Trump refuses to stand and laughs during flag ceremony.

[Pannonian]

Remember: that "lion" took a crossbow bolt to his balls, from the black sheep of the family.

There's a lesson to be learned from that.

You mean Eric is our last hope?

[Omega10]

Does repeating 'it's not the same' and 'fake news' count as defending? Someone did say it was worth it to piss off liberals. Hillary was blamed as welll... I think all bases are covered.

Trump supporters have repeatedly said they would be willing to burn down America if that's what it took to piss off liberals. This is a small step in that direction.

[Spectral]

Yep. That horrible fake unreal video... oh wait. It's a video from fox news. Try again there snowflake.

Someone with damned few posts defending a campaign website? Seems legit.

[Worvon]

Someone with damned few posts defending a campaign website? Seems legit.

Video itself was from fox news. Sorry to hurt your feelings there spanky. But glad to see you just post constantly without any substance.

[Deleted]

He is offically trying to get fired.

That was all ready made official months ago.
I am really starting to wonder if the USA is gonna keep him for the full 4 years.most powerful country with a freakingMoron on top. This just seems so unreal to me. Are there any intellectual people standing behind him?

- - - Updated - - -

He's just trying to start a conversation

On twitter.

- - - Updated - - -

Of fucking course he did. I don't care that he didn't stand, I care about him being a total hypocrite.

Come on Trumpanzees, try to defend this.

Trumpanzees lmfao

- - - Updated - - -

He's not as dumb as you think he is he is doing this for a reason to make a point

He is not as smart as you want to believe, you do realise that he's biggest source of selfknowledge/education is the media right? He is a idiot and also you are allowed to stand behind he's BELIEVE you can't deny he's a dumb fuck.

[Stop Pretending]

OMG!!! Boycot!! He's disrespecting the flag, and our troops!!

[Trollhammer]

Did someone really just link a Shareblue post..

http://www.snopes.com/trump-retreat/ Yup.

[Snorkles]

Did someone really just link a Shareblue post..

http://www.snopes.com/trump-retreat/ Yup.

NFL players aren't military personnel so there is no protocol for them either. By the standard Trump and his army of sycophants have set, Trump is being disrespectful.

[want my Slimjim]

Well, it's good to know he no longer gets to complain about the NFL, and that all the "they disrespected my flag" folks have a new target for their anger. I'll wait for them to come along and scream about how angry they are.

Any second now...

- - - Updated - - -



Adorable...

Sure, you guys get pissed when black people kneel, but try and deflect when your guy pulls the same hypocritical shit.

It's fine, everyone already knows that you are all a bunch of hypocrites, and the outrage over the NFL was complete bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, I'm sorry that you are so upset that those black players are no longer in chains.

- - - Updated - - -



Is the point that he, and his supporters are complete fucking hypocrites? Yeah, we already know.

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe you should try and enslave them. Or, since you are a Nazi supporter who loves Mein Kampf, maybe you can just kill them all.

The civil war wasn't over slavery

[Machismo]

The civil war wasn't over slavery

Tell that to the southern states who seceded. They sure as hell felt it was about slavery. They felt so strongly about it, that's why hey put it in their declarations of secession:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

You are flat out wrong.

[Thepersona]

The civil war wasn't over slavery

No. It was about slavery. See 4:40 to 5:50

- - - Updated - - -

Tell that to the southern states who seceded. They sure as hell felt it was about slavery. They felt so strongly about it, that's why hey put it in their declarations of secession:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

You are flat out wrong.

We know he is wrong, and if i'm correct, we know that he said this a few pages earlier

[Orbitus]

The civil war wasn't over slavery

You keep pounding that lie, it might eventually stick to fucking gullible people like yourself.

[Calfredd]

No. It was about slavery. See 4:40 to 5:50

You do know who you are talking to right? He would never listen to John Oliver.

[want my Slimjim]

Tell that to the southern states who seceded. They sure as hell felt it was about slavery. They felt so strongly about it, that's why hey put it in their declarations of secession:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

You are flat out wrong.

They didn't. They felt the north was being a tyrant cause it imposed unfair taxes just like when Britan imposed unfair taxes and state rights and before anyone says it isn't state right to have slaves.

- - - Updated - - -

No. It was about slavery. See 4:40 to 5:50

- - - Updated - - -



We know he is wrong, and if i'm correct, we know that he said this a few pages earlier

Wrong it isn't and he's also wrong

[Kraenen]

Wrong it isn't and he's also wrong

Are you sure you know how argument works? I mean it is John Oliver, but still.

[Machismo]

They didn't. They felt the north was being a tyrant cause it imposed unfair taxes just like when Britan imposed unfair taxes and state rights and before anyone says it isn't state right to have slaves.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong it isn't and he's also wrong

They mentioned slavery literally dozens of times in their declarations of secession.

"he people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

"The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

"While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution."

"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact."

"The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. "

"All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end."

"The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. "

"It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves)."

"In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri."

"The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time."

" That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists."

"he Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere."

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers."

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."

"It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property."

"The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty."

"The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him."

"These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates."


That was just Georgia. Shall I point out all the other states for you? So, when you say it wasn't about slavery, you are full of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Back on topic:

I'm still waiting for all the outrage from the triggered snowflakes who got pissed at the NFL players for kneeling. Why aren't they also mad at Trump?

[ati87]

They didn't. They felt the north was being a tyrant cause it imposed unfair taxes just like when Britan imposed unfair taxes and state rights and before anyone says it isn't state right to have slaves.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong it isn't and he's also wrong

Well if you say he is wrong then it must be true!!

John Oliver must made up the part about how the right to have slaves was mentioned often the declaration of secession. Not like we can check those text and what people wrote now can we?

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/artic...sons-secession

So mostly about slaves or the right to hold slaves in case of South Catalonia but this must be fake centuries old news ain't it.



You're attempts at rewriting history is kind of sad and not even that good. Next thing you will claim that Jesus was blond white dude for example.

[Thepersona]

Wrong it isn't and he's also wrong

Yeah,my bad, it was in another thread.
But you're still wong, and really, this form of arguing should fall under conspiracy theory

[Orbitus]

They didn't. They felt the north was being a tyrant cause it imposed unfair taxes just like when Britan imposed unfair taxes and state rights and before anyone says it isn't state right to have slaves.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong it isn't and he's also wrong

Yeah, maybe you should go actually take a middle school American History class before you talk shit. You should have before you emigrated here.

[want my Slimjim]

You're objectively wrong but that won't stop you from spouting garbage. I'm still not sure if you're just roleplaying or if it's sadly real.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

No, you're the one wrong

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah,my bad, it was in another thread.
But you're still wong, and really, this form of arguing should fall under conspiracy theory

I'm not wrong
http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/notslavery.html