« Where did he get the gun? - Part Two | Main | Political Speculation »

10 July 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Tyler wrote: '"Wasn't a Christian nation". Sure, uh huh. This and other lies you actually believe, like global warming. Like most Leftists, you can't differentiate between a theocracy and establishment on Christian values because you're not as clever as you think.'

Based on what the nuns taught me in Catholic school most of you who claim the title don't qualify as 'christians'.

Whether a theocracy or not makes no difference. Neither you nor the government can force your non-christian values on others.

No global warming? Your most ridiculous statement yet. How many scientific degrees did you earn to come to this conclusion?


Tyler bloviated: 'Try this: Argue some of the points Fred makes'

Which points specifically would you like me to address?

Tyler then wrote: 'You ain't gonna like the snapback'

How christian of you. What about turning the other cheek and all that?


no one wrote: 'How is asking that people behave in a accordance to the norms and values of a civil productive society asking for others to, unreasonably, live according to some white tyrant's rules.'

Who decides the norms and values of this society of which you speak?



Political opposition would be un-Christian? pl



"Who decides the norms and values of this society of which you speak?" Do you accept that your political adversaries should be part of the consensus that creates norms and values? pl



None of that disproves CR's response to your original assertion. Its just more sophistry to try and obfuscate the Cultural Revolution BS that's going on right now.



Western Civ, the most effect form of living we've seen so far, does.

As you see, asking minorities to behave civilized is just too much for self hating whites like GCP.

Maybe we can all live like Sudanese or Somalis. You move there first. Let me know how it works out.



Novo Ordus ain't Catholicism, Jack. Try again.

The very existence of God given human rights in the Constitution is "forcing" values on people, you dope.

A PhD doesn't magically make reality change, nor does erasing data and changing it to fit your "models". I was told as a kid that Miami would be 20 feet underwater by the year 2000, but here we are.

Keep on trying to keep up.



1) All of them

2) You have no idea what Christianity is and isn't. Cherry picking quotes out of context isn't Christianity, and neither is the ethnic self masochism you engage in. Try again.

no one

GPC, well, since you were talking about externalities, when a group decides to live in opposition to, yet within, western civ, they create a myriad of negative externalities. There's ruined neighborhoods, there's the cost of incarceration, there's the welfare for all the single mothers and their children, there's dead and maimed victims....if you want to be a pirate or a tribal warlord, move to Somalia.


No one,

For all his ethnic masochism, GCP's neighborhood is something like 90% white/Asian majority.

Actions speaking louder than words. Online he gets to ride around his moral high horse getting his jollies from attempting (and failing) to enforce GoodThink. In real life he crosses the street when a group of blacks/urban youths/noble men of color come walking towards him.


This whole attack on Southern/Confederate identity is cultural genocide.

While Southerners do not fit the U.N. definition of indigenous people... from the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples":

Article 11 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.


"Cultural genocide" is the right term. pl


Someone needs to point out this little known fact to the Cultural Marxists and idiots like Nancy Pelosi. While that person is at it show it to McConnell and Boehner for good measure.

"U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958

(US Statutes at Large Volume 72, Part 1, Page 133-134)

The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval forces of the United States."


Here is a column written by a former army colonel who wants military bases renamed:

"George Eaton

June 29, 2015

George Eaton is a retired Army officer.

Can’t we find better military role models to serve as examples to our modern soldiers?

In the wake of the Charleston, S.C., shootings and efforts to remove the Confederate battle flag from statehouses and businesses, TIME reporter Mark Thompson raised the question as to why 10 different U.S. Army installations were named after Confederate officers. I have long questioned this practice and think it’s about time it changes.

In response to queries, the Army Public Affairs Office came out with a truly vacuous response: “Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history. Accordingly, these historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies. It should be noted that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division.”

Each line of this statement rightfully opens the door for a barrage of criticism…"



"Can’t we have a higher standard? We don’t have a Fort Rommel, Fort Giap, or Fort Cornwallis—all soldiers who hold a place in our military history. We seem to have set a standard in excluding only some leaders who fought against us. At least those three were excellent leaders."

All I can say to this stupid paragraph is the quality of the officer corps has gone down considerably since I was in.

"The Army needed manpower, and Southern states tended to have more volunteers than other states."

The colonel should read what General Sherman said to a Baptist minister on one reason why this is the case. He said that Southerners are a martial people. I agree because I am one of them. The South has provided in the recent past around 40% of the troops who serve in combat arms.

There is another reason why these bases are named after Southern generals. Prior to WWII the Department of the Army made the nasty discovery that a number of states outside of the South didn't want these bases.

Back in the late 1970s at Ft Hood there was a huge photo of American genera in Confederate service John Bell Hood hanging in the lobby of III Corps HQ.

General Hood had a well deserve reputation of being aggressive he won as a regimental commander of Texans through that of a brigade commander to a divisional commander with the Army of Northern Virginia. As for Eaton's opinion about Hood as commander of the Army of Tennessee I couldn't disagree more. It was appropriate for the base to be named after him as armored divisions were station there from its beginning during WWII. At the time I served there was the base had two armored divisions, a support brigade and an attack helicopter brigade. This was a powerful force. As for his complaint about Bragg and Polk I can see his point. I suppose the reason for the two bases being named after them was the former was an army commander while the latter was a corps commander. If they were renamed the names should be those of other worthy Southerners who served the Confederacy. There is no shortage of worthy and honorable candidates. N.B. Forrest comes to mind.

In short, with all due respect to the colonel's rank he can go straight to hell with this bullshit.



Yes, and Wall Street was built on land my family used to own, before different Indians than the ones they bought it from killed a bunch of them and the survivors sold out and moved that is. I'm sure some lawyer can figure out how to get me a piece of the action.

While we are at it can we get the Eisenhower to explain this:
How dare the guy that won a war against the Nazis not get with the 2015 agenda of the liberals.....



The liberals need to explain how the guy that beat the Nazi's was just wrong about the civil war:



just sold the house and moved (temporarily) into liberal la-la land. They would be shocked to find a gun owner in their midst. Though whether the aging 60's hippie or the muslim grad student would be more shocked is an interesting question.



Yes. I do not accept that they can impose their cultural values on others when it comes to rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

C'mom Colonel. This discussion goes back to Plato. I don't understand why you attempt to legitimize those who are attempting to make arguments that would be impossible to implement in a pluralistic society.


Define 'christian'. Do you think many of those who self-define as 'christian' today are following the example of Jesus in their daily lives?


Tyler wrote: 'A PhD doesn't magically make reality change, nor does erasing data and changing it to fit your "models". I was told as a kid that Miami would be 20 feet underwater by the year 2000, but here we are.'

No you weren't. So, now, back to those degrees. How many do you have in the sciences?


Tyler wrote: 'The very existence of God given human rights in the Constitution is "forcing" values on people'

So much here ...

1. Can you prove the existence of this god with all those scientific degrees of yours?

2. Where, exactly, does the constitution state god gave any rights to anyone? Is this another of those burning bush stories?

That should be enough to keep you awake for hours.



"I do not accept that they can impose their cultural values on others" Once again you are constructing a straw man that is evidently satisfactory to you world view. I asked you if those who differ with you can/should be part of the consensus that establishes social mores. No one said anything about "imposing" anything. Do you see representation of their views in a consensus as imposing on you? you remind me of an old friend who is of the left who rails against those she disagrees with. When asked if these "villains" should be allowed to vote, she falls silent. pl



Move to your secular paradise of North Korea then, and you can live free from religion.

no one

GCP, I'm going to have to ask that you help me understand this,"I do not accept that they can impose their cultural values on others when it comes to rights guaranteed in the Constitution."

Isn't it your fellow travelers that want to diminish - if not eliminate - 2A rights? Aren't they running people out of positions in universities, sports team ownership, etc. for exercising free speech?

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but it sure looks to me like you're saying your side can violate rights, but the other side cannot. Where am I reading it wrong? Thx.


They're not bringing up the General and Mary Ann just yet. There are more formal hoops to jump through, including getting the approval of the Forrest family, and a protest was recently held in the park.

I read that Bubba Watson has declared that he will paint over the battle flag on top of the original DoH "General Lee" car that he owns, an impressively pointless gesture. At least it will spoil the value of the car.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad