Trump launches global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality

[Mugwump]

I was born a Yankee but have lived the majority of my life well south of the Mason-Dixon. I have yet to meet a single "Southerner" that considers their self or their ancestors "victim" or "haunted".

You speak the language of babbling bullshit, the sort that perpetrates contention.

Then, as now, your goobermint needed a villain to justify their need for war ... slavery may have been the catalyst but was not a primary factor.

That there exist any animosity is due to the atrocities committed under the guise of waging war and the oppressive occupation that followed.

O.W.

Please. You never heard of the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "Lost Cause?" What else do you suppose the brouhaha about the Confederate monuments is about? And you've never heard people talk about how "The war was about states' rights and individual freedom to own property!" and similar nonsense justifications? Or how about tales of evil scalawags and carpetbaggers preying on the poor Southern folk and putting them at the mercy of hordes of newly-freed black savages? The sense of grievance and victimhood persist for a fair number of folks who would like to believe that the Confederates were the "good guys" and that it had nothing to do with slavery at all, uh uh, nosirree! Just as they prefer to pass over the entire history of Jim Crow.

[KingsX]

.

During horrific Yankee Reconstruction, my mother's Confederate forefathers were farmers in the Ozarks of NW Arkansas.

While disinherited White men in other Southern states were creating the famous KKK to protect their homes, wives and children from roving black criminals... my White Ozark forefathers silently united, gathered up the blacks and totally removed them from that entire area of the state. Removed them to where... family history doesn't say.

.

[Oscar Wilde]

Please. You never heard of ....

I've heard lots of things. I've read lots of things.

The diatribe you proffer is merely an ignorant, prejudicial ... assumption, conjured and fueled by the fifth estate.

Are your suggesting that Southerners weren't affronted by hordes of opportunists and goobermint agents of all stripes or that atrocities did not occur during and after the war?

We've sort of lost our way here ... let us return to the plight of the homosexualists.

O.W.

[Bezukhov]

That there exist any animosity is due to the atrocities committed under the guise of waging war and the oppressive occupation that followed.

The most oppressive aspect of that occupation were the acts taken by the occupiers to stop those under that occupation from oppressing Black people. Like my response to those who accuse Lincoln of being a tyrant. I'm forced to agree. Only a tyrant as evil as Lincoln would want to stop Southerners from tyrannizing Black people.

Please. You never heard of the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "Lost Cause?" What else do you suppose the brouhaha about the Confederate monuments is about?

Those monuments should have remained. They are history. The problem with them is they don't tell the whole story. Next to each of the original ones a new one should have been erected. These new ones would have reminded everyone That The South Lost The War! After all, that's part of the historical record as well.

And you've never heard people talk about how "The war was about states' rights and individual freedom to own property!" and similar nonsense justifications?

Again, States Rights was a legitimate issue with the South. Not that the Southern states were being denied theirs. Rather, those evil Northerners were exercising their State's Rights by making a mockery of any Fugitive slave laws through deliberate policies and jury nullification.

The sense of grievance and victim hood persist for a fair number of folks who would like to believe that the Confederates were the "good guys" and that it had nothing to do with slavery at all, uh uh, nosirree! Just as they prefer to pass over the entire history of Jim Crow.

Does the term "Snowflake" ring a bell?

While disinherited White men in other Southern states were creating the famous KKK to protect their homes, wives and children from roving black criminals... my White Ozark forefathers silently united, gathered up the blacks and totally removed them from that entire area of the state. Removed them to where... family history doesn't say.

I'm sure that was accomplished with a great deal of terror and violence. But you, KingsX most likely believes that your forebears were doing the work of the Lord.


Back to the original topic at hand, and this is directed at you, KingsX, tell me how many homosexuals did Jesus kill while He was on Earth? And if the answer is none, why didn't He?

[Mugwump]

I've heard lots of things. I've read lots of things.

The diatribe you proffer is merely an ignorant, prejudicial ... assumption, conjured and fueled by the fifth estate.

It's not an assumption at all. It's fact, easily available. Your dismissal of this is rather like Trump squealing about "fake news," by which he means reported verifiable facts that he doesn't like.

Are your suggesting that Southerners weren't affronted by hordes of opportunists and goobermint agents of all stripes or that atrocities did not occur during and after the war?

We've sort of lost our way here ... let us return to the plight of the homosexualists.

O.W.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying outright and directly that there are a large number of white Southerners who deny the factual history regarding what the Confederacy was about, and the reasons for which the South seceded and fought, and who use this romantic anti-historical whitewash both because they harbor similar racist sentiments as their recent ancestors, and because they wish to ennoble and celebrate guys who fought for the truly evil Confederate cause--the cause of racism, white supremacy, and slavery. And part of the way they try to advance their false "lost cause" ideology is to ignore the depredations of slavery and instead pull the "poor poor pitiful us" card about how much poor white people suffered at the hands of the federal government in the aftermath of the war, even as the white Southerners were re-establishing a truly brutal regime of white supremacy and control that is known as Jim Crow.

[Mugwump]

Those monuments should have remained. They are history. The problem with them is they don't tell the whole story. Next to each of the original ones a new one should have been erected. These new ones would have reminded everyone That The South Lost The War! After all, that's part of the historical record as well.

I'm not sure I agree with this. After WW2 statues of Hitler and other heroes of the Third Reich were destroyed. In many/most parts of the Soviet Union, lots of images of Stalin were destroyed. The Iraqis (with American help) did a similar job to deface all the Saddam Hussein stuff. Nobody seems to think that these were attempts to "erase history," or that these guys and their deeds would be forgotten. It was because they recognized that the images were a way to celebrate and honor the people and their deeds and the causes for which they actted, and those guys and their deeds and their causes/ideologies no longer seemed worth honoring or celebrating. I think there's a fair argument to be made that the same could be said of Confederate Civil War heroes. It's not an exact analogue, but there are a lot of similarities.

But to your suggestion, the best jiu-jitsu kind of response I"ve seen to the Confederate monument issue is that some places have erected monuments right next to the Confederate monuments, remembering the suffering inflicted through slavery onto black people, and honoring those who resisted and fought for their freedom. And ideally these monuments are a lot bigger than the Confederate monuments and loom over them triumphantly. That's not a bad middle ground, overall.

[Oscar Wilde]

It's not an assumption at all. It's fact,

You've got the canned, blathering bullshit down pat.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm not suggesting horrific incidents weren't experienced by folk of all sorts before, during and after the war. All things considered your boy lincoln didn't save anyone from anything as evidenced by conditions of the day (today).

Who introduced into slavery into the colonies ... who was forced to adapt to the aftermath?

Who were the first slaves? The homosexualists? No, the indigenous, not the Negro.

Were Negroes brought to the colonies from the African continent? Or from elsewhere?

The South seceded for the very same reasons that similar action has been discussed by a number states not considered "Southern".

Romantic? I don't know what you smoke but no one I have ever discussed with or heard discuss events related to the war demonstrated romantic notions of any sort ...

Now your homosexualists tend to be romantic creatures, it's unlikely they consider any of the above but instead are more focused on fu*&!ng themselves and each other and being able to proudly proclaim such publicly, garnering sympathy and support.

What say you?

As far as slaves go, what do you suppose you are ... we are? By definition, we are all slaves ... til wee decide not to be.

Step out of the past and into the present.

O.W.

[Mugwump]

You've got the canned, blathering bullshit down pat.

If you think it's bullshit, then say why rather than just keep repeating the accusation. Otherwise, I call bullshit! I will stand by all my statements with facts and reasoned argument.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm not suggesting horrific incidents weren't experienced by folk of all sorts before, during and after the war. All things considered your boy lincoln didn't save anyone from anything as evidenced by conditions of the day (today).

Is this the old "they were no worse off as slaves" assertion?

Who introduced into slavery into the colonies ... who was forced to adapt to the aftermath?

Who were the first slaves? The homosexualists? No, the indigenous, not the Negro.

Were Negroes brought to the colonies from the African continent? Or from elsewhere?

What does this have to do with it? I don't know how "homosexualists"--whatever those are--got into this particular subdiscussion.

The South seceded for the very same reasons that similar action has been discussed by a number states not considered "Southern".

This is totally false. They seceded for a really compelling reason: because they wanted to preserve and expand their social and economic organization based on slavery and white supremacy. This is pure old historical fact, easily verified.

Now your homosexualists tend to be romantic creatures, it's unlikely they consider any of the above but instead are more focused on fu*&!ng themselves and each other and being able to proudly proclaim such publicly, garnering sympathy and support.

Okay, so you hate gays. What does that have to do with the Civil War?

As far as slaves go, what do you suppose you are ... we are? By definition, we are all slaves ... til wee decide not to be.

As some kind of hyperbolic/poetic libertarian fantasy argument, you might get away in sloppy discussion with talking about "slavery." As far as seriously comparing whatever you imagine our condition is to actual literal chattel slavery, that's stupid and false and demeans and trivializes the suffering of a lot of generations of slaves.

[Oscar Wilde]

If you think it's bullshit, then say why rather than just keep repeating the accusation.

Accusation? I've made no accusation. You continue to blather disparaging remarks regarding Southerners. You make claim of fact when what you have is little more than accepted opinion promoted by the fifth estate and academia.

Hate gays? First, they're not "gays" they're homosexuals. Your fifth estate stole that word and applied it to them so as not to make their proclivities seem so ... abominable. Second, I give them no consideration whatsoever but this is the subject of the op.

Are you by chance ... or birth, Caucasian? I believe I sense a bit of white guilt, that's ok, it happens. And just for your record, I don't hate anyone or anything ... I don't care much for liver or light beer however.

Are you aware of the enslavement of Caucasians ... way back when?

O.W.

[Samuel Adams]

A slave coddled, or a slave beaten......both remain slaves.

Take the 14th amendment, for instance; it emancipated no one, only giving whites and newly homeless blacks the opportunity to exchange God-given rights for congressionally-granted “privileges and immunities”, taking on the status of federal club member.....fully taxable and regulated, unlike the original status of the free American, state Citizen referenced
in the Slaughterhouse Cases of the late 1800s.

Progress ? Only in the minds of those who might wet themselves in abject terror over the prospect of no State sponsored safety net.