Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sons of Confederate Veterans have a role in modern America
Nolan Chart ^ | Tuesday, February 2, 2010 | Mark Vogl

Posted on 02/03/2010 8:57:04 AM PST by cowboyway

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (S.C.V.) is a fraternal organization composed of male descendents of the men who served in the Confederate Armed Forces during the War for Southern Independence. Their emblems include the controversial Confederate battle flag. Their core responsibility is articulated in a charge given to them by Lt. General Stephen D. Lee which calls on them to defend the heritage, honor, and reputation of the Confederate soldier and the Cause they fought for.

The Cause they fought for was individual liberty, state's rights, the original Constitution and the right to secede. In essence, Confederates fought an aggressive Union which would not allow the states to exercise an accepted right of secession. This right had been exercised by all the original states when they withdrew from the government of the Articles of Confederation, and entered the present day United States of America. Further, the Tenth Amendment reserved all powers not addressed in the Constitution to the States and people respectively. And lastly, the new union was formed as each individual state entered the union.

(Excerpt) Read more at nolanchart.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: confederate; deportation; dixie; flag; independence; insurrectionists; itstheslavery; rebs; scv; secede; slavers; theyfoughtforslavery; traitors; whitesupremacists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-212 next last
Political correctness will prevail in today's environment which is why we need real change in Washington.
1 posted on 02/03/2010 8:57:05 AM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

“The Cause they fought for was individual liberty, state’s rights, the original Constitution and the right to secede.”

Too bad they didnt reject and free the slaves so most of the world wouldn’t have to roll their eyes at that statement.


2 posted on 02/03/2010 9:15:31 AM PST by VanDeKoik (Iran doesnt have a 2nd admendment. Ya see how that turned out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I think the role of SoCV is to form the nucleus of the opposition to Obama's rape of America (albeit one of hundreds across the land).

When the "Community Activists" come knocking to deprive you of your firearms and rape your wimmin folk, and America devolves into Mass Social Upheaval, groups like this one will already be partially organized.

3 posted on 02/03/2010 9:15:49 AM PST by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

Some like Lee did just that, and for that very reason. Ironically Grant owned slaves until the war ended.


4 posted on 02/03/2010 9:45:10 AM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Growing up in Appomattox, VA, I lived around history. Just putting in the yard for my folks new home we dug up numerous minnie balls, buttons with pieces of uniform still on them, bridle and bits, pieces of weaponry including a bayonet, and 2 unexploded cannon shells.

Every time I go back (not that often since my parents died), my best friends’ Dad asks me to join the SoCV. I put him off and joke that my dad was in WWII so I don’t qualify, but if it was GGoCV he could sign me up. In actuality, I have numerous Confederate ancestors (both Mom and Dads side of the family), and if you go back farther on my Dad’s side there was a Union General.

My second cousin three times removed was with Custer at the Little Big Horn recruited in Lincolnton, NC with other southern boys and Confederate veterans. He was in “C” Company and due to the first sergeant’s horse coming up lame, he was the first messenger Custer sent back with note to “bring up the pack train” and thus survived in Reno’s detachment while his Company was wiped out with Custer. An interesting historical note - it was Custer’s calvary that cut Lee’s retreat off at Appomattox.


5 posted on 02/03/2010 9:58:43 AM PST by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

I’m eligible to join this and the Union equivalent.


6 posted on 02/03/2010 9:58:45 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Never confuse schooling with education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
Ironically Grant owned slaves until the war ended.

Inaccurate, or at least incomplete.

Grant owned one slave, apparently a gift from his wealthy father-in-law. He freed him in 1859, at a time when he desperately needed money. He was probably worth at least a year's income for Grant. It is unlikely Lee freed any slaves at such great personal financial cost.

Grant's wife had several slaves who helped around the house. It is not known who held legal title to them. It may very well have been her father, but in any case it wasn't Grant. She stated in her memoirs that they were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which of course was inaccurate.

http://stason.org/TULARC/history/civil-war-usa/30-Did-U-S-Grant-and-R-E-Lee-both-own-slaves-and-free-the.html

7 posted on 02/03/2010 10:08:09 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Never confuse schooling with education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bump


8 posted on 02/03/2010 10:14:14 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
Too bad they didnt reject and free the slaves so most of the world wouldn’t have to roll their eyes at that statement.

Slavery is not the issue.

The point the author is making is that there were people that felt the yoke of a totalitarian government previously in our short history and that it would well serve the present day 'leaders' in Washington to heed the historical significance of the rebellion that Lincoln's government caused and that the SCV could play a positive role.

9 posted on 02/03/2010 10:34:44 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I hope their role is to STFU and go away.
10 posted on 02/03/2010 10:51:39 AM PST by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Ping


11 posted on 02/03/2010 11:15:59 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
I hope their role is to STFU and go away.

That's a wonderful libtard attitude you got there: if you don't agree with them, take away their 1st Amendment right and shut em down.

That's precisely what the NAACP and the PC nazi's have been trying to do for years.

It's a good thing when you Obamabots out yourselves.

12 posted on 02/03/2010 12:11:08 PM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

ping


13 posted on 02/03/2010 12:14:34 PM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

“I hope their role is to STFU and go away.”

Why?


14 posted on 02/03/2010 12:16:45 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Aren't you the clever one!

They absolutely have the right to say whatever they want - just like you or most liberals - no matter how stupid or foolish it is.

15 posted on 02/03/2010 12:20:24 PM PST by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
“When the “Community Activists” come knocking to deprive you of your firearms and rape your wimmin folk, and America devolves into Mass Social Upheaval, groups like this one will already be partially organized.”

Order of Confederate Rose would be another. Just another to the many that understand the concept of honor.

16 posted on 02/03/2010 12:29:45 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
“They absolutely have the right to say whatever they want - just like you or most liberals - no matter how stupid or foolish it is.”

Y'all can take your mannequin of Lincoln( That other skinny liberal Lawyer from Illinois) and shove it!

17 posted on 02/03/2010 12:39:18 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Yes yes, Grant's “Wife” owned the slaves. Kind of like John Kerry saying that I don't own any SUV’s my “family” does.

I don't know who took the greater financial hit in freeing slaves, I don't think that's relevant to the point, which is that Lee did free all of his slaves because he didn't want people to think he was motivated by the desire to preserve slavery. And while Grant may have freed a slave in 1959, there were still people of color calling him “Master” at war’s end.

18 posted on 02/03/2010 1:23:47 PM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
just like you or most liberals - no matter how stupid or foolish it is

Lookit, if you don't have anything constructive to add to this thread why don't you just troll on over to another thread (back at DU where you guys usually hang out) and try to hijack it, hmmm?

19 posted on 02/03/2010 1:52:53 PM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
I don't think that's relevant to the point, which is that Lee did free all of his slaves because he didn't want people to think he was motivated by the desire to preserve slavery.

Lee freed his slaves in 1862 because his father-in-law's will required it.

And while Grant may have freed a slave in 1959, there were still people of color calling him “Master” at war’s end.

No there were not.

20 posted on 02/03/2010 3:19:18 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
Well said. :') There are many kinds of political correctness. :')
March 21, 1861 -- CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact."

21 posted on 02/03/2010 5:06:09 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Happy New Year! Freedom is Priceless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that. In any case, Lee was definitely not fighting to end slavery, but his words are still available to all, including those who ignore most of this letter--
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856: "...There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master..."
In other words, black folks are better off in bondage than they were free in Africa, and regardless, slavery will be around until Providence decides, and who are we to second guess that? And the only reason the masters beat their slaves is because of the abolitionists.
22 posted on 02/03/2010 5:24:43 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Happy New Year! Freedom is Priceless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

1. It’s not known who owned the slaves Julia Grant had around. She stated they were freed “at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation,” not by it, as I stated in the earlier post. This was sometime between August, 1862 and January 1, 1863.

2. Lee freed the slaves he had control of on 29 Dec. 1862.

It is quite probable “Grant’s” slaves were freed before Lee’s. Or at much the same time, anyway.

You seem perfectly willing to make excuses for Lee delaying the freeing of more than 1000 slaves in his control, but cut no slack for Grant, whose control of four was at best marginal.

Nobody has ever claimed Grant was a fervent abolitionist. But then neither was Lee. It seems likely their attitude towards the institution was rather similar, although AFAIK Lee never made a great financial sacrifice to free a slave. Grant did.

Here’s a quote from a letter Lee wrote to his wife in 1856:

““ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”

Sounds to me like Lee was not in any hury to get rid of the institution. Ready to put off abolition to the presumably distant future.


23 posted on 02/03/2010 5:34:09 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Never confuse schooling with education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Although very late in the war Lee wanted freedom offered to any of the slaves who would agree to fight for the Confederacy, practically no one was stupid enough to fall for that.

Very late in the war - January 1865 - Lee wrote the following on that subject:

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population. "

Lee's opposition to slavery was tepid at best.

24 posted on 02/03/2010 5:58:22 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“Lee's opposition to slavery was tepid at best.”

At least the Honorable Lee didn't follow after your horrendous,Conduct Unbecoming an Officer,torturous act's by your Union buffoons.

Jefferson Davis writing to General Robert E. Lee

We find ourselves driven by our enemies in their steady progress towards a practice which we abhor and which we are vainly struggling to avoid. Some of the military authorities of the United States seem to suppose that better success will attend a savage war in which no queer is to be given and no sex to be spared. For the present we renounce the right of retaliation on the innocent and shall continue to treat the private enlisted soldiers of General Pope's arny as prisoners of war, but if, after notice to the govenment in Washington, these savage practices are continued we shall be reluctantly forced to the last resort of accepting war on the terms chosen by our foes, until the outraged voice of the common humanity forces a respect for the recognized rules of war.
You are therefore instructed to communicate to the Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States the contents of this letter — to the end that he may be notified of our intention not to consider any officers hereafter captured from General Pope's army as prisoners of war

25 posted on 02/03/2010 6:37:59 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
At least the Honorable Lee didn't follow after your horrendous,Conduct Unbecoming an Officer,torturous act's by your Union buffoons.

You mean winning?

Jefferson Davis writing to General Robert E. Lee

General Grant writing on William Sherman:

"Sherman is not only a great soldier, but a great man. He is one of the very great men in our country's history. He is an orator with few superiors. As a writer he is among the first. As a general I know of no man I would put above him. Above all - he has a fine character - so frank, so sincere, so outspoken, so genuine. There is not a false line in Sherman's character - nothing to regret."

26 posted on 02/03/2010 7:35:31 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“You mean winning?”

If you feel that attacking civilians is necessary - In order to Win. With all due respect to General LEE - He should have stepped down.

Shelby, Forrest or William C. Quantrill - may have had the stomach to Rape and Pillage the Yankee populace. I don't it though. They should of hired the German and Italian mercenaries first. Befriended Marx before Lincoln planted his lips on Marx's man toy.

If war is fought by your standards, We will always be second place. Murder of noncombatants in not our cup-of-tea.

27 posted on 02/04/2010 5:19:17 AM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“You mean winning?”

If you feel that attacking civilians is necessary - In order to Win. With all due respect to General LEE - He should have stepped down.

Shelby, Forrest or William C. Quantrill - may have had the stomach to Rape and Pillage the Yankee populace. I don't it though. They should of hired the German and Italian mercenaries first. Befriended Marx before Lincoln planted his lips on Marx's man toy.

If war is fought by your standards, We will always be second place. Murder of noncombatants in not our cup-of-tea.

28 posted on 02/04/2010 5:19:23 AM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You mean winning?

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"

In this case, the soul of the nation and that is the point of the article that I posted.

Lincoln's war was the first step in centralizing the powers of the federal government which was opposed by the Southern states citing the 10th Amendment. Lincoln ignored the 10th Amendment (and many other parts of the Constitution) in his quest for power which eventually led to the monster that is growing at an exponential rate in the nations capital today and threatens to 'enslave' an entire nation.

You and yours seem to prefer this form of totalitarian government but there are those of us, just as in 1860, that are against the continued centralization of power in Washington and the point of the article is that if there were more people like us, rather than you and yours, with a seat at the table then perhaps we could avoid a repeat of the first War of Northern Aggression.

But, sadly, as long as the non-sensicals of the world exist that will never come to pass.

29 posted on 02/04/2010 5:54:18 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
If you feel that attacking civilians is necessary - In order to Win. With all due respect to General LEE - He should have stepped down.

Of course he would have. Then I take it that you view men like Curtis LeMay or Arthur Tedder as vile criminals along the lines of William Sherman?

30 posted on 02/04/2010 5:57:23 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
You and yours seem to prefer this form of totalitarian government but there are those of us, just as in 1860, that are against the continued centralization of power in Washington and the point of the article is that if there were more people like us, rather than you and yours, with a seat at the table then perhaps we could avoid a repeat of the first War of Northern Aggression.

Delusional to the very end.

31 posted on 02/04/2010 9:22:27 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Delusional to the very end.

And you are stuck on the river of denial.

A) you admire Lincoln
B) you constantly post that 'we won' referring to the War of Northern Aggression (doesn't our current president make this very same boast?)
C) Lincoln and out current president were/are large, central government proponents

Conclusion: IF you admire Lincoln and believe that the best thing that could happen to the Constitution was a northern victory in the War, THEN you are a centralized big government proponent and, obviously, an Obama supporter.

32 posted on 02/04/2010 11:06:37 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
And you are stuck on the river of denial.

Or not blessed with your vivid imagination.

A) you admire Lincoln

True. And you hate everything about him. So what?

B) you constantly post that 'we won' referring to the War of Northern Aggression (doesn't our current president make this very same boast?)

The South lost their rebellion. Deal with it. Sorry if the truth offends you.

C) Lincoln and out current president were/are large, central government proponents

I'll grant you the current president but your claim that Lincoln was a large, central government proponent on the level of Obama is flat out ridiculous.

Conclusion: IF you admire Lincoln and believe that the best thing that could happen to the Constitution was a northern victory in the War, THEN you are a centralized big government proponent and, obviously, an Obama supporter

And there is where you drift back in to Lost Cause Fantasyland again.

33 posted on 02/04/2010 11:40:29 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: OrioleFan

it sounds like you have a wonderful family history. The SCV headquarters is in an ancestral family home of my family. I think both sides fought courageously for their land, their families and their honor and we should let them rest in peace.


34 posted on 02/04/2010 11:52:22 AM PST by visualops (Freepin' on my Pre!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“Of course he would have. Then I take it that you view men like Curtis LeMay or Arthur Tedder as vile criminals along the lines of William Sherman?”

Pretty pathetic,you are.

Do you support the bombing of Japan?

D!CK Sherman would take that price. Just for the simple fact that his kin were also maniacs - Insane asylum ring any bells? The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!

35 posted on 02/04/2010 12:23:32 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“Of course he would have. Then I take it that you view men like Curtis LeMay or Arthur Tedder as vile criminals along the lines of William Sherman?”

Pretty pathetic,you are.

Do you support the bombing of Japan?

D!CK Sherman would take that price. Just for the simple fact that his kin were also maniacs - Insane asylum ring any bells? The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!

36 posted on 02/04/2010 12:25:26 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Pretty pathetic,you are.

You are one to talk.

Do you support the bombing of Japan?

It helped end the war without an invasion and possibly saved hundreds of thousands of lives, so yes I support it. I assume that you do not? Or are you just mad that the U.S. won?

Just for the simple fact that his kin were also maniacs - Insane asylum ring any bells?

So now you're mad because a lunatic beat you?

37 posted on 02/04/2010 5:10:28 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“You are one to talk.”

Whoa,nasal voiced Yank

“So now you're mad because a lunatic beat you?”

Why don't ya - Load up your Toyota Prius, 5th Ave high heels, Jackson five album, and just remind us about that beating!

38 posted on 02/05/2010 4:33:42 AM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Whoa,nasal voiced Yank

Whoa, slurring Southron accent.

Why don't ya - Load up your Toyota Prius, 5th Ave high heels, Jackson five album, and just remind us about that beating!

Back to dreaming you won the rebellion?

39 posted on 02/05/2010 5:10:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And there is where you drift back in to Lost Cause Fantasyland again.

Did I mention anything about The Cause? Nope.

I pointed out what is obvious to everyone that reads your pompous postings: that you are a Big Government blowhard.

40 posted on 02/05/2010 6:07:50 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!

In this particular case, it's the nut that doesn't fall far from the tree.

41 posted on 02/05/2010 6:09:32 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
I pointed out what is obvious to everyone that reads your pompous postings: that you are a Big Government blowhard.

And anyone reading your posts can see you're a lost cause boob.

42 posted on 02/05/2010 1:26:26 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So, you don’t deny being a Big Gov boy. Hell, we all knew it anyway.

It’s good that you’re finally dropping the hypocrisy and denial act and owning up to what you really are: a labor union loving, big government loving, lincoln loving, obama loving piece of crap yankee from that piece of crap city, Chicago.

Now why don’t you float on back to DU or one of your Sarah Palin bashing threads and quit trying to hijack mine.


43 posted on 02/05/2010 2:20:26 PM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
So, you don’t deny being a Big Gov boy. Hell, we all knew it anyway.

Would it do any good if I did? Actually I watch you babble on about big government and I just have to laugh. Your hero Jeff Davis road herd over a government far larger and more intrusive than anything Lincoln advocated. So when it comes to big government supporters you really should be looking in the mirror. It’s good that you’re finally dropping the hypocrisy and denial act and owning up to what you really are: a labor union loving, big government loving, lincoln loving, obama loving piece of crap yankee from that piece of crap city, Chicago.

You have to appreciate the irony in that statement because when it comes to hypocrisy, denial, and crap you are the all time champ. That's always been the cowboy way.

Now why don’t you float on back to DU or one of your Sarah Palin bashing threads and quit trying to hijack mine.

Someone's got to dispute the Southron bullshit.

44 posted on 02/05/2010 3:28:30 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

So I take it you’re a big supporter of Kirk Lyons and the current SCV leadership.


45 posted on 02/05/2010 5:08:14 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“Someone’s got to dispute the Southron bullshit.”

Piss Proud, ain't ja

Now take your High-falutin,Damyankee,City slickin’, South hating ass over to Democratic Underground where it belongs.

46 posted on 02/05/2010 5:54:42 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Now take your High-falutin,Damyankee,City slickin’, South hating ass over to Democratic Underground where it belongs.

And once again we see where anyone who hasn't swallowed the confederate kool-aid by the gallon just has to be a liberal. Now who's piss-proud?

47 posted on 02/06/2010 5:35:48 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Someone's got to dispute the Southron bullshit.

And the Recognition of Bullshit Award goes to..............NON-SENSICAL!!!!

Accepting the award for non-sensical, who couldn't be here due to a previous commitment to appear at the annual NAMBLA conference, is his longtime and dear friend, Barney Frank! clapclapclapclapclapclap...........

48 posted on 02/06/2010 5:59:48 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
So I take it you’re a big supporter of Kirk Lyons and the current SCV leadership.

So I take it that you're still hanging out at DU and posting 'progressive' hit pieces on all of us right wing 'extremists'.

49 posted on 02/06/2010 6:02:18 AM PST by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
And the Recognition of Bullshit Award goes to..............NON-SENSICAL!!!!

Thank you...thank you....I appreciate the honor you've done by naming me to this prestigious award. However, modesty forces me to confess that everything I know about spreading bullshit I learned from someone who is far more accomplished at that than I am. Ladies and gentlemen, I think this award really goes to..........CLOWNBOYWAY!!!! Let's give him a big round of applause, when it comes to spouting BS the man has been a mentor to oh so many people....

You know, I first posted a respectful correction to NavVet's false comments on Lee and Grant. You and Idabilly went negative from the beginning. So please save us your phony baloney complaints about my hijacking your Lost Cause thread.

50 posted on 02/06/2010 6:07:12 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-212 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson