╌>

Robert E. Lee Statue Gives One Final Thumbs-Up As It's Melted Down

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  gregtx  •  6 months ago  •  121 comments

By:   The Babylon Bee

Robert E. Lee Statue Gives One Final Thumbs-Up As It's Melted Down
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA — In a meaningful moment that was years in the making, the bronze statue of Robert E. Lee that once stood in Charlottesville gave one final, solemn thumbs-up as it was melted down in a blazing furnace.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA — In a meaningful moment that was years in the making, the bronze statue of Robert E. Lee that once stood in Charlottesville gave one final, solemn thumbs-up as it was melted down in a blazing furnace.

"It was a powerful sight," said one eyewitness to the statue's final destruction. "We all knew it was a momentous occasion, but we were not expecting to see General Lee give one last salute. As he was lowered into the blazing furnace, he reached one hand up and gave a thumbs-up before disappearing into the molten metal below. Through the smoke, I thought I heard the words: 'I know now why you cry, but it's something I can never do.' It was almost as if he was at peace with his fate."

"Truly moving."

The statue, a source of controversy in the wake of the 2017 Charlottesville rally that resulted in an explosion of racial tension, was originally torn down in 2021. "With the melting down of this statue, racism has now, thankfully, been completely eradicated," said progressive minister Jeremiah Barnes. "All people will live in peace and harmony now that this bronze sculpture isn't causing endless hate to spread around the globe. Perhaps his final thumbs-up was his own way of agreeing that he must be destroyed."

At publishing time, sources had confirmed the metal from the melted statue would be used to sculpt a new monument of Lizzo embracing Beyonce.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1  seeder  GregTx    6 months ago

800

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  GregTx @1    6 months ago

Maybe only Americans get the point of that image, because I sure don't.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.1  seeder  GregTx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    6 months ago

Maybe only one American that gets the point of the image?.... 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  GregTx @1.1.1    6 months ago

They look like fritters, a southern fried dish.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.3  seeder  GregTx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.2    6 months ago
a southern fried dish.

Correct, they're called hushpuppies.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.1.4  SteevieGee  replied to  GregTx @1.1.3    6 months ago

What's the point of the hush puppies?  Do they have anything to do with the story?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  SteevieGee @1.1.4    6 months ago

Crosby’s Urban Viddles has the best hush puppies in Charlottesville.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.1.6  seeder  GregTx  replied to  SteevieGee @1.1.4    6 months ago

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  GregTx @1.1.6    6 months ago

I think this is as much on topic as hushpuppies, but then we all have our specific interests, don't we.  

OIP-C.Ijw-GG2zq06juxRQjHCUAAHaLV?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

Gone With the Wind, sort of like what some people want to happen to American history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.7    6 months ago

You may know that Gone With The Wind itself, the novel moreso than the movie, but the movie too, is now considered offensive because of its romantic,sympathetic portrayal of the South during the slavery/Civil War era. Times change. When Gone With The Wind was written and the movie made , blacks were considered to be more of the Aunt Jemima, Steppin Fetchit types , particularly in the entertainment world. 

I like the movie Gone With The Wind, but it is also easy to see what is objectionable about it. 

Gone With the Wind, sort of like what some people want to happen to American history.

Robert E Lee was a traitor. Do they have statues of traitors standing in Canada or China? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    6 months ago

Well, then, John, why don't you start a crusade to get the movie banned like Song of the South is, then maybe start a protest to get the Jolson Story banned as well, and the Shirley Temple movies where she dances with that, you know, that old guy on the staircase?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.9    6 months ago

You are way out of line on this topic, almost comically so. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.11  George  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    6 months ago

no John, it’s just Buzz appreciates art, and isn’t a snowflake that has to cancel everything that may offend other snowflakes. He is adult enough to appreciate a movie or art for what it is, and the time it was created. and turn off what offends him or what he doesn’t like.

If the pieces of crap who want to cancel everything that offends themselves would just use a little self restraint and not watch it and allow others to make those decisions for themselves maybe we wouldn’t make fun of the cancel culture pansies.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  George @1.1.11    6 months ago

Believe it or not there were people who thought statues of Hitler were art or that swaztika banners were art. 

Plus we know why statues of confederate generals were erected and it wasnt because they were artistic masterpieces. 

we wouldn’t make fun of the cancel culture pansies.

WGAF ?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  George @1.1.11    6 months ago

Thank you, George.  You said it better than I could have.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.12    6 months ago

Using a monster and his symbol as an example or comparison is a bit of overkill, IMO.  Didn't George Washington own slaves?  Why don't you start a movement to tear down the Washington monument, the obelisk?  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.14    6 months ago

There is also the Jefferson Memorial and numerous structures named after President Wilson, a twentieth century avid racist.  Let start with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge connecting Maryland and Virginia.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.15    6 months ago

when did jefferson or wilson take up arms against the US? false equivalency.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.17  George  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.12    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.14    6 months ago

Because Washington is an important figure in our history despite him owning slaves. Lee isnt. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.15    6 months ago

I was going to use the Jefferson Memorial as a further example, but I thought the comeback would be that at least Jefferson made it clear that he was opposed to slavery - but does that make him a hypocrite?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @1.1.16    6 months ago

I have no idea why these guys whine about taking the statues of traitors down. Its inexplicable. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.1.16    6 months ago

Neither did, they were just despicable, slave owning, racists.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.1.22  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    6 months ago

Lee was loyal to Virginia, at the time that was most important.  An Individual's  state was more important than the rest of the states put together. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.22    6 months ago

Robert E Lee owned slaves, and was in no hurry to get rid of them. He literally said that slavery would end whenever God wanted it to end, but not before. Convenient excuse wouldnt you say?

If the Confederacy had won the war it would make some sense to have statues of him up in the south. But they lost and those states are US territory. Honoring traitors is not good. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.1.24  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.23    6 months ago

He was loyal to Virginia. When Virginia succeeded his loyalty went to his home state as that was the custom at the time,  nowadays  that is not understood. 

He was a great military leader but the South did not have the industrial base to win the war

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.19    6 months ago
but I thought the comeback would be that at least Jefferson made it clear that he was opposed to slavery

What do you call someone who was "opposed to slavery" but owned slaves , a lot of them, his entire life? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.26  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.25    6 months ago

A hypocrite. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.1.27  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.25    6 months ago

somebody who was doing what was legal at the time and what many others were doing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.27    6 months ago

make as many excuses as you want, its a free country

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.1.29  charger 383  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.28    6 months ago

It is a free country and I can say what I want, just as you can. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.1.30  SteevieGee  replied to  charger 383 @1.1.29    6 months ago

It's only a free country if everybody, including slaves, can say and do what they want.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2  MrFrost    6 months ago

800

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1  George  replied to  MrFrost @2    6 months ago

Well at least you got one half right, democrats were racist slave owners, [Deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  George @2.1    6 months ago

Well at least you got one half right, democrats were racist slave owners

So then why is it that right wingers are so upset about this statue being torn down? Also, you know it's 2023 now, right? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    6 months ago

I couldn’t care less about the statue but not being a right winger, my opinion probably doesn’t answer your question.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.3  George  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    6 months ago

I don’t know any “right wingers” upset by this, I just find it funny that democrats think that anybody but those stupid enough to support them will believe this will erase their long continued history of racism.

And i absolutely know it’s 2023, the only difference between then and now is republicans took democrats slaves away, nothing else has changed with democrats.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  George @2.1.3    6 months ago
nothing else has changed with democrats.

How many minorities are in the GOP vs. Dems in congress again? Might want to look that up. [deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.2    6 months ago
my opinion probably doesn’t answer your question.

None of the right wingers here will answer the question either. They will just deflect. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    6 months ago

So then why is it that right wingers are so upset about this statue being torn down?

I don't know anyone actually upset. Most just ridicule the snowflakes that insist on taking statues down as a means to virtue signal. Like it makes a difference.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
2.2  seeder  GregTx  replied to  MrFrost @2    6 months ago

Were Democrats wanting to tear those monuments down before or after they lost control of southern state governance?...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @2.2    6 months ago

funny how youtube bleeped out all the times lee atwater said the N word...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3  Gsquared  replied to  MrFrost @2    6 months ago

In fact, there were Republicans who were slave owners.  At least 481 Republican Congressmen owned slaves.

Francis P. Blair, one of the Republican Party’s founders, owned slaves while he presided over the 1856 Republican convention and was a delegate in 1860, Kruse said.

Benjamin Burton, who served twice as a state legislator in Delaware under the Whig party before becoming a Republican later in life, also owned slaves, according to his  obituary . In fact, his 28 slaves  made  him Delaware’s leading slave-owner.

...

the KKK had particularly strong footing in Indiana, where the group’s leader was "a kingmaker in GOP politics..."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3    6 months ago

least 481 Republican Congressmen owned slaves.

lol. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.1    6 months ago

You obviously didn't read the article.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.3.3  George  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.3.2    6 months ago

Perrie, not looking for an argument here, the Modern Republican Party didn’t start until 1854, do you honestly think the had 481 different congressmen between that time and slavery ended? His stament is 481 Republican congressmen, that means serving in Congress as a republican and owning slaves. And only 606 democrats? Does that seem feasible to you? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.1    6 months ago

If you can prove that is a false statement, now is the time to do it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  George @2.3.3    6 months ago
His stament is 481 Republican congressmen, that means serving in Congress as a republican and owning slaves. And only 606 democrats? Does that seem feasible to you? 

I dont know if the statement is accurate or not, but it doesnt mean what you think it does. 

You dont have to be a slave owner while you are in Congress. They could have owned slaves prior to becoming congressman, for that matter prior to becoming a Republican,  and still be a Republican congressman who owned slaves. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.6  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.5    6 months ago

Exactly it's quite clear in the article.

They spanned a wide swathe of the American political establishment, and represented more than 60 parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as lesser-known parties, including the Federalists, Whigs, Unionists, Populists, Progressives, Prohibitionists, the Post found.

Still, the Democratic party had the highest number of lawmakers who, at one point in their lives, owned slaves. 

The newspaper found 606 such cases. There were some 481 congressional Republicans who were identified as slaveowners.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.3.2    6 months ago

Of course I did. And since I have  basic knowledge of American  history I knew it was obviously wrong.  I looked at the actual underlying source  this crappy Turkish clickbait links to, and guess what? 

It says no such thing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.3.6    6 months ago

Read the actual source article the linked Turkish news article cites. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.8    6 months ago
The newspaper found 606 such cases. There were some 481 congressional Republicans who were identified as slaveowners.

The newspaper found 606 such cases. There were some 481 congressional Republicans who were identified as slaveowners.

Imagine having a basic understanding of American history and thinking the ratio of 606 to 481 between Democratic and Republican slaveholding Congressmen could possibly be true. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.10  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.8    6 months ago

The research was done by the Washington Post per Reuters 

REUTERS
The Washington Post study examined censuses and other historical records to compile its findings. The article also states that the politicans owned slaves sometime in their life not only when they were serving in congress.

The original article was researched and verified by the Washington Post and is available on the internet.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.3.10    6 months ago

Try reading the actual study. I have.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.3.12  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.9    6 months ago

It perpetuates the myth that democrats weren’t the bad guys, the party of abolishing slavery were as bad as the racist democrats who killed almost a million Americans to hold onto their slaves. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.13  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.9    6 months ago

It also states that over 3,000 did not own slaves and there are 677 left to verify or there is not enough info to make a determination.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.14  Kavika   replied to  George @2.3.12    6 months ago

George, please explain the disparity in the number of minorities in the current congress between Dem's and Repub's. I  would think that with dems being racists, per your many comments the number would be much different....80% dems and 20% repubs...shamefull for your party.

BTW, asking for a white republican friend.

Jan 9, 2023  The vast majority (80%) of racial and ethnic minority members in the new Congress are Democrats, while 20% are Republicans.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @2.3.14    6 months ago

Dont be too logical, it will confuse them. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.3.13    6 months ago

also states that over 3,000 did not own slaves and there are 677 left to verify or there is not enough info to make a determination.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote.  The idea that there was 6:5 ratio between Democrat and Republican slaveholders is simply ludicrous on its face. From the study:

By the eve of the Civil War, there were almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in the 36th Congress, which met in Washington from 1859 to 1861. The Democrats, including those who belonged to Democratic splinter groups, counted nearly 100 slaveholders among their ranks, a Post analysis found. The Republicans, which had emerged as the party of abolition, had just one slaveholder.'

So somehow, the ratio of slaveholders massively flipped from a 100-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans, to a massive Republican majority of slaveholders outside of those in congress in 1860 in order to drive the ratio down to 6:5.  It's absurd on its face. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  George @2.3.12    6 months ago
It perpetuates the myth that democrats weren’t the bad guys, the party of abolishing slavery were as bad as the racist democrats who killed almost a million Americans to hold onto their slaves. 

They will seize  on whatever pushes the narrative. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.18  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.16    6 months ago

Yes, it does have something to do with what you wrote, the unverified should go either way which would change the numbers.

I did read the whole study and also underlined the same paragraph:

By the eve of the Civil War, there were almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in the 36th Congress, which met in Washington from 1859 to 1861. The Democrats, including those who belonged to Democratic splinter groups, counted nearly 100 slaveholders among their ranks, a Post analysis found. The Republicans, which had emerged as the party of abolition, had just one slaveholder.'

They were speaking of the 36th Congress and its current members at the time. The article states that ''slaveowners sometime in their life'' not currently and that seems to be the key to the article and the misunderstanding by some.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.3.18    6 months ago
he unverified should go either way which would change the numbers.

Even if every single "unverified" was a Democrat, the numbers still make no sense. 

did read the whole study 

Great. So quote the study claiming the ratio of 686 Democrats to 486 Republicans.  

The problem is you can't because it doesn't exist. The Washington Post study  makes no such claim.  The honorable thing to do is admit the claim is bullshit and move on. 

 speaking of the 36th Congress and its current members at the time

That's understood. Again, if the ratio was that extreme at the time of the civil war (about 100 to 1) , when did it flip?  Do you think the solid democratic south of the late 19th century was electing Republicans and not Democrats who formerly owned slaves? Or do you believe large numbers of former slaveholders migrated to the north, turned Republican and were elected to Congress from the north?  Again, it is silly on its face. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.20  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.19    6 months ago
Francis P. Blair, one of the Republican Party’s founders, owned slaves while he presided over the 1856 Republican convention and was a delegate in 1860, Kruse said.

Time to hit the sack, we can continue tomorrow or not.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.21  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @2.3.18    6 months ago

You are correct, Kavika.  The Washington Post study listed 481 slave owners who identified as Republicans at some point in their elected careers.  It's not a mystery, although it seems to be to some.  Of course, some people might feel the results of the study impedes their propagandistic efforts.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.21    6 months ago
e Washington Post study listed 481 slave owners who identified as Republicans at some point in their elected careers. 

That's a lie. It doesn't. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.23  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.22    6 months ago

Hello Sean, it's a great day and to continue with something that is even better than slave-owning Republicans is that:

Francis P. Blair, one of the Republican Party’s founders, owned slaves while he presided over the 1856 Republican convention and was a delegate in 1860, Kruse said.

So one of the founders of the Republican Party was a slave owner, this certain bears further discussion.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.25  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @2.3.14    6 months ago

George, my white Republican Friend is very disappointed he felt that you could answer this question for him since like most Republicans he gets tongue-tied trying to make sense of the stat. Perhaps your abacas need some maintenance, that might help.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.3.23    6 months ago

Since there are apparently 480 other Republicans who owned slaves, why the obsessive focus on Blair, whose history isn't  even at issue?  

Why don't you back up your claim  about the 480 other slaveholding  Republicans?  Since you gave Gsquared a thumbs up when he claimed the Post posted a list of their names, you must have seen it, so why not post it? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.27  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.26    6 months ago

I posted an article and if you feel that it's incorrect please post information that it is.

In my comment 2.3.4 I asked if you could disprove now was the time. 

I did give G a thumbs up, great that you check those things, do you keep a record of who when and when they are done?

BTW, the Nazis were not socialist.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.3.27    6 months ago
I asked if you could disprove now was the time. 

Lol. I did. I pointed out the source of the claim (the Washington Post)  doesn't support  it. Anyone who can read understands that.  Rather than being honest and admit that, you continue to deflect.  Why can't you be honest about the article and speak directly? You know, and I know,  the article you posted is disinformation. What a shame you persist in pretending otherwise.   

 great that you check those things, 

Was curious who would give a thumbs up to disinformation.  Can't say I was surprised you did. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.29  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.28    6 months ago
Was curious who would give a thumbs up to disinformation.  Can't say I was surprised you did. 

Ah Sean, childish insult but if you want to play that game it was you who keeps posting that the Nazis were socialists and everyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history knows that is BS so I guess it right back at ya. You could do the honorable thing and admit you are posting a lie. 

In my comment 2.3.1 I asked that NT member why since dems are all racist the number of minorities in the current congress is 80% dem and 20% repub? He hasn't responded and since you of the same mind what to try to answer it?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.30  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.28    6 months ago

This is the Washington Post database which you undoubtedly have not read.  It lists the names of every slaveowner who was in Congress:

Just looking at the first 45 names out of 1800, I have already found 14 who are listed as Republicans.

You have pointed out nothing that is in any way true.  Anyone who can read understands that.  Rather than being honest and admit that, you continue to deflect.  Your comments are total disinformation.  What a shame you persist in pretending otherwise. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.31  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.22    6 months ago
It doesn't.

That's a lie.

You haven't read the Washington Post database.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.30    6 months ago
is is the Washington Post database which you undoubtedly have not read.

Way to catch up! Did you miss the correction where the Post disavowed the partisan breakdown your clickbait article relied upon?

st looking at the first 45 names out of 1800, I have already found 14 who are listed as Republicans.

No you didn't. Feel free to list them. 

  Your comments are total disinformation

As you persist in defending a claim the Post itself disavowed.  Shameful behavior. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.33  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.32    6 months ago
the Post disavowed

Prove it.

No you didn't. Feel free to list them.

Yes, I fucking did.  You didn't and you know it.  Your comments are a disgrace.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.33    6 months ago
Prove it.

It's literally in the article. Did you not read it? 

 You didn't and you know i

I looked at the first 45 and your claim is bullshit. I don't know if you pulling numbers out of thin air or don't understand what you read. List the 14 and prove me wrong. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.35  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.34    6 months ago
It's literally in the article.

That's lie.

I looked at the first 45

That's a lie.

 List the 14 

On one condition - that you stay off Newstalkers for year.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.35    6 months ago
hat's lie

I can't help it if you can't understand basic English. It's right there for you. 

n one condition - that you stay off Newstalkers for year.

Okay. and if you can't show 14 of the first 45 (from Abbott to Arnell)  represented the Republican Party than you have to stay off for a year.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.36    6 months ago

This back and forth between you two has hit a dead end. 

If it continues I'm going to start deleting. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.38  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.36    6 months ago

Actually, there are 15 out of the first 45.

1. Joel Abbott 

2. Adam Alexander

3. Evan Alexander

4. Mark Alexander

5. Nathaniel Alexander

6. Robert Allen (177-1844)

7. Lemuel Alston

8. Willis Alston

9. George Anderson

10. Lucien Anderson

11. Richard Anderson, Jr.

12. William Anderson

12. John Archer

14. Stevenson Archer (1786-1848)

15. Samuel Arnell

--

It looks like we won't be seeing you on here for a while.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.38    6 months ago

Lol. I didn't even have to go past your first name.   Remember what I said about having a basic understanding of American history? Your mistake was so obvious.  The Republican party was founded in 1854

Joel Abbott: died on November 19, 1826, in Lexington, Ga.; interment in Rest Haven Cemetery, Washington, Ga

Here's your second mistake. 

Alexander, Adam

died on November 1, 1848, in Jackson, Madison County, Tenn.; interment in Pryor Cemetery, Marshall County, Mis

See you next year. Enjoy the time off. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
2.3.40  seeder  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.37    6 months ago

Start deleting what?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.41  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.39    6 months ago

Joel Abbott was elected to the 15th, 16th and 17th Congresses as a member of the Republican Party.

Adam Alexander was also elected to Congress as a Republican.

If you had basic knowledge of American history you would know that the Republican Party was originally founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 1790s, based on the same basic principles as edpoused by later permutations of the Republican Party, including republicanism, individual liberty, decentralization, free markets and agrarianism.

It would probably benefit you during your year off to take some classes in American history.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.3.42  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.39    6 months ago

Robert Allen on his list shows he died in 1844 strike 3.

Steven Archer died 1848. Another strike.

I think it’s a basic ignorance of history, they see democratic- republican and assume republican out of ignorance or confirmation bias, the Republican Party wasn’t even founded when they died.

What is the over under the bet is honored?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.43  Gsquared  replied to  George @2.3.42    6 months ago

The basic ignorance of history is with those who fail to understand that the party founded by Thomas Jefferson was known as the Republican Party.  It was never called the "Democratic-Republican Party" by its members.  Ignorant people often assume all sorts of things that are not true.  Believing that there was ever a party whose members were elected as "Democratic-Republicans" is one of those instances.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.3.44  George  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.43    6 months ago

It appears you are wrong, but don’t worry nobody thinks you would honor your bet.

Born : May 5, 1741, Churchville, MD
Died : September 28, 1810 (age 69 years), Harford County, MD
Children : Stevenson Archer
Great grandchild : George E. Chamberlain
 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.45  Gsquared  replied to  George @2.3.44    6 months ago

You are wrong.  There was no such thing as the Democratic-Republican Party.  Follow your own link.  It was a name applied retroactively by historians and political scientists.  

As usual, you bet on the loser.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.3.46  George  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.45    6 months ago

[deleted3] everybody and i'm men everybody knows the democratic republican party is the democrat party and the republican party didn't start until the 1850's. [deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.47  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.41    6 months ago

[deleted] claiming that the Republican Party founded in 1854 is the same party as the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans.  [deleted]

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  George @2.3.42    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.48    6 months ago

This sidetrack has taken up half the space on this article. Enough. I think I will lock it and you guys can take up your argument elsewhere. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.3.50  MrFrost  replied to  Kavika @2.3.14    6 months ago
George, please explain the disparity in the number of minorities in the current congress between Dem's and Repub's.

That's exactly what I was asking...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3  Drinker of the Wry    6 months ago

I hope that they did it in an environmentally friendly way.,

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4  Buzz of the Orient    6 months ago

There are most likely many nations that would like to hide something or other from their past, but, as Bob Dylan wrote and sang:  "And the history books tell it, they tell it so well..."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    6 months ago

Left wingers pause  from destroying posters of Jewish hostages and calling for genocide to fight racism by  destroying art. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    6 months ago
by  destroying art. 

lol. Statues of Robert E Lee were not created for artistic purposes. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6  Gsquared    6 months ago

Right wingers conducted Kristallnacht and then murdered 6 million Jews.  They also repressed artists they considered "degenerate".

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @6    6 months ago

maga rwnj's paid tribute and celebrated their antisemitism in charlottesville and now project it upon their enemies. christo-fascists believe they have exclusivity in the convert or kill ideology concerning the world's jewish communities.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @6    6 months ago

t wingers conducted Kristallnacht and then murdered 6 million Jews.

Good comparison.  "right wing" socialists in Germany 85 years ago are exactly the same as left wing American professors and students cheering for  the same in America in 2023.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    6 months ago

The phrase "right wing socialists in Germany 85 years ago" is well-recognized as a fraudulent reactionary trope attempting to label the Nazis as "socialists".  Anyone with knowledge of historical reality knows how far that is from the truth.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @6.2.1    6 months ago
nized as a fraudulent reactionary trope attempting to label the Nazis as "socialists"

The Nazis labeled themselves socialists because they were in fact socialists.

Anyone with knowledge of historical reality knows how far that is from the truth.

Given your post about hundreds of slave holding Republicans serving  in Congress, [Deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.2    6 months ago
The Nazis labeled themselves socialists because they were in fact socialists

And war is peace and 2+2=5.

---

The claim that the Nazis were socialists is right wing propaganda.  The Nazis imprisoned and murdered socialists.

"Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews.  In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively."

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.2    6 months ago

the vatican participated in the laundering of stolen jewish assets and helping nazis escape. deny it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
6.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @6.2.3    6 months ago

Yes and Stalin and Mao murdered communists, it’s just what they do.

The Nazi Party roots like Mussolini’s were socialist in the 20’s.  The it morphed into authoritarian anti-capitalism and then fascism.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7  Drinker of the Wry    6 months ago

Surprisingly, they self identified as socialists.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.1  Gsquared  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7    6 months ago

Not surprisingly, reactionary propagandists continue to espouse that falsehood.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8  Drinker of the Wry    6 months ago

Falsehood?  How do translate Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei into English?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
8.1  Gsquared  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    6 months ago

North Korea is officially named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.  Is it a democracy?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.2  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    6 months ago

National Socialist German Workers Party.....Yes every one understands that but the reality of the era and leaders is quite different. Hitler and the leaders of the NAZI party;

 The Nazi regime had little to do with socialism, despite it being prominently included in the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The NSDAP, from Hitler on down, struggled with the political implications of having socialism in the party name. Some early Nazi leaders, such as Gregor and Otto Strasser, appealed to working-class resentments, hoping to wean German workers away from their attachment to existing socialist and communist parties. 


                            
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9  Drinker of the Wry    6 months ago

No, it’s a socialist country as well.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    6 months ago

There is a man named Ty Seidule . He was at one point the historian for the US Military Academy (West Point). He grew up idolizing Robert E Lee, but over the years the more he learned the more he came to the opinion that Lee and other confederate officials and generals were traitors. Why should the US honor traitors? There is no good reason. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

th?id=OIP.8XUOs4uQL0ll-90azLfNEAAAAA&w=80&h=80&c=1&vt=10&bgcl=28328d&r=0&o=6&pid=5.1

‘Confederates were traitors’: Ty Seidule on West Point, …

Web Sep 5, 2022  · Books Interview ‘Confederates were traitors’:   Ty   Seidule on West Point, race and American history Martin Pengelly in New York The discovery of a plaque showing a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the...

th?id=OIP.uiK4FNdNB1NrajBmD53O9QHaD4&w=80&h=80&c=1&vt=10&bgcl=2c1f97&r=0&o=6&pid=5.1

Web Jan 26, 2021  · 4,388 ratings900 reviews. In a forceful but humane narrative, former soldier and head of the West Point history department   Ty   Seidule's …

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11  Drinker of the Wry    6 months ago
Why should the US honor traitors? There is no good reason. 

We shouldn’t, Lee violated his oath which legally bound him to uphold and defend the constitution, not his state.  I think that Lee was a very conflicted man.  He served honorable and very well for 30 some years.  Spoke against succession until Virginia succeeded, but then could see beyond his learned behavior.  After the war he spoke against any monuments to him.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11    6 months ago

Lee believed that slaves should be free, but only in God's good time. He thought the Africans needed the discipline they were getting from the white man. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.1  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    6 months ago
Lee believed that slaves should be free, but only in God's good time.

= after all the tobacco was harvested and cotton was picked...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    6 months ago

Yes, he did.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @11.1.1    6 months ago

No cotton in Northern Virginia.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11    6 months ago

lee disavowed the confederate lost cause after the civil war and urged all southerners to do the same.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @11.2    6 months ago

a day late and a confederate dollar short

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.2  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    6 months ago

hey, that rebel money could be worth something, after they find that stolen yankee gold...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @11.2    6 months ago

Yes, he did,

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    6 months ago

Better late than never.

 
 

Who is online






51 visitors