Nazis don't have free dialogue

Yep . . . just like all leftists they want to ORDER you to believe what they believe . . . and then when you don't they resort to violence. It's very definitely the leftist way.

Yep . . . just like all conservatives they want to ORDER you to believe what they believe . . . and then when you don't they resort to violence. It's very definitely the conservative way.

Conservatives aren't the ones attacking people for not believing what they want. It's the left that attacks and murders people because they won't form to their way of life. Get your head out of your ass.

Yes they are. Get your head out of your butt

Source: ADL. Nah bro. You'll need a neutral source with data to back it up.

They want you to ignore where their "facts" really come from... SPLC

Yes, you literally are. the guy in that picture? he murdered the MN speaker of the house... because she didn't believe what he believed.

Every single protest where conservatives show up with guns- that is the threat of violence if they don't get their way.

He was an evangelical pastor. He hated abortion. He hated gay rights. He voted for Trump. He was not a liberal or a democrat.

I know it's a strange concept for conservatives that a politician could actually appoint someone to a committee who's of a different political party because conservatives would never do that but that's what Tim Walz did

Trump did that all through his first term. This time around he realizes they will oppose him at every turn, even when he does what they want.

He voted in the 2024 Republican Presidential primary in MN.
https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/06/17/vance-boelter-voted-in-2024-minnesota-republican-presidential-primary-records-show/

Trump refused to lower flags at half-mast after her murder.

You know what fascists do? They murder anyone who speaks up in opposition to their dogma.

Hey, remind me, which side keeps calling for civil war?

The side that lost the first one and can't stop crying about it

So the Democrats then. Because the confederates were Democrats.

Don't give me that spiel about muh changing sides. You're the one who said it's the side that lost the first American civil war that is calling for a second.

After the Civil War, the South was overrun by scumbag carpetbaggers who became today's red state Republicans.

You'll be glad to know I'm a dual citizen Canadian/American living in the south and I can authoritatively inform you that there are no scumbag carpetbaggers destroying it in modern day as such.

Just Democrats and their policies ala Charlotte.

That is, unless you consider a Ukrainian refugee being brutally murdered by a 14 time caught and released violent felon to be a crime committed by a carpetbagger or for more dead ukrainians in the world to be a good thing.

No, the Confederates were Southerners. There were no Democrats in the Confederacy.

😂 but there were lots of former democrats in the Confederacy and immediately after the war the “southerners” were predominantly democrats. The only reason there weren’t democrats in the confederacy is because the political party affiliation collapsed during the war as they were all united in their cause.

bUt ThE dEmoCrats

The Democrats were the conservative party. You can tell because they wanted to keep slavery.

Now, which party today wants to keep the Southern traitor statues and memorials in full view of everyone BUT at the same time, get rid of any mention of slavery in the US in the history books & museums?

Which group wants to lionize people who betrayed this country and thought it was a great idea to own people?

I've got a meme you'll hate coming up tomorrow.

imgflip.com/i/a637xp

You should correct your false meme about Lincoln owning slaves before you submit it..

Did Abraham Lincoln own slaves yes or no?

Answer by Google AI

No, Abraham Lincoln never owned slaves. His family did not own slaves, and he spent his adult life living in states where slavery was illegal.

You know lawyers have tried using AI to formulate their cases for them and been laughed out of the court when it was proven the entire premise for their case was based on a hallucination dreamt up by the AI, right?

Is this what university is teaching you guys today? To rely on AI to do your citations for you? Yikes.

Never have I been more glad to have dropped out in grade 9. Now I at least know how to fact check!

"5.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all enslaved people.
Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which were loyal to the Union. (Missouri actually had two competing governments; one loyal to, and recognized by the Union, and one loyal to the Confederacy). Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of white people in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single enslaved person, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 Black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment."

https://www.history.com/articles/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

"Lincoln's Ownership of Slaves Confirmed in New Book by Kevin Orlin Johnson from Pangaeus Press

Historian recovers original affidavit in which Lincoln ordered the sale of slaves whom he'd inherited."

https://www.prweb.com/releases/lincoln-s-ownership-of-slaves-confirmed-in-new-book-by-kevin-orlin-johnson-from-pangaeus-press-851882325.html

New books are really awesome, but there's no evidence that Lincoln owned any slaves.

Aside from the evidence mentioned in the new book?

"Johnson's book presents an 1850 hand-written affidavit, never before published, from the law firm of Kinkead & Breckinridge ― John C. Breckinridge, a cousin of Mary Todd Lincoln's who, a decade later, would run for President against Lincoln and serve as a brigadier general for the Confederacy. In the affidavit, Lincoln orders the sale of the slaves whom he'd inherited.

The document confirms Lincoln's ownership beyond question, but that fact was never in dispute. "We all know that Lincoln married Mary Todd, the daughter of Robert Todd, Kentucky's largest slaveholder," Johnson says. The law at that time assigned a woman's property to her husband; so when his father-in-law died Lincoln inherited the slaves who were part of her share of the estate."

Well, yes, even aside from the evidence presented in the new book, evidence of Lincoln owning slaves does exist.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=py5kiAjL59k

'Evidence' tucked away in a drawer somewhere for a century and a half lucky discovered by the author?

Ye olde Thou Tubeth. How quaint.

Kind of like so many atheists believed Dan Brown's books were factual statements of truth.

But no, it wasn't tucked away in some drawer for a century. It was left unfiled in an Illinois library for a century and discovered by a historian actively searching for it, as the story goes.

And if you'll watch the video (which is evident you didn't), you'll even see citations to Lincoln himself trying to make slavery a permanent institution within the United States prior to the advent of the civil war.

What would your definition of "evidence" be, exactly? As the legal definition of evidence strongly suggests that Lincoln owned slaves.

You'll want to refresh your history on who started the war, who owned slaves, and the conditions under-which they were freed. Because what you have there is dead-ass wrong. And you'll want to learn about why many of the former slaves stayed on the plantations where they'd been forced to work.

You're right, nuance and historical context are important. You should take the time to learn them.

Ok. I educated myself.

Your turn.

https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/leewilliam/lee.html

Did you go learn why many former slaves continued to work on the plantation where they'd been forced to work? Did you learn your 'history' from someone who is in the KKK or is a white nationalist?

It does seem that you've bought into the 'Happy Slave' stereotype. Which is absolutely a stereotype pushed by white nationalists.

And maybe spend some time in thought on why a former slave might only speak aloud words of praise for his former master while living in a part of the country where a newly freed black man could be killed at any time.

That is truly unfortunate. I can see now that the university of North Carolina is not a reputable source of information in your estimation as you have done nothing to educate yourself.

What a sad state of affairs it is when even our educated betters don't trust our institutions of higher education to provide accurate information.

Now, I know someone who accepted a higher education degree such as yourself would never be caught dead contradicting yourself by rejecting information from a university and replacing it with a non-sequitur argument when presented with information cited directly from a university that contradicts your ad hominem laden (but entirely unbacked by any citations) dissertations, but have you considered home schooling if you find university sourced citations to be incorrect before even investigating their claims?

Did I claim the autobiography wasn't legit? I don't doubt that he wrote it. I don't even doubt that he personally liked Lee as an individual.

But you begin with the stereotype of the Happy Slave. William Mack Lee was glad to be working for Lee! You present it as if they were friends in an equatable relationship. They weren't friends. Lee owned William. Lee could have sold or killed William whenever he wanted. That's not a relationship. They weren't friends.

So... if you were in that position, and you wrote a book about your life, are you going to put your former owner- a man who tried to keep you in slavery by fighting a war as the head general- are you going to put that guy on blast on paper? In a region of the country filled with the people who supported that war and had wanted to keep you a slave.

An area where a Black Man could be killed and nothing would happen to his killes.

Which are you going to do? Are you going to put in print something that might get you killed or are you going to go with the thing that won't get you killed?

What you believe is a series of white nationalist lies. Lincoln didn't own slaves. Lee didn't free his slaves 5 years before the Civil War. William Lee didn't "choose to serve" the Confederates.

Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

1. That pamphlet was written by wm Lee when he was 70 years old. I.e long after the civil war was over and Gen. Lee had passed away.

2. Wm lee established 20 churches in the south after the civil war had ended, and the opening statements provided in the unc article are by a third party white man speaking very favourably of wm lee.

3. Wm lee specifically states he is still living under the protection of the south.

What in any of that states wm lee was living in the south under duress? If he were living there under duress, it stands to reason he would have fled to the north like any of the 200,000 black men who fought in the union against the confederates, rather than stay and found 20 odd churches funded by southerners themselves.

"The Democrats were the conservative party. You can tell because they wanted to keep slavery."

The Election of 1860 said otherwise, as did Lincoln below

Yes, we've discussed this before. Lincoln did not set out to end slavery as a part of his Presidency. He didn't initiate any actions against the South. The emancipation proclamation was a strategic choice during the war.

The south started the war because they read the tea leaves about the abolitionist factions in the US being able to elect a President without their electoral support.

I was referring specifically to:

"The Democrats were the conservative party. You can tell because they wanted to keep slavery."

Not all who were for eliminating or at least limiting slavery were abolitionists. Free-Soilers did include abolitionists, but it also many more against slavery because they wanted the West to remain all White, eliminating competition from larger plantation owners with their cheaper slave workforce and the competitive advantage that brought with it.

So it wasn't just cut and dry Conservatives wanted to maintain slavery while Progressives sought to eliminate it for moral reasons.

The Left.

Yeah? Really? Can you show that to me?

Yep.