech codes on campus.

There are many white racists among the Democrats (Byrd was Hillary's mentor), but today they are less honest than folks like Hugo Black.

It takes two sides for any fight to occur, and there were two sides in Charlottesville.

The other bonus is that many dolts in journalism had never heard of Antifa before.

Criminy, johnny, Lee is not being "deleted from American history because he was not perfect by modern standards" and you know it. You have to start at least being honest before you can even address this issue.

Lee was a great man, but he was trapped culturally, fighting for the South's right to own slaves.

Statues to Lee are being taken down from the public square because he was ultimately a traitor to the United States and a supporter of white supremacy. These statues of figures like Lee were not put up to remember the men depicted. They will always be remembered, statues or no. The statues were erected in the 20th century to memorialize the ideals they represented; racism and Jim Crow. And if you don't know that, you now have another subject to look into. No one is tearing down memorials to liberty in the town square.

Washington and Jefferson were not traitors to the U.S.. Washington and Jefferson were not fighting for their right to own slaves.
Just like us, they were forced to live in their own time and could only lay the groundwork for liberty to take hold. They fought the initial battle that allowed the later battle over slavery to even be possible.
With your oh-so-subtle mind you should know that nothing that momentous happens overnight. The country was still fighting that battle 80 years later, and we're still fighting that battle 240 years later.

Lee was fighting to intentionally stop a broader liberty from taking hold. Regardless of his place in history, what he represented must not be memorialized in the town square which belongs to all citizens. He belongs only in historical museums and history books.

Oh, I certainly agree that every person lives in his own time, his own culture.

But you are making my point. If the town square belongs to all citizens, it cannot allow the Left to simply tear down any historical marker it dislikes. But that happened in Durham and cops did nothing, just as they sat idle in Charlottesville.

Jefferson and Washington were great, but not perfect. But the Left cannot tolerate that. It wants to destroy every vestige of any thought or deed which was not leftist.

In sum, the Left hates America. It sees it as too white, too capitalist, too pale, too male, too vibrant.

Look at welfare state Europe for what the Left wants.

The precise intent of the left is to delete Lee from history.

It is much like the fundamentalist Islamics destroying cultural sites in the Middle East.

Statues to Lee and his ilk are being torn down because Political Correctness cannot tolerate diversity of opinion.

Kids today are completely ignorant about WW II. The sad proof of that is in questions asked of college kids on college Jeopardy. They literally have never heard of the pivotal battles of WW II.

In time, the Left will want to destroy the WW II memorial. There were discussions years ago on CNN about bulldozing the Jefferson Memorial.

He belongs only in historical museums and history books.

The left has spoken, break his rule and you will be beat into compliance. Thank God, Trump came along when he did, we almost lost our country last November.

I've visited Monticello and Mt Vernon, and anybody can see these men were fallible but they were a great part of American history.

So was Lee.

Should Washington, DC be renamed?

Should the Jefferson Memorial be bulldozed?

Should all of Jefferson's words be burned, even those which helped create this country?