Floyd Died From An Overdose Of Fentanyl - Not From Being Choked Out By Minneapolis Police!

[CardinalBacker]

6 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

First of all you do not know me so you can’t fairly tell me how I feel on this issue. I do not wish to change history. The colonies went to war to separate from the crown. To become its own Nation ruled by its own people. The south choose war to keep its slaves. I telling you I will disown a family member in a hurry if they chose to fight for the rights to have slaves. 
 

I can have issue with many things in this country that do not mean I do not love my country or wish for it’s downfall the USA is the only country I will ever call home.

Take the statues of Robert E lee and others and put them in a civil war museum     The confederate flag grant all of them. We are the United States of America.

 

I love the idea of Obama next to Robert e lee but that do nothing for healing only cause more hate. It will be like what Cellini  did to Michelangelo.

Slavery was one of a lot of issues that led to the Civil War. Anybody that says it was purely over states’ rights isn’t being accurate. And anybody that says it was purely over slavery isn’t being accurate, either. 
 

There were 4 million slaves at the time of the civil war. 3.5 million were in the areas that seceded (the South). There were 500,000 in the North. The ones up North weren’t freed until AFTER the war was over...yet today some believe that slavery was what the war was fought over.  Why would the North go to war with the South to free slaves if they still held slaves of their own? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Slavery was a horrible institution and we’re all better off now that is gone from our shores. Out of all of the slaves that were ever sold out of Africa, roughly 5% made their way to the US. But somehow we’re all led to believe that slavery was solely a Southern American atrocity. It just boggles the mind. 

[Reagan]

54 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

This is perfect example. You don’t think like me you must be the devil. Somehow you convince yourself this is a sane way of thinking.

It's an analogy!  Look up the word!

[Reagan]

Let's get down to the brass tacks:   I'm fairly sure the BLM types will want one to believe this scenario:   Floyd was an upstanding person in his community.  Had a good job.  Good family man.  Has never been in trouble with the law.   Now, on the other hand, the cop woke up that morning and said:  "I think I'm going to kill a black person today!"   And poor Floyd was just in the wrong place, minding his own business, at the wrong time.   Am I close that this is what a lot of people want everyone to believe?   

[PAMFAM10]

44 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Slavery was one of a lot of issues that led to the Civil War. Anybody that says it was purely over states’ rights isn’t being accurate. And anybody that says it was purely over slavery isn’t being accurate, either. 
 

There were 4 million slaves at the time of the civil war. 3.5 million were in the areas that seceded (the South). There were 500,000 in the North. The ones up North weren’t freed until AFTER the war was over...yet today some believe that slavery was what the war was fought over.  Why would the North go to war with the South to free slaves if they still held slaves of their own? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Slavery was a horrible institution and we’re all better off now that is gone from our shores. Out of all of the slaves that were ever sold out of Africa, roughly 5% made their way to the US. But somehow we’re all led to believe that slavery was solely a Southern American atrocity. It just boggles the mind. 

You can not change history.. read S.C. letter of secession clear as day but keep grasping at straws.

[PAMFAM10]

8 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Let's get down to the brass tacks:   I'm fairly sure the BLM types will want one to believe this scenario:   Floyd was an upstanding person in his community.  Had a good job.  Good family man.  Has never been in trouble with the law.   Now, on the other hand, the cop woke up that morning and said:  "I think I'm going to kill a black person today!"   And poor Floyd was just in the wrong place, minding his own business, at the wrong time.   Am I close that this is what a lot of people want everyone to believe?   

Only the narrative to have in your head of what others think? Have you had a conversation with a blm member on this issue? Any black persons told you this. Or your conservative/conspiracies outlet thinking for you. You don’t understand how you make yourself look.

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Amen... there’s too many “libtards, dimocrats, and Obummers” getting tossed around by the conservative posters on here. 
 

I used to recommend a couple of college level political science courses for anybody that is interested in politics/governance. The liberal bias by instructors was obvious back when I was in school, but it was manageable. It’s nutty over there now, from what I can tell. The professor that actually taught my poli-sci courses at Lamar was Dr. Drury.... He’s the liberal viewpoint whenever they have a political panel on the local news these days, lol. 

Know someone at Lamar just about finished getting a degree in Crimnal Justice.   One class required a Rhetorical Analysis paper.  My friend wanted to do a paper on Pro Life.   The Professor denied it.   That’s what students are facing now.

[Realville]

8 minutes ago, Hagar said:

Know someone at Lamar just about finished getting a degree in Crimnal Justice.   One class required a Rhetorical Analysis paper.  My friend wanted to do a paper on Pro Life.   The Professor denied it.   That’s what students are facing now.

Some on here would say that’s a conservative conspiracy point of view an that it never happened an the Professor knows best.  So much for the 1st Amendment. Hagar now don’t be throwing out any facts on this board for it may cause some of these geniuses with HUGE BRAINS to have a meltdown. 

[CardinalBacker]

38 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

You can not change history.. read S.C. letter of secession clear as day but keep grasping at straws.

There was a monument in the Texas Capitol that was pretty despicable, too. 

[CardinalBacker]

33 minutes ago, Hagar said:

Know someone at Lamar just about finished getting a degree in Crimnal Justice.   One class required a Rhetorical Analysis paper.  My friend wanted to do a paper on Pro Life.   The Professor denied it.   That’s what students are facing now.

There was a really conservative ex-military guy in my class that would argue with Dr Drury.... I never understood the wisdom in that. You’re never gonna move that guy’s way of thinking   

[Hagar]

20 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

There was a really conservative ex-military guy in my class that would argue with Dr Drury.... I never understood the wisdom in that. You’re never gonna move that guy’s way of thinking   

In my few years at Lamar, naturally we had some Liberal Professors, but at least in those days, they were fair.   From what I hear now, you take a Rolaid and write, at least, with a moderate liberal slant.  And heck no, don’t argue with them.

One thing I am curious about, why in a conservative State, at a State funded University, would it be okay to have ultra (liberal) biased people teaching young minds?  I can’t wrap my head around that.

[PAMFAM10]

48 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

There was a monument in the Texas Capitol that was pretty despicable, too. 

South went to war to keep slaves saying other wise is lying. Or just a refusal to accept history.

[PAMFAM10]

47 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

There was a really conservative ex-military guy in my class that would argue with Dr Drury.... I never understood the wisdom in that. You’re never gonna move that guy’s way of thinking   

 

47 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

There was a really conservative ex-military guy in my class that would argue with Dr Drury.... I never understood the wisdom in that. You’re never gonna move that guy’s way of thinking   

My 12 grade year in art II we was to paint a picture of someone during the civil rights era . I chose Malcolm X my art teacher told me it will be an automatic F then gave me a list he felt I should choose from .(none where black) image that.

 I painted my Malcolm x picture still because it’s Art II who cares? i already had all my credits.

[SmashMouth]

4 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

 

My 12 grade year in art II we was to paint a picture of someone during the civil rights era . I chose Malcolm X my art teacher told me it will be an automatic F then gave me a list he felt I should choose from .(none where black) image that.

Please...

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Only the narrative to have in your head of what others think? Have you had a conversation with a blm member on this issue? Any black persons told you this. Or your conservative/conspiracies outlet thinking for you. You don’t understand how you make yourself look.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[stevenash]

6 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

South went to war to keep slaves saying other wise is lying. Or just a refusal to accept history.

Isn't that what tearing down statues is about?

[CardinalBacker]

7 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

South went to war to keep slaves saying other wise is lying. Or just a refusal to accept history.

I’ll go as far as saying that it was a key issue. But the majority of the South weren’t slaveowners. Poor Southerners didn’t march off to war so that rich Southerners could keep their slaves. They joined up because their state was at war with other states. 
But I agree... slavery was a key, if not the key issue to a lot of people. 
That’s the problem with revisiting and rewriting history 150 years later. People are letting today’s opinions override what those who lived through it believed. 
Think about it... Union Soldiers and Officers all had friends and possibly family members who died at Southern hands. You’d think that naming army bases after Confederate Leaders would be a problem for those people... but it wasn’t. 
Now we have “smart’ people digging through textbooks and going “holy crap... Fort Polk is named after a confederate, too! I’m offended and it has to go!” while people who actually fought against the south didn’t have a problem with it. 
People who lived through it knew that we all needed to move forward. 150 years later you have the left wanting to re-punish the South. 
The fact that most of the South votes Republican has a lot to do with it, too. 

[PAMFAM10]

54 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Isn't that what tearing down statues is about?

No I accept history. I refuse to celebrate any traitor to this nation it’s a difference. Lee shouldn’t be forgotten. But shouldn’t be glorified as some hero. You ok With Malcolm x statues in your neighborhood. Should a mostly white neighborhood be forced to send their kids to Malcolm X elementary?

[PAMFAM10]

37 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I’ll go as far as saying that it was a key issue. But the majority of the South weren’t slaveowners. Poor Southerners didn’t march off to war so that rich Southerners could keep their slaves. They joined up because their state was at war with other states. 
But I agree... slavery was a key, if not the key issue to a lot of people. 
That’s the problem with revisiting and rewriting history 150 years later. People are letting today’s opinions override what those who lived through it believed. 
Think about it... Union Soldiers and Officers all had friends and possibly family members who died at Southern hands. You’d think that naming army bases after Confederate Leaders would be a problem for those people... but it wasn’t. 
Now we have “smart’ people digging through textbooks and going “holy crap... Fort Polk is named after a confederate, too! I’m offended and it has to go!” while people who actually fought against the south didn’t have a problem with it. 
People who lived through it knew that we all needed to move forward. 150 years later you have the left wanting to re-punish the South. 
The fact that most of the South votes Republican has a lot to do with it, too. 

This is not a joke or meant to make you feel little but read more on post civil war. And you’ll see why the appeasement came about.

[baddog]

Isn't a ” movement “ traitorous?. You are rebelling again set government policy. What’s the freaking difference? Can’t have your cake and eat  it too.  Here comes the 1st amendment right. 

[Realville]

6 hours ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Crickets.....when you post facts. Want to really know about BLM then follow the money an you’ll see it’s just a manufactured outrage movement to raise money for the democratic machine. I’ll give the BLM supporters with the Big Brains a homework assignment. Give me a break down of where the money goes that comes in from shaking down these big corporations. I promise you that it’s not going to the so called oppressed.

 

[PAMFAM10]

22 minutes ago, baddog said:

Isn't a ” movement “ traitorous?. You are rebelling again set government policy. What’s the freaking difference? Can’t have your cake and eat  it too.  Here comes the 1st amendment right. 

They are not rebelling by killing thousands of Americans to keep slaves it’s a big difference.

[baddog]

7 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

They are not rebelling by killing thousands of Americans to keep slaves it’s a big difference.

Hasn’t gotten to that point yet, but they are killing. Still is a traitorous move. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, PAMFAM10 said:

This is not a joke or meant to make you feel little but read more on post civil war. And you’ll see why the appeasement came about.

Can you point me towards what you speak of?  I've always understood "Appeasement" as it described the position taken by the British and others while Hitler was advancing in Europe.  A quick google search didn't bring up any relationships between that word and post Civil War America.  

"Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict."

If what you're saying is that the North made concessions to the South in order to avoid conflict, I kinda disagree.  The North just won... they weren't forced into doing anything.... They recognized the value of reconciliation.  It's been speculated that Reconstruction might have been even less adversarial if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated.... He understood the need for Unity, and his killing made Northerners even less generous than they would have been otherwise... 

It's like this. My grandfather had a fight over property with an adjacent landowner in Polk County in the 1950s.  They actually had a fistfight at one point (for which my grandfather was arrested), and ended up settling their differences in Civil Court.  My grandfather prevailed in court on that particular dispute and they eventually ended up doing a mutually beneficial swap of 20 acre tracts (one of which was the disputed tract).  At an even later date, my grandfather actually hired the guy to dig some ponds on his place.  They still had skirmishes from time to time over stupid stuff, but across the board things were okay for the most part.  They've both gone on to their heavenly rewards now.

If I was to go to Mr. Jones' grandson and try to re-argue my grandfather's position that he held in the mid 1950s over that first disputed 20 acre tract, every reasonable person would think I've lost my mind.  It's settled.  It's been settled.  The affected parties have all passed on.  My grandfather won.  What am I so upset over? That parable kinda explains the ridiculousness of trying to re-examine and re-fight the Civil War in 2020.

[PAMFAM10]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Can you point me towards what you speak of?  I've always understood "Appeasement" as it described the position taken by the British and others while Hitler was advancing in Europe.  A quick google search didn't bring up any relationships between that word and post Civil War America.  

"Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict."

If what you're saying is that the North made concessions to the South in order to avoid conflict, I kinda disagree.  The North just won... they weren't forced into doing anything.... They recognized the value of reconciliation.  It's been speculated that Reconstruction might have been even less adversarial if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated.... He understood the need for Unity, and his killing made Northerners even less generous than they would have been otherwise... 

It's like this. My grandfather had a fight over property with an adjacent landowner in Polk County in the 1950s.  They actually had a fistfight at one point (for which my grandfather was arrested), and ended up settling their differences in Civil Court.  My grandfather prevailed in court on that particular dispute and they eventually ended up doing a mutually beneficial swap of 20 acre tracts (one of which was the disputed tract).  At an even later date, my grandfather actually hired the guy to dig some ponds on his place.  They still had skirmishes from time to time over stupid stuff, but across the board things were okay for the most part.  They've both gone on to their heavenly rewards now.

If I was to go to Mr. Jones' grandson and try to re-argue my grandfather's position that he held in the mid 1950s over that first disputed 20 acre tract, every reasonable person would think I've lost my mind.  It's settled.  It's been settled.  The affected parties have all passed on.  My grandfather won.  What am I so upset over? That parable kinda explains the ridiculousness of trying to re-examine and re-fight the Civil War in 2020.

Cardinal try all you want facts is facts and will remain so. You keep trying your hardest to change it or downplay facts . When a army surrender it’s rules of engagement unconditional surrender was not agreed upon all lee men was sent home with the firearms . Faced lil to none repercussions. But then none of this matters because majority of these statues went up in the early 1900 In the peak of Jim crow( you still see no connection) Georgia and S.C. only put rebel flag in 60 during civil rights movement. These statues and monuments where put in place as push back toward the movement of a free society.

Try all you want but in year 3000 this will all still be facts.

 

Find any creditable historian who disagree. Oh wait all historians must be liberals right.

Ima say this again thinking is free and education is mostly free take advantage.

[PAMFAM10]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Hasn’t gotten to that point yet, but they are killing. Still is a traitorous move. 

By that notion the tea party (a moment) is traitorous. You see how that sounds.