Some Call The NBC "The Whiz" Racist

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 1:47:11 AM12/5/15

to

Because there were no white people in it. Don't they know that in this p.c. world - WHITE LIVES DON'T MATTER!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/12/04/nbcs-wiz-called-racist-black-cast/

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 2:36:07 AM12/5/15

to

On 12/4/2015 11:47 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> Because there were no white people in it.

And those people ignore it being a response to the Wizard of Oz which
doesn't have black people in it.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 1:33:05 PM12/5/15

to

But there were green people in the original and little people and talking animals. The original was diverse!

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 4:49:50 PM12/5/15

to

I'd like to hear your opinion of DWG's Birth of a Nation.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 5:38:08 PM12/5/15

to

This says the film describes Lincoln as a friend of the Confederacy and a "Great Heart".

I strongly disagree! I consider Lincoln a tyrant.

In my version of the Inferno Lincoln and John Brown are chained back-to-back sharing a single flame!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 6:26:41 PM12/5/15

to

On 12/5/2015 11:33 AM, David Amicus wrote:
> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 12/4/2015 11:47 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> Because there were no white people in it.
>>
>> And those people ignore it being a response to the Wizard of Oz which
>> doesn't have black people in it.
>
> But there were green people in the original

Person. One green person. Who was the villain.

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 6:28:49 PM12/5/15

to

It's good to know that your support of slavery remains fervent.

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 6:46:41 PM12/5/15

to

And who was actually a white woman.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 7:07:25 PM12/5/15

to

I don't support slavery. It's been condemned by the Popes. I don't know any Catholic that supports slavery. Only religion I know that condones slavery (and polygamy) is Islam.

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 7:17:20 PM12/5/15

to

On 12/5/2015 5:07 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:28:49 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 12/5/2015 3:38 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:33:05 PM UTC-5, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/4/2015 11:47 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>> Because there were no white people in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And those people ignore it being a response to the Wizard of Oz which
>>>>>> doesn't have black people in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there were green people in the original and little people and talking animals. The original was diverse!
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to hear your opinion of DWG's Birth of a Nation.
>>>
>>> This says the film describes Lincoln as a friend of the Confederacy and a "Great Heart".
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree! I consider Lincoln a tyrant.
>>>
>>> In my version of the Inferno Lincoln and John Brown are chained back-to-back sharing a single flame!
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation
>>>
>>
>> It's good to know that your support of slavery remains fervent.
>
> I don't support slavery.

You hate those who opposed it, and love those who fought for it. Do the
math.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 9:25:23 PM12/5/15

to

I hate the Tyrant Lincoln. Slavery had been around since the beginning of history. Although wrong imo it is not the greatest evil there is nor the hill I would want to die upon to end.

Imo a greater evil was the human sacrifice and cannibalism that the Aztecs and many others in the Americas practiced which the Spanish Catholic Conquistadores ended. God bless them!

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 5, 2015, 11:09:06 PM12/5/15

to

On 12/5/2015 7:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 4:17:20 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 12/5/2015 5:07 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:28:49 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 12/5/2015 3:38 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:33:05 PM UTC-5, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2015 11:47 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Because there were no white people in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And those people ignore it being a response to the Wizard of Oz which
>>>>>>>> doesn't have black people in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there were green people in the original and little people and talking animals. The original was diverse!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to hear your opinion of DWG's Birth of a Nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This says the film describes Lincoln as a friend of the Confederacy and a "Great Heart".
>>>>>
>>>>> I strongly disagree! I consider Lincoln a tyrant.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my version of the Inferno Lincoln and John Brown are chained back-to-back sharing a single flame!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's good to know that your support of slavery remains fervent.
>>>
>>> I don't support slavery.
>>
>> You hate those who opposed it, and love those who fought for it. Do the
>> math.
>
> I hate the Tyrant Lincoln. Slavery had been around since the beginning of history. Although wrong imo it is not the greatest evil there is

Right. It's wrong like...lying to get out of work for a day. No big
deal. Of course that doesn't explain why you nominate those who fight
for it for sainthood.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 1:22:29 AM12/6/15

to

Like who?

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 2:21:29 AM12/6/15

to

Robert E. Lee, the man you think "never committed a sin".

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 2:26:24 AM12/6/15

to

I read somewhere that Griffith made Intolerance in part as an apology
for Birth of a Nation, which he came to regret.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 2:28:20 AM12/6/15

to

Look up Carlos II. An auto da fe was held in the hope that he would
have children.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 1:05:36 PM12/6/15

to

He did not fight for slavery. Saint Robert of Arlington fought for the Liberty of his nation against Northern Aggression. . He is a patriot.

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 3:18:15 PM12/6/15

to

Which was founded to protect and preserve slavery, including that being
practiced on his own plantation.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 3:29:35 PM12/6/15

to

I'm pretty sure the Jews have some form of slavery too. And if you reject it you reject god's word and you'll visit with Loki.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 3:32:12 PM12/6/15

to

It is better to have children than to burn?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 3:36:42 PM12/6/15

to

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 2:26:24 AM UTC-5, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 12/5/2015 9:49 PM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:33:05 PM UTC-5, David Amicus wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 12/4/2015 11:47 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> >>>> Because there were no white people in it.
> >>>
> >>> And those people ignore it being a response to the Wizard of Oz which
> >>> doesn't have black people in it.
> >>
> >> But there were green people in the original and little people and talking animals. The original was diverse!
> >
> > I'd like to hear your opinion of DWG's Birth of a Nation.
> >
> I read somewhere that Griffith made Intolerance in part as an apology
> for Birth of a Nation, which he came to regret.

Or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerance_%28film%29

"Intolerance was made partly in response to criticism of Griffith's previous film, The Birth of a Nation (1915),[3] which was criticized by the NAACP and other groups as perpetuating racial stereotypes and glorifying the Ku Klux Klan. It was not, as is commonly inferred, an apology for the racism of his earlier film. In numerous interviews, Griffith made it clear that he meant Intolerance as a response to those who had been intolerant of him by challenging The Birth of a Nation."

Griffith should probably end up somewhere with D/A's Saint Robert. Although FWIH Lee probably wouldn't want to hang out with a guy like Griffith.

I hear Griffith put white men in black face in BoaN if the black characters were to touch white women because he didn't want black men touching white women. Personally, I think this kind of thing suggests an obsession and perhaps compensation for something. If he was alive it would be great fun to ask him.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 4:36:25 PM12/6/15

to

I seem to remember there was an auditorium in Los Angeles named for DW Griffith but the p.c. police got it renamed.

I did a google but could not find to verify.

jack

unread,

Dec 6, 2015, 7:15:20 PM12/6/15

to

Yes, in Birth if a black character had contact with white women, the actors re black-faced white actors. It makes for a strange mix of characters. What makes the movie interesting is that it may be the first movie to present a reconciliation of North and South. The movie revolves around a family from each side who had intermarried before the war. Lincoln is presented as a saint who brought both sides back together but then is killed. It is the second half of the film that draws the most criticism with its scurrilous carpet baggers in league with drunken, corrupt, and rapist black northern soldiers and local black politicians. Kind of amazing comment if indeed Griffith made Intolerance in reaction to Birth criticism as pie of the victims in the movie of Intolerance is Jesus.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 2:03:51 AM12/7/15

to

So if a show has an all white cast that is racist but an all black cast it's not. A double standard. Another example of political correctness!

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 2:35:36 AM12/7/15

to

On 12/7/2015 12:03 AM, David Amicus wrote:
> So if a show has an all white cast that is racist

Wrong. It could be set in a place where the population is
overwhelmingly white...like 1930s Kansas.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 2:43:42 AM12/7/15

to

My point here is that this was arguably human sacrifice, though not on
the same scale as the Aztec cult, and on balance the Spaniards did a
good job in wiping that out.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 2:46:42 AM12/7/15

to

On 12/7/2015 7:03 AM, David Amicus wrote:
> So if a show has an all white cast that is racist but an all black cast it's not. A double standard. Another example of political correctness!
>

To quote a white member of the cast in "Goodness Gracious Me!", what's
wrong with a white waiter?

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 2:48:04 AM12/7/15

to

Or East Kentucky, where the grinding poverty of the Anglo-Saxons is all
but ignored.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 8:34:35 AM12/7/15

to

Sure, because when we do it, it's civilized and for the one true god but when they do it, it's barbaric and for their demons. Although, I think it is better to have children than to burn. Most things are better than burning.

> and on balance the Spaniards did a
> good job in wiping that out.

What did the Romans ever do for us?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 8:45:54 AM12/7/15

to

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-5, jack wrote:
> Yes, in Birth if a black character had contact with white women, the actors re black-faced white actors. It makes for a strange mix of characters. What makes the movie interesting is that it may be the first movie to present a reconciliation of North and South. The movie revolves around a family from each side who had intermarried before the war. Lincoln is presented as a saint who brought both sides back together but then is killed. It is the second half of the film that draws the most criticism with its scurrilous carpet baggers in league with drunken, corrupt, and rapist black northern soldiers and local black politicians. Kind of amazing comment if indeed Griffith made Intolerance in reaction to Birth criticism as pie of the victims in the movie of Intolerance is Jesus.

'pie'?

Anyway, I don't particularly see anything surprising about this. BoaN was released in 1915 and it was, in someways, a different world. I can't imagine a book like Ben-Hur from 1880 getting published for a general audience now. Griffith was born five years before Ben-Hur and I imagine grew up with a very different sense of how the world should and does work than we have.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 8:48:04 AM12/7/15

to

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:48:04 AM UTC-5, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 12/7/2015 7:35 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 12/7/2015 12:03 AM, David Amicus wrote:
> >> So if a show has an all white cast that is racist
> >
> > Wrong. It could be set in a place where the population is
> > overwhelmingly white...like 1930s Kansas.
> >
> Or East Kentucky, where the grinding poverty of the Anglo-Saxons is all
> but ignored.

I can't recall where I read it, but this does seem to be getting addressed. The government to the rescue making people who were poor but independent dependent on the government. Wait. Oh. Yeah. They're not really doing anything about the poverty. They just want them to take the government handouts.

jack

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 10:10:45 AM12/7/15

to

Bizarre auto-correct. The word of course is "one" of the victims.

jack

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 10:15:13 AM12/7/15

to

Poor but independent and dying in their forties--that's a proud claim! But more to the point, a lot of the poverty is part due to the closing of mines and other depressions in other economic activities, plus union busting, that led people to live in a rather in-hospitable environment to begin with.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 1:07:21 PM12/7/15

to

As a person of English heritage I want reparations from Italy for their Roman ancestors occupation of my home island for 400 years!

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 7, 2015, 5:13:59 PM12/7/15

to

So they get it from the left and the right?

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 2:32:22 AM12/8/15

to

I want them to apologize for pissing off.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 2:35:44 AM12/8/15

to

An interesting point about (the book)Ben Hur is that it depicts Jesus as
verging on transgender. This lasted into the 1950s. Since then the
point has been made that nobody knows what he looked like if he existed
at all, so picture him how you like.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 2:37:32 AM12/8/15

to

I'm glad they are getting it from someone, or would you just let them
die out in conformity with Friedmanite principles?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 7:02:44 AM12/8/15

to

I once watched a doc about depictions of Jesus and was intrigued by a Japanese painting of him as a young boy carrying carpentry tools. Oriental features instead of Occidental and pull saws instead of push saws.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 7:07:07 AM12/8/15

to

The 'it' they are getting won't feed them. Someone has to grow crops, transport it to market and put it in stores. I'm thankful for all the middlemen who make that possible and profit from it.

As for them dying out, they aren't serfs who are tied to the land except through sentiment. They can overcome that and move someplace (using our system of dual purpose military highways) and obtain employment or start businesses.

That is, until Bernie Sanders is elected and follows his fantasy about reliving the bestest parts of the twentieth century.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 7:08:44 AM12/8/15

to

You should probably write directly to the Italian embassy in DC and tell them how much you think they owe you.

jack

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 10:42:48 AM12/8/15

to

I think we watch a lot of the same movies. Let's see: sanitation; roads; education; health services; wine, and so on.

jack

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 10:45:44 AM12/8/15

to

But we also have that radiant, profile of a behind-the-ears long-haired, bearded Jesus that goes back I think to the early 1900s.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 11:53:29 AM12/8/15

to

Probably. Shane? The Searchers? Ozu or Kurosawa? Any recommendations for something good I've never seen?

> Let's see: sanitation; roads; education; health services; wine, and so on.

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 11:56:09 AM12/8/15

to

A little different before that, but I think that the images represent the feelings of the painter and not some reality.

It's like looking at images of lions. A lot of the Asian ones remind me a little of Asian dragons too.

jack

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 3:26:35 PM12/8/15

to

If you like Japanese and you have seen everything by Ozu and Kurosawa, then move on to Kobayashi; you won't be disappointed. TCM late night, often on Sunday nights runs classic Japanese films. For someone contemporary and who uses violence often for satirical purposes, there is Miike. Finally, look up a remake from about ten years ago of Zatoichi, the blind swordsman, the James bond of Japanese samurai films; this new one done up in a punkish style featuring a blond-haired Zatoichi.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 8, 2015, 5:54:29 PM12/8/15

to

There is an artist Daniel Mitsui who has portrayed Jesus as Japanese. Here is his portrayal of the Wedding Feast at Cana

http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-150340-54220702.jpg

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 9, 2015, 4:18:06 AM12/9/15

to

I've seen a fair bit of Kobayashi. I'll have to check out Zatoichi, thanks. Miike looks a little... maybe not my taste. Anything in particular from him?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 9, 2015, 4:19:48 AM12/9/15

to

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:54:29 PM UTC-5, David Amicus wrote:
> There is an artist Daniel Mitsui who has portrayed Jesus as Japanese. Here is his portrayal of the Wedding Feast at Cana
>
> http://wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/20140814-150340-54220702.jpg

Looks authentically middle eastern.

jack

unread,

Dec 9, 2015, 9:35:35 AM12/9/15

to

Miike is on the extreme side but there is often a touch of corniness to the violence that seems to be him winking at the audience. He has recently made two rather mainstream films: one a straight-forward remake of Kobayashi's Seppuku and the very mainstream samurai Thirteen Assassins. A few years back he made a Japanese spaghetti Western with an all Japanese cast speaking English called Teriyaki Western Django, a kind of prequel to that classic spaghetti western. Apparently he felt that if westerns could be made with Italians why not make a Western with Japanese instead of transforming the story into a typical ronin one. It's worth one watch. His most recent film that came to the US is Yakuza Apocalypse, when vampires take over a local gang. This is pretty much classic Miike combining his violence, satire, martial-arts tricks, and a gangster that wears a frog costume whose eyes can paralyze people. But it is also an anti-yakuza film; you never saw so many dumb gangsters and as such attacks the romanticizing of the gangs in film.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 12, 2015, 11:34:43 AM12/12/15

to

I think I've seen a couple of those. Yes, the Yakuza are certainly romanticized. I've seen some eps of Gokusen, which isn't a movie, but a jdrama. Interesting to see in that how the 'virtues' are the values the 'Yakuza' hold dear.

Thanks for the recommendations.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 2:29:19 AM12/14/15

to

On 12/6/2015 6:05 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:21:29 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 12/5/2015 11:22 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:

>>>> On 12/5/2015 7:25 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 4:17:20 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/5/2015 5:07 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 3:28:49 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2015 3:38 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 1:33:05 PM UTC-5, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2015 11:47 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there were no white people in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And those people ignore it being a response to the Wizard of Oz which
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have black people in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But there were green people in the original and little people and talking animals. The original was diverse!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to hear your opinion of DWG's Birth of a Nation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This says the film describes Lincoln as a friend of the Confederacy and a "Great Heart".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I strongly disagree! I consider Lincoln a tyrant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In my version of the Inferno Lincoln and John Brown are chained back-to-back sharing a single flame!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's good to know that your support of slavery remains fervent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't support slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You hate those who opposed it, and love those who fought for it. Do the
>>>>>> math.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate the Tyrant Lincoln. Slavery had been around since the beginning of history. Although wrong imo it is not the greatest evil there is
>>>>

>>>> Right. It's wrong like...lying to get out of work for a day. No big
>>>> deal. Of course that doesn't explain why you nominate those who fight
>>>> for it for sainthood.
>>>
>>> Like who?
>>>
>>
>> Robert E. Lee, the man you think "never committed a sin".
>
> He did not fight for slavery. Saint Robert of Arlington fought for the Liberty of his nation against Northern Aggression. . He is a patriot.
>
Cock.

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 12:14:18 PM12/14/15

to

I wonder if it's possible that the truth about Lee lies somewhere in the middle ground. I know at least one other person who thinks Lee is the only person of note to exit the war with his honor intact. I'm not so sure.

In anycase, I suspect he took an oath to the USA and if he did he violated it. So maybe honorable traitor?

But look at all the people who support Snowden or at the guy who gave Bowe Bergdahl's a press conference in the Rose Garden.

Hey D/A, I'm curious. Do you think the states have the right to exit the union anytime they want? Do you think this is still true?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 12:24:48 PM12/14/15

to

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-5, David Amicus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:21:29 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:

> > Robert E. Lee, the man you think "never committed a sin".
>
> He did not fight for slavery. Saint Robert of Arlington fought for the Liberty of his nation against Northern Aggression. . He is a patriot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
Have you watched this? Do you disagree with some specific points made in the video?

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 2:29:06 PM12/14/15

to

On 12/14/2015 10:14 AM, the...@bigmailbox.net wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 2:29:19 AM UTC-5, Martin Edwards wrote:
>> On 12/6/2015 6:05 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 11:21:29 PM UTC-8, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>>> Robert E. Lee, the man you think "never committed a sin".
>>>
>>> He did not fight for slavery. Saint Robert of Arlington fought for the Liberty of his nation against Northern Aggression. . He is a patriot.
>>>
>> Cock.
>
> I wonder if it's possible that the truth about Lee lies somewhere in the middle ground. I know at least one other person who thinks Lee is the only person of note to exit the war with his honor intact. I'm not so sure.
>
> In anycase, I suspect he took an oath to the USA and if he did he violated it.

Nah. He resigned his commission properly before going off to fight for
the nation founded to protect slavery. Since the oath only applied to
his military service, he was OK on that score.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 3:53:22 PM12/14/15

to

The Constitution does not address the subject. I think if the federal government were to give its approval a state might be able to leave the Union.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 3:54:37 PM12/14/15

to

I've seen it. He's giving the official p.c. take on it.

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 14, 2015, 4:13:28 PM12/14/15

to

You know, "not politically correct" is not the same thing as "right".

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 15, 2015, 12:12:44 PM12/15/15

to

IOW the COTUS doesn't allow for it?

the...@bigmailbox.net

unread,

Dec 15, 2015, 12:13:20 PM12/15/15

to

I see, please tell me what he says that is wrong. TIA.

David Amicus

unread,

Dec 15, 2015, 2:06:50 PM12/15/15

to

SCOTUS only ruled as such after the War (1961-1865)

David Johnston

unread,

Dec 15, 2015, 2:07:50 PM12/15/15

to

Buchanan's position at the time was darkly funny. He held that the
states had no right to secede but the federal government had no right to
do anything about them seceding. One of the ways in which he earned his
title of "Worst American President".