America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 15 months ago by RayR. 77 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
States Rights!!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
drglnc wrote:
Yea... i mean if Slavery was important to the confederacy they probably would have included it in their constitution or something... and its not like all the states ratified it...


Might want to put Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech" into a g00gl3
drglnc Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
You mean the one I posted earlier in the thread? With the part “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” The one that others I. This thread claim does t mean anything cause well… it’s just one man’s comment…
DrMaddVibe Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
drglnc wrote:
You mean the one I posted earlier in the thread? With the part “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” The one that others I. This thread claim does t mean anything cause well… it’s just one man’s comment…



You conveniently left out the DNC talking points!

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst 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. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. 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 government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" — the real "corner-stone" — in our new edifice. [Applause.]

I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph. [Immense applause.]

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," [applause,] and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

https://www.owleyes.org/text/the-cornerstone-speech/read/text-of-stephenss-speech#root-62


They can hoot and hollar about "states rights"...pales in comparison when you read what they're thinking. Thank God the North won the Civil War. I cannot imagine what this nation would be like if the South had their way.
RayR Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
First off there was no DNC in 19th Century America. That new Republican Party of Lincoln that rose out the ruins of the horrible American Whig Party....well contrary to what many modern Republicans have been indoctrinated to believe, Lincoln and his Party weren't even "conservative", they were radicals who even attracted radical groups to their cause like the Marxists who saw the Republican Party as their best hope for bringing about a worker's paradise.

I know it butthurts many to think history is not what they were led to believe, but c'mon man! HISTORY IS MESSY!

Lincoln and his brethren were not trying to preserve the old republic of the founders, they were at work to destroy it and remake it. Dishonest Abe was laughably given the title, "The Great Emancipator", even though he never actually freed any slaves and was a racist who worked till his dying day to plan the deportation of black folks to foreign locations... anywhere but the lily-white America that he and his kind desired.
The title "The Great Centralizer" is far more appropriate to what he and his Party achieved during the war and reconstruction to create a consolidated government at the center in D.C. Yep, "states right" was so 18th Century.

The Great Centralizer
Abraham Lincoln and the War between the States
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Quote:
This article appeared in the Fall 1998 issue of The Independent Review.
Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, was also the Great Centralizer whose policies undermined the decentralized, federal system established by the Founders. Indeed, Lincoln saw emancipation primarily as a means of saving the Union and establishing a mercantilist empire he and his forerunner Henry Clay called the “American System.”

Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, was also the Great Centralizer whose policies undermined the decentralized, federal system established by the Founders. Indeed, Lincoln saw emancipation primarily as a means of saving the Union and establishing a mercantilist empire he and his forerunner Henry Clay called the “American System.”

Download PDF

https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=326


Yes, the early Republican Party was The Party of Big Government. And yes it can be debated they still are, but take a backseat now to the Party of Even Bigger Government, the modern Democrats.

Yooz guy and your insistence on the words of Alexander Stephens as if he spoke for everyone in the South and the Confederacy, a guy that wasn't even liked much, even by the President of the Confederacy...is pathetic.

You guys need to expand your knowledge beyond the talking points of Alexander Stephens and his ilk...
You should start by reading the constitution as drawn up in Montgomery in 1861 for the Confederate States of America to understand what were the real concerns.
The similarities to the U.S. Constitution of 1787 are obvious, the improvements to correct the notable flaws in the original document are telling as to the real concerns of the Confederate framers. One major thing they were attempting to bring back was bringing back governance to the local and away from the center, which "states rights" is a most important part of.


The Defining Differences Between the United States and Confederate Constitutions

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-defining-differences-between-the-united-states-and-confederate-constitutions/
DrMaddVibe Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
RayR wrote:
First off there was no DNC in 19th Century America.



I clearly understand that as the party with it's KKK wing were born from the Northern Aggression.

Sorry, but Stephens was the VP. He orated what they dared believe. Can't bob and weave from it.
RayR Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I clearly understand that as the party with it's KKK wing were born from the Northern Aggression.

Sorry, but Stephens was the VP. He orated what they dared believe. Can't bob and weave from it.


So yer sayin' because Stephens was VP, he spoke for all in the confederacy secretly believed? I would only go as far as his white supremacist statements echoed what many Americans believed, North and South, and as I said before...even Lincoln.
No bob and weave, just straight. up facts.

Since Kamala is VP, does the idiocy that spews from her mouth speak for what all in America dare to secretly believe?Think


Yes the KKK goes back to the War of Northern Aggression, but idjuts believe the original Klan sprouted whole doing lynchings and burning crosses. Truth be told...

Quote:
It was born in the law offices of Judge Thomas Jones in Pulaski, Tennessee. Half its original members were attorneys. Its initial standards were high. One had to be in the Confederate Army at the time of the surrender or in a Union prisoner-of-war camp to be eligible for membership. Its original mission statement called for it to be “an instrument of Chivalry, Humanity, Mercy and patriotism” which was to “relieve and assist the injured, oppressed, suffering, and unfortunate, especially widows and orphans of Confederate soldiers.” (This the government in Washington would not do. They did, however, have a 47% tax on cotton, which they used to subsidize Northern railroads and other large corporations. On the other hand, they did provide pensions to Northern widows and orphans at the expense of Southern widows and orphans.) One had to apply for membership. As far as we can tell (written records are absent), its eighth member was John C. Brown, former Confederate brigadier general and, within eight years, governor of Tennessee. Also a lawyer.

The Klan started out as a social club, but that soon changed. It grew like wildfire and morphed into something else altogether

Excerpt from:
A History Lesson for Ted Cruz
By Samuel W. Mitcham
July 15, 2019

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/a-history-lesson-for-ted-cruz/#_ftn6
RayR Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Well..although some have been fixated on the opinions of one confederate, VP Alexnder Stephens, no one has shown any interest in the opinions of another, named President Jefferson Davis. But of course, they never heard of it before.

Quote:
For President Jefferson Davis, the War had always been about the foundational principle of American freedom, self-government – or, as he put it, ‘the independence and Union for which my father bled and in the service of which I have sought to emulate the example he set for my guidance.’ In his First Inaugural Address, Davis asserted the Confederacy’s American heritage. ‘Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established,’ announced Davis. ‘In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable.’ Davis’ heart for the cause remained unconquered throughout the War, even as the Old South collapsed around him. In the summer of 1864, Davis, hoping to cast the Confederacy in the right light, agreed to an interview with two Northern envoys. The Northerners began by asking Davis how to end the War. Davis said it was simple. ‘Withdraw your armies from our territory, and peace will come of itself,’ he answered. ‘Let us alone, and peace will come at once.’ When the Northerners denied that they could allow the South to ‘repudiate the Union,’ Davis was ready with a reply. ‘You would deny to us what you exact for yourselves – the right of self-government.’ The Northerners rushed to argue that the Union was ‘essential to peace’ and without it there would be never-ending war. ‘Undoubtedly,’ responded Davis. ‘You have sown such bitterness at the South; you have put such an ocean of blood between the two sections, that I despair of seeing any harmony in my time.’ When the Northerners asked whether he would ever accept reunion as the price of peace, Davis refused:

No, I cannot. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands – I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for independence, and that, or extermination, we will have.

Excerpt from "Confederate Emancipation"
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/confederate-emancipation/

drglnc Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
RayR wrote:
AH HA! I'm glad you brought up the Constitution of the Confederacy.
No, the Confederacy was not a republic of rabid enslavers that enshrined slavery in their constitution forever like the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln supported would have done. That's not to say that there were not some that did.
No...The Confederate Constitution of 1861 was like the Constitution of 1787, it remained neutral to the continued existence or the end of slavery in the several states. It was left up to the sovereign states to deal with.

I'm glad there have been experts on this subject to tell the historical and legal truth, like Vito Mussomeli, "a retired attorney living in Texas. He has spoken and written extensively on the Confederate Constitution and the Confederate legal system."
Thank God the Internet contains such repositories of great historical works. Otherwise mushy minds would be only subjected to the propaganda of LEFTY cultural Marxists, as well as the Neocons, and Strausians who agree with the LEFT more than not when it comes to American political history. It's bad enough that mushy minds are subjected to their crap on the Internet as well but also on Main Stream Media, the History Channel, and PBS. I heard HULU is pushing its 1619 Project documentary too. Bored

This is one awesome essay...

Slavery in the Confederate Constitution

By Vito Mussomeli
October 20, 2015

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/slavery-in-the-confederate-constitution/







LOL, the article you posted proves my point... Slavery is explicitly legalized in the constitution of the confederacy... i never said it was mandatory for each state to have slavery , but it IS a protected right in that document... in addition it maintains that any new territories MUST allow slavery until they become states... if slavery was not an important part of the confederacy then it wouldn't be in the constitution it is...
RayR Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
LOL, the article you posted proves my point... Slavery is explicitly legalized in the constitution of the confederacy... i never said it was mandatory for each state to have slavery , but it IS a protected right in that document... in addition it maintains that any new territories MUST allow slavery until they become states... if slavery was not an important part of the confederacy then it wouldn't be in the constitution it is...


Are you DAFT MAN? DAFT I say!
You don't read so good either. 👀

Didn't you read down to THE ARTICLES, SECTIONS, CLAUSES?


Quote:
This Constitution does not camouflage slavery under a pretentious rubric of civility and liberty. At the same time, and also true of the 1787 Constitution, there is no Article, Section or Clause establishing slavery nor to disestablish slavery. The meaning is clear: slavery does not run with the land. Slavery was never a Constitutional mandate either in the 1787 or the Confederate Constitution. The issue abides solely in the independent and sovereign States. Every President from Washington through Lincoln agreed.

A constitution is not a penumbra of feelings for changeable use to accommodate changeable agendas. Law is to be read as clear text. We are not sensing our way through a spray of verbal mist as in a novel or poem, essay or oration. We are reading what is on paper, front and center, before our eyes. Both the 1787 and 1861 Constitutions provide an overall security net for slavery. Neither mandate slavery. Neither have the power to establish or disestablish slavery anywhere. The founding States of both countries conveyed no such powers.
Brewha Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
RiverRatRuss wrote:
The Civil War was over "States Rights" Prove me Wrong!!!



This was a great thread Russ.

We proved that states right is just a talking point.
Got some quality exercise from our captains Cut-N-Paste.
And saw a bromance bloom.

Good job!
RayR Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Brewha wrote:
This was a great thread Russ.

We proved that states right is just a talking point.
Got some quality exercise from our captains Cut-N-Paste.
And saw a bromance bloom.

Good job!


You don't read so good either. 👀
Besides being full of 💩

drglnc Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
Yes… I read it… clearly you didn’t… article 4 section 3… please explain in your own words …
drglnc Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
I will even provide the relevant portion so you don’t have to think hard… “In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States”.
RayR Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
drglnc wrote:
I will even provide the relevant portion so you don’t have to think hard… “In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States”.


So what's different about that and the U.S. Constitution, the only difference being that the U.S. Constitution didn't explicitly use the word "slavery" in it but still recognized slavery where it existed?

As Frederick Douglass once asked, “If the Constitution were intended to be by its framers and adopters a slave-holding instrument, then why would neither “slavery,” “slave-holding,” nor “slave” be anywhere found in it?”

He was right about that, it was never intended as a document mandating slavery in the sovereign states.

Remember what Mussomeli wrote? "Both the 1787 and 1861 Constitutions provide an overall security net for slavery. Neither mandate slavery." 👀







frankj1 Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
but states' rights then simply meant some states wanted to be left alone to decide if people could own people.
Unless you simply want to pretend.
They are one and the same.

Ray, you got steamrolled on this one.
RayR Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
frankj1 wrote:
but states' rights then simply meant some states wanted to be left alone to decide if people could own people.
Unless you simply want to pretend.
They are one and the same.

Ray, you got steamrolled on this one.


Frank, you are just adding a new layer of LEFTY dumbness to the conversation. Did you read at all? 👀 Comprehend much?

"states' rights then simply meant some states wanted to be left alone to decide if people could own people."

WTF! Holy 💩! LOL
frankj1 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
it was THE main issue...certainly lot's of stuff goes along with states' rights.
But owning humans as assets and the base of their economy was the biggest issue.

Clean it up all you want. Those states did not want to be told to have their agricultural economy pay for the labor.
RayR Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
frankj1 wrote:
it was THE main issue...certainly lot's of stuff goes along with states' rights.
But owning humans as assets and the base of their economy was the biggest issue.

Clean it up all you want. Those states did not want to be told to have their agricultural economy pay for the labor.


Those "Righteous Myth" Yankee history books told you all that?
Short and sweet huh? No caveats? Nothing MESSY that deviates from the narrative?
All the peoples just wanted to own peoples so da slaves could work the fields and the Mastas could sit around drinking mint juleps? Eh?

Since most people didn't own a slave and their personal economy wasn't based on owning humans as assets, what were they fighting for?

So Southern Confederates like non-human asset owner Moses Jacob Ezekiel (yes, he was Jewish) who took up arms against the Yankee invaders, a cadet at Virginia’s Military Institute, stated, “We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”

The Economy, Stupid

By John Marquardt
March 13, 2020

Quote:
Just as the Earth revolves on its axis each day and travels around the Sun in an equally regular pattern, so has world history tended to be cyclical in nature throughout the centuries, with many episodes seemingly being repeated countless times over. In many cases the basic cause behind such recurring cataclysmic events as war, radical changes in political systems or the fall of nations and empires has involved economics. A current example of the latter is the financial dilemma which now threatens to bring about the economic, if not the total, collapse of the European Union . . . namely where to find the more than eighty billion dollars in revenue that will be lost due to the United Kingdom’s secession from the Union. A similar economic situation had faced Great Britain itself almost two and a half centuries earlier on the other side of the Atlantic. At that time, thirteen of its major colonies, with a cry of “no taxation without representation,” declared their independence, seceded from the British Empire and joined together to form the United States of America. Faced with the loss of a vast source of the revenue needed to fill coffers drained by its seemingly endless wars with France, Great Britain opted to wage war on its own colonies.

Less than a century later, seven of the States in the new American nation felt that the weight of long economic oppression by the Federal government was more than they should be forced to bear and opted to secede from the Unites States to form their own more perfect union . . . and once again the action brought forth a war in which the central government attacked its own citizens to prevent their departure. Today, the majority of historians cite only slavery as the central cause of the War Between the States, and while the institution did play an important role in events leading to the South’s secession, it certainly was not the casus belli itself. During the antebellum period there were groups of Americans in both the North and South which were opposed to the concept of human bondage and actively worked to abolish slavery, but with only a very small minority of them advocating total integration following emancipation. However, the majority of Americans, including leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, were willing to allow the status quo to continue in regard to Southern slavery and many of them, like Lincoln, also felt that should the time ever come when the slaves were granted their freedom, they should be shipped out of their home country to some foreign land in Africa or the Caribbean.

Speaking of Lincoln, in his earlier statements he was quite definite in his thoughts about secession, slavery and black Americans. In 1848, when Lincoln was a U. S. congressman from Illinois, he gave a speech in the House of Representatives in which he stated “any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.” In a letter a decade later, Lincoln wrote that “neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave States, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” The same year, in an Illinois debate with Senator Stephen Douglass, Lincoln said that he did not understand the Declaration of Independence “to mean that all men were created equal in all respects,” and added that he was not in favor of “making voters or jurors of Negros nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people.” He then went on to say that “there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” So much for the image of the “Great Emancipator.”

More...

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/the-economy-stupid/


frankj1 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
didn't read the drivel, likely posted before cuz I remember you pulling the same guy Jew card out of your azz a while back.
Oh wow,.. a bad Jew guy thought it was OK to own human beings.
My bad.

Your real belief in an alien lizard invasion cross breeding with Earthlings is more telling than your revisionist views.

It's kinda Icke...see what I did there?

"The owner of a Christian surf school in California who has admitted to killing his two young children because he believed they’d inherited serpent DNA from their mother told the FBI he was radicalized by the former BBC sports presenter-turned-conspiracy theorist David Icke."

And knowing you subscribe to this makes it hard to take you seriously...I'm sure you understand.
RayR Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
frankj1 wrote:
didn't read the drivel, likely posted before cuz I remember you pulling the same guy Jew card out of your azz a while back.
Oh wow,.. a bad Jew guy thought it was OK to own human beings.
My bad.

Your real belief in an alien lizard invasion cross breeding with Earthlings is more telling than your revisionist views.

It's kinda Icke...see what I did there?

"The owner of a Christian surf school in California who has admitted to killing his two young children because he believed they’d inherited serpent DNA from their mother told the FBI he was radicalized by the former BBC sports presenter-turned-conspiracy theorist David Icke."

And knowing you subscribe to this makes it hard to take you seriously...I'm sure you understand.


Don't try to change the subject to your outrageous Lizard People stories Frankie you read in The National Enquirer or something at the checkout. 🦎

I'm sorry you can't read so good either Frankie. 👀
I'm sorry you disrespect the THOUSANDS of your Jewish Confederate brethren too. You HATE them I'm sure and hide your eyes from their words...
Do you want to desecrate their graves and tear down their monuments?
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant hated the Jews too you know. You probably like him. 💋
Are you going to allow your Yankee political correctness to surgically remove significant aspects of Jewish history from the social record? Shame on you

Jewish Confederates
By Jonathan Harris
November 9, 2017

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/jewish-confederates/#_ftn5
PapaWhiskey Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 01-01-2023
Posts: 759
RayR wrote:
Don't try to change the subject to your outrageous Lizard People stories Frankie you read in The National Enquirer or something at the checkout. 🦎


But the lizard people do exist! chameleon like, one minute smokin hottie then other times super evil lizard woman. I know because I was married to one for several years Mellow
Sunoverbeach Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,668
We're equating antisemitism now to being for or against slavery? You'll never get hired in an Ohio pizza place with this level of deductive reasoning
RayR Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
PapaWhiskey wrote:
But the lizard people do exist! chameleon like, one minute smokin hottie then other times super evil lizard woman. I know because I was married to one for several years Mellow


Yes, the chameleon lizard people do exist as super evil lizard women. We've all known them, I dated a few myself.
But the lizard people that I expose have names like Biden and pretty much everybody in his Crime Family administration, and Newsom, Hochul, Whitmer, Lightfoot, Fetterman, Hobbs...well you get the idea. Dedicated to doing evil.
Frank denies they exist but will try to throw you off track and switch focus to David Icke and Reptilian Space Aliens.
You know something...Frank might be one of them. OhMyGod
Brewha Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
Sunoverbeach wrote:
We're equating antisemitism now to being for or against slavery? You'll never get hired in an Ohio pizza place with this level of deductive reasoning

Told yah he was mad about not getting the job….
RayR Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
Sunoverbeach wrote:
We're equating antisemitism now to being for or against slavery? You'll never get hired in an Ohio pizza place with this level of deductive reasoning


Some people do I guess. I don't get it myself. Go figure.
It seems Yankee grooming involves reducing reasoning down to whatever your religion or ethnic background, you must be guilty of being a supporter of the institution of slavery if you lived in and supported the Confederate States of America.

If I owned a pizzeria, I would never hire a person with that kind of reasoning.
rfenst Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,335
RayR wrote:
Some people do I guess. I don't get it myself. Go figure.
It seems Yankee grooming involves reducing reasoning down to whatever your religion or ethnic background, you must be guilty of being a supporter of the institution of slavery if you lived in and supported the Confederate States of America.

If I owned a pizzeria, I would never hire a person with that kind of reasoning.

What if they were a good worker with good experience who made you a lot of money and didn't discuss politics or religion with you?
RayR Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,893
rfenst wrote:
What if they were a good worker with good experience who made you a lot of money and didn't discuss politics or religion with you?


Well, that is a hypothetical situation, assuming they could shut their mouth and not let their illogical thinking spill over into their work.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12