What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Rover said:
I'm going to let the neo-Nazi apologists (Drew, Sic, Flag, Brent, etc) handle this one.. :eek:
Click to expand...

Do not EVER lump me in with neo-Nazi apologists. I will defend their right to peaceful free speech, and that's it. Period. I am quite bothered by your label, and take great offense.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

So, why has Benadict Arnold been slighted? no statues for him?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Reading about the Pershing story on Snopes is all-the-more funny considering Pershing did the exact opposite:

We found no references to this alleged incident in Pershing biographies, however, nor does it match the way Pershing is generally recorded as having dealt with the Moros in 1911. When they refused to obey Pershing’s order banning firearms by surrendering their weapons, his response was to draft a letter to the Moros expressing sorrow that his soldiers had to resort to killing them to enforce the order:

"I write you this letter because I am sorry to know that you and your people refuse to do what the government has ordered. You do not give up your arms. Soldiers were sent to Taglibi so that you could come into camp and turn in your guns. When the soldiers went to camp a Taglibi, your Moros fired into camp and tried to kill the soldiers. Then the soldiers had to shoot all Moros who fired upon them. When the soldiers marched through the country, the Moros again shot at them, so the soldiers had to kill several others. I am sorry the soldiers had to kill any Moros. All Moros are the same to me as my children and no father wants to kill his own children …"
Click to expand...

Pershing’s strategy was to surround the Moros and wait them out while attempting to induce them to surrender, a strategy that worked effectively: the Bud Dajo campaign ended with only twelve Moro casualties. But in his report Pershing seemed keenly aware that the best approach was not to take any action that would encourage religious fanaticism:

"There was never a moment during this investment of Bud Dajo when the Moros, including women, on top of the mountain, would not have fought to the death had they been given the opportunity. They had gone there to make a last stand on this, their sacred mountain, and they were determined to die fighting … It was only by the greatest effort that their solid determination to fight it out could be broken. The fact is that they were completely surprised at the prompt and decisive action of the troops in cutting off supplies and preventing escape, and they were chagrined and disappointed in that they were not encouraged to die the death of Mohammedan fanatics."
Click to expand...

Of course, Pershing was a real soldier who actually experienced warfare and understood its true costs. He wasn't some military-school wannabe-toughguy. "I always wanted a purple heart."
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

All those statues of Lenin and Marx that the Russians and their satellite states took down after the Soviet era really should've been left up, just to remind people not to repeat their history.

The marble swastika on top of the Zeppelintribüne? The Allies shouldn't have blown that up - the German people needed it to serve as a reminder not to support Nazism again.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The marble swastika on top of the Zeppelintribüne? The Allies shouldn't have blown that up - the German people needed it to serve as a reminder not to support Nazism again.
Click to expand...

They should have moved it to the Statue of Liberty, it seems that some needed the reminder...
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Montana city to remove Confederate fountain.
A Confederate statue in Helena, Montana is set for removal from a city park after Native American lawmakers petitioned the city council, according to a report on Thursday.

The Helena City Commission directed City Manager Ron Alles to remove the granite fountain from a downtown park on Tuesday, although no official vote was held on the matter, the Independence Record reported.
Click to expand...
Well that's awfully good of them to be progressive in this time of...

Hey...

Wait a minute...

*Opens Wikipedia tab in Firefox*
Montana Territory formed: May 26, 1864
End of Civil War: May 9, 1865
Montana Statehood granted: November 8, 1889
Helena Confederate Memorial Fountain dedicated: 1916.

Fifty. One. Fu**ing years after the Civil War ended, the Daughters of the Confederacy spent the money to erect a statue to the confederate soldiers who fled to Montana. Men who lived 24 more years following the Civil War in a frontier territory without statehood control.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

aparch said:
Montana city to remove Confederate fountain.

Well that's awfully good of them to be progressive in this time of...

Hey...

Wait a minute...

*Opens Wikipedia tab in Firefox*
Montana Territory formed: May 26, 1864
End of Civil War: May 9, 1865
Montana Statehood granted: November 8, 1889
Helena Confederate Memorial Fountain dedicated: 1916.

Fifty. One. Fu**ing years after the Civil War ended, the Daughters of the Confederacy spent the money to erect a statue to the confederate soldiers who fled to Montana. Men who lived 24 more years following the Civil War in a frontier territory without statehood control.
Click to expand...
But I was told it was about the Confederacy, and racism was a minute factor in the statues?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Brenthoven said:
But I was told it was about the Confederacy, and racism was a minute factor in the statues?
Click to expand...

What do Neo Nazis care about the Confederacy...I will hang up and listen.

You can try and dress it up however you like...the facts dont support your thesis man.
 
Brenthoven said:
But I was told it was about the Confederacy, and racism was a minute factor in the statues?
Click to expand...

No, racism was definetly alive and well in 1916. Pretty sure this was a "gentle" reminder to any "darkies" traveling through Montana that a large group of "good ole boys" lived in the area.

And don't forget Oregon (territory from 1848 to 1859, statehood after) was a racist utopia while going under the guise of a "free state" during the Civil War.

In 1857, as Oregon sought to become a state, it wrote the exclusion of blacks into its constitution: “No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the State, or employ or harbor them therein.”

When Oregon entered the Union in 1859 — it did so as a “whites-only” state. The original state constitution banned slavery, but also excluded nonwhites from living there.
Click to expand...


Also, when the 15th Amendment (prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude") was ratified in 1870, Oregon, along with seven other states refused to approve of the amendment. It passed (obviously) without their approval. But Oregon finally caved to formally ratifying the amendment in... 1959.
(It wasn't the last hold out from officially recognizing black men as equals; that would go to: California 1962,
Maryland 1973, Kentucky 1976, and Tennessee 1997. :eek:)





And if through all this, you still think the Daughters of the Confederacy is a cutesy way of honoring the families of the Confederate soldiers, holy fu**, you couldn't be more wrong.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

French Rage said:
Reading about the Pershing story on Snopes is all-the-more funny considering Pershing did the exact opposite:
Click to expand...

"it is amazing how dull history books are, given how much of what's in them must be invented" :)
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

leswp1 said:
Considering the ability to expertly manipulate the media do you think that matters? There are certain sites that will tell you the same conditions exist now.
Click to expand...

Yes it matters. Tchumpistas are still a minority and will remain as such. I repeat we are not even remotely close to having conditions similar to those of 1930's Germany and no amount of hyperbole (from Trump supporters nor those that fear them) is going to change that.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

E.J. Smith said:
Finally, do people really not see the difference between monuments to people who fought FOR this country and monuments to people who fought AGAINST this country? Really? That can't be that hard.

We're talking, literally, about monuments to traitors who fought against the United States and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. In 50 years are we going to be putting up monuments to the 9/11 hi jackers? Because the only difference there is that they weren't also traitors and killed far fewer Americans.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but Lee fought FOR the Southern portion of the country. If you saw a Lee statue in the middle of Detroit, yes you might have a point. He stood up to northern aggressors that invaded them when they wanted to leave. Yes, he was unsuccessful. However, he stood up for states' rights against an overbearing federal government. That is what they honor.

Oh, and there were requests to put mosques near Ground Zero.
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
Hate to break it to you, but Lee fought FOR the Southern portion of the country.
Click to expand...
He fought for the CSA, not the USA. It's not like the CSA's intent was to win the war, then become members of the USA again. That's like saying George Washington fought for England.

FlagDUDE08 said:
Oh, and there were requests to put mosques near Ground Zero.
Click to expand...
That you consider a mosque to be a memorial to the 9/11 highjackers tells us everything we need to know about you.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The way that the RWM and people like Flaggy bend the knee and make excuses for the confederacy and these neo-Nazi/WN clowns is astonishing.

For all that they like to ***** about the left or the MSM, I've never heard anyone defend the likes of, say, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg like that. I don't even think I've heard as much left wing support for those annoying sophomore poli sci and women's studies majors that throw tantrums whenever a conservative wants to speak at their school.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
He fought for the CSA, not the USA. It's not like the CSA's intent was to win the war, then become members of the USA again. That's like saying George Washington fought for England.


That you consider a mosque to be a memorial to the 9/11 highjackers tells us everything we need to know about you.
Click to expand...

Stop engaging him. He's either a troll or a despicable human. He's been exposed for a long time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top