Second cup of Coffee Talk

[dash]

This is from who I thought was the adult in the room...

Kelly then explained his view of the Civil War: "[Confederate General] Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. "One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it's different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

This is from who I thought was the adult in the room...

Kelly then explained his view of the Civil War: "[Confederate General] Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. "One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it's different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

I keep having to post this when people speak well of Robert E. Lee.

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The man was an asshole, god damnit. Asshole.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

You're directing that question to someone who can't vote in your elections. Direct it to the people who cry "RESISTANCE! DRUMPF! NAZIS!!!" but spent November 8, 2016 going to work, going to the gym then going home. There's about 100 million of em.

I'm with you.

I voted. And I boo.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

This is from who I thought was the adult in the room...

Kelly then explained his view of the Civil War: "[Confederate General] Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. "One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it's different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on MANY sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand. Sad!"

John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

FIXED after Trump-sponsored re-neducation.

 

[thedddd]

This is from who I thought was the adult in the room...

Kelly then explained his view of the Civil War: "[Confederate General] Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. "One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it's different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

Seriously John Kelly look at the facts. The lack of compromise from the North was just in every way shape and form. Also the first attack was initiated from the South.

Let me put this in lay men terms here with the North acting as the parent and the south a 5 year old that wants slaves.


South: We want slaves (aka free labor that we control their lives and they have no freedom)
North: No
South: Too bad we want them or we can't make money
North: Nooooooooo
South: We will just secede and form the Confederate states of America to protect our rights to own slaves.
North: Not surrender and supply Fort Sumter since it is still North Controlled and try to keep the US a single undivided country.
South: We will attack Fort Sumter and start the civil war.


Finally, going back to ANY debate over honoring the confederacy and it's people is totally against the United States.

 

[Darkstone42]

This is from who I thought was the adult in the room...

Kelly then explained his view of the Civil War: "[Confederate General] Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. "One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it's different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

John Kelly: 'The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War'

He's a gifted actor, and either he's acting now to stick where he is to some unknown endgame, or he's been acting like an adult the whole time and finally broke character.

I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Seriously John Kelly look at the facts. The lack of compromise from the North was just in every way shape and form. Also the first attack was initiated from the South.

Let me put this in lay men terms here with the North acting as the parent and the south a 5 year old that wants slaves.


South: We want slaves (aka free labor that we control their lives and they have no freedom)
North: No
South: Too bad we want them or we can't make money
North: Nooooooooo
South: We will just secede and form the Confederate states of America to protect our rights to own slaves.
North: Not surrender and supply Fort Sumter since it is still North Controlled and try to keep the US a single undivided country.
South: We will attack Fort Sumter and start the civil war.


Finally, going back to ANY debate over honoring the confederacy and it's people is totally against the United States.

Even that’s not exactly correct in its simplified form. Lincoln and the Republicans didn’t run on emancipation, they ran on banning slavery in the territories. The North didn’t even begin thinking about emancipation as a goal of the war until it was used as a threat to end the war early. Shit, there were 4 slave states on the Union side of things.

I believe the only reason the Confederacy seceded in the first place was they were so certain European countries would intervene on their behalf.

 

[forty_three]

Trump rips Mueller target Papadopoulos as 'liar,' 'low level volunteer'

Uhhh, Donny?

So nice that he allows low-level volunteers into National Security meetings with a future president and future attorney general. Especially one he knows to be a liar. Third from the left, in case you didn't get that already.

 

[thedddd]

Even that’s not exactly correct in its simplified form. Lincoln and the Republicans didn’t run on emancipation, they ran on banning slavery in the territories. The North didn’t even begin thinking about emancipation as a goal of the war until it was used as a threat to end the war early. Shit, there were 4 slave states on the Union side of things.

I believe the only reason the Confederacy seceded in the first place was they were so certain European countries would intervene on their behalf.

The border slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were against secession that's is the reason but the whole criteria was set prior to the war. Also West Virginia became a state in 1861 due to not wanting to secede hence the split from Virginia.

At the core of the movement was to protect their rights to keep slaves with escalation prior in the 1850's, then the election of Lincoln.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The border slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were against secession that's is the reason but the whole criteria was set prior to the war. Also West Virginia became a state in 1861 due to not wanting to secede hence the split from Virginia.

At the core of the movement was to protect their rights to keep slaves with escalation prior in the 1850's, then the election of Lincoln.

I understand what you’re saying but the Union never went to war to free the slaves. Pulled from Lincoln’s inaugural speech:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

 

[Comeds]

The civil war was about states rights.


nah, just kidding

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The civil war was about states rights.


nah, just kidding

A lot of it had to do with whether or not Joe Flacco is an elite QB.

 

[thedddd]

I understand what you’re saying but the Union never went to war to free the slaves. Pulled from Lincoln’s inaugural speech:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Yeah it was way more complex. But in it's simplest form it was around slavery and the state rights to own slaves.

Lincoln during his inauguration was very political due to the fact of the secession that was already in order. The Republican party as a platform it was their stance and during the debates Lincoln never stated to end slavery but to stop the expansion.

 

[forty_three]

It's clear something has to be done. I say constitutional amendment barring anyone with a beard from renting a truck.

Just like the founding fathers would have wanted.

 

[elocomotive]

What exactly is extreme vetting? I can't help but think of pencil pushers in the Homeland Security offices downing Mountain Dew and having internal memos delivered by ATV.

 

[elocomotive]

Also, here's a brief note on what a xenophobic, sociopathic piece of absolute human shit our President is.

In the wake of Charlottesville, Trump said he couldn't make a condemnation of hate groups earlier because he didn't "know all the facts." So, no rush to judge the motivations of a white supremacist who drove his car into a bunch of anti-white supremacist protesters because it would be too hard to figure out exactly what happened there since it's entirely fucking obvious what happened there.

Lesson 1 : Don't rush to judge.

In the wake of Las Vegas, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said "Today is a day for consoling the survivors and mourning those we lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all of those individuals. There’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country." We shouldn't talk about policy after a tragedy or gun control laws that

Lesson 2: Time for mourning, not politics, in the wake of a tragedy.

But now New York and a guy who is Muslim goes nuts driving his car over people. Do we apply these lessons to that tragedy? Lesson 1 application, and go.... (less than 8 hours after the incident)


And lesson 2 application, and go...



No issues rushing to judgment, unlike Charlottesville.

No issues talking about policy prescriptions less than 24 hours after the incident in New York, unlike Vegas.


I wasn't truthful about the brevity. My apologies. (<two concepts Trump is unfamiliar with)

 

[dash]

It also sounds like this guy was radicalized domestically over the last little while, so while extreme vetting sounds great, I don't think it's going to help much when a person is showing no signs or any kinds of relationships to radical Islamic teachings or philosophies at the time of vetting.

 

[dash]

 

[elocomotive]

It also sounds like this guy was radicalized domestically over the last little while, so while extreme vetting sounds great, I don't think it's going to help much when a person is showing no signs or any kinds of relationships to radical Islamic teachings or philosophies at the time of vetting.

Sensible immigration screening is good policy. But a ban or a wall isn't going to stop a war that is about ideas. If anything, it only reinforces the motivations of "the infidels" for these whack jobs.

I'm not against examining the problem. I'm just against dumb ideas that betray our principles when they don't really solve the problem anyway. For example, if you can figure out a way the idea is a bad one before you're even done discussing it... it probably isn't the best idea.


And the scale of the problem is critical as well. We keep focusing on dumb or nonexistent problems (NFL players kneeling, who gives a fuck) while being unable to discuss and develop areas that really need reform (healthcare). Its just shitty governance.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

It also sounds like this guy was radicalized domestically over the last little while, so while extreme vetting sounds great, I don't think it's going to help much when a person is showing no signs or any kinds of relationships to radical Islamic teachings or philosophies at the time of vetting.

One thing the Libs here were attacked for in their refugee policy was restricting the number of single young men admitted. I have a feeling Canada's ability to control and neutralize any threats to national security have a lot to do with that policy.