Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War

The antifa part is false, but he was clearly a militant atheist who disliked Christians.

 

First, fix boundaries. Do you think Washington was a great president? How about the 11 other presidents who owned slaves?

Last thing a decent president does is attack in their state people who some owned slaves, most did not. Abe did not wage war due to slaves. Abe gave us all for posterity his reasons.

Slavery is the red herring over the reason why Abe invaded VA.

 

Also clearly a pro gunner

 

Like the Left Wing activist James Hodgkinson? Yes, you are correct.

 

Those pro gunners are wacked

 

Especially the LW wife beaters.

https://www.earnthenecklace.com/james-t-hodgkinson-wiki-age-wife-cause-of-death/
Who is James T. Hodgkinson?
James Thomas Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old from Illinois, was an avid Bernie Sanders supporter and expressed his displeasure against Hillary Clinton. His hatred towards Republicans intensified when Donald Trump was elected as president. His Facebook activity was rife with anti-Republican and anti-Trump posts.

According to a local publication, he was one of three children born to Deloris and James T. Hodgkinson Sr. He went to Belleville High School, where he joined the wrestling and track teams. He studied aviation at Belleville Area College, which is now known as Southern Illinois College. He transferred schools, but reportedly didn’t complete his degree. He owned a home inspection businesses until his license expired.

He Had a History of Violent Behavior
Hodgkinson married a woman named Sue, and they raised several foster children together. Most of his associates say he was a quiet and reserved guy. However, local authorities and court documents reveal that his life was marred by violence and tragedy. Even Sue Hodgkinson was allegedly charged with domestic battery.

He had a history of violations and petty offenses, but was also charged with battery and damaging a vehicle in 2006. The incident involved his foster daughter, whom he reportedly beat up. Another one of the couple’s foster daughters killed herself when she was 17.

 

Moved to the conspiracy section? Lol

 

what? did you learn this in a public school?

 

LOL! You think McCain is a republican.....

 

Has no problem keeping my doctor? You did?

 

Where it belongs.

 

Righteous.

 

Oh....and he was a pro gunner

 

Interestingly, others like to do the same with other cases. Why not this one? It should be easy to say "It's good that we ended slavery, but that the civil war was both avoidable and unnecessary." It's easy to see Lincoln as a terrible President, even if his actions had some indirect good.

Was it truly worth 600,000 dead to end slavery? Would the South have truly instituted slavery if a better solution didn't arise? It arose a few decades later via the lawnmower. All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot. At one polling, 93% of Americans disapproved of the Slavery concept.(So in other words, racists are the true minority of minorities.)

 

I so tire of having to repeat this, but it seems I have to...

The south was gung ho about going to war years earlier to fight for the preservation and expansion of slavery. If Buchanan had lost the 1856 election to Fremont, the first GOP to ever run in a presidential election, the start of the war would have likely been 1857.

Any republican president being elected, and they were ready to rumble. Nothing was going to stop them. They said so. 1856: (if a republican is elected) "the conservative south will burst forth in a carnival of blood."

And the South commenced Acts of War months before Lincoln ever stepped into office.

" Would the South have truly instituted slavery if a better solution didn't arise? It arose a few decades later via the lawnmower. All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

What in the holy hell are you talking about?

 

I'll explain...

on this forum and all over the place, there is a constant barrage of right wing fake news...this very thread, for example...

And the intention of this fake news, and many other threads around here and elsewhere, is to take any event, any horrible tragedy, and blame it in any way possible on all the "left", all the liberals, all blacks, all Jewish people, all women, all Mexicans, all Democrats, all Hollywood people, all Californians, etc etc etc...that is the "hate" you speak of...the right wing mantra is "it's not us, we are never the bad guy, it's always all of them".

The only reason the right wing is obsessed with this loser's supposed interest in atheism even though he was born and lived his life as a Christian, is because that somehow separates him in the same way as these other groups....it's all "their" fault. Otherwise, he's one of them. An Air Force guy from Texas, a born Christian white male....

So whenever a person's background is one of the "bad" groups, the right wing has no problem taking that as some sort of symbol or connection to all the people they hate.

But when the background is very much their own, it for some strange odd reason is now completely irrelevant, and anyone who points it out has "hate"? Well okay then, I guess anyone who points out and dwells on whether the perpetrator of a crime is Black or Jewish, they are displaying hate for all those people.....right????????????? And that would be wrong, then, wouldn't it?

 

I had no issue keeping my doctor, under Bush I had to change as my employer changed Health insurers, but when you work for a corp, they get to pick, and you get to take what they offer

 

This might be the greatest evidence of 'party switching'. The Republicans then were basically the Northern Oligarchs. It made sense to merge political power, with a growing economy(the North) as opposed to the weaker South. And the South saw it as inevitable and as destructive to their own economy. These factors could have been avoidable by propping up the South economically, offering assistance. Ironically, the kind of steps that could've avoided the war were only proposed AFTER the war.

Again, if you want to find some Herculean principle of honesty go read a novel. In real life, there were a lot of murky motives. The Northern Oligarchs wanted their cake and to eat it too. 'Against' the principle of Slavery, but not enough to outlaw it legally and certainly not moral enough to let the South secede.

America has always been a fight against oligarchy, it just so happens in this case the oligarchy defended a moral principle which you agree with. A true representation of history would disregard the moral justification and look at both sides objectively.

Peace is always achievable with the WILL to achieve it. The Northern Oligarchs never gave the South reassurances. They saw that eventually, you couldn't have slavery in some states and non-slavery in other States. It was paving the way(as you yourself note.)

The moment that Lincoln wouldn't recognize Jefferson Davis as a legitimate figure, the war was an active self-defense against Northern Aggression. Regardless of the firing at Fort Sumpter. I would have made the same decisions, even knowing the North was bigger.

Who surrenders to an aggressor, because of that aggressor's "righteousness"?

 

OK, just a bunch of wordy Lost Cause platitudes for someone who seems to know little of actual history.

You never addressed my post, and you surely didn't address this doozy of a whopper: " Would the South have truly instituted slavery if a better solution didn't arise? It arose a few decades later via the lawnmower. All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

I'm dying to hear your explanation for this ^ (not that I haven't heard some LC versions of it in the last 30 years) -- but I'd love for you to tell the thread what you meant by this.

 

Do you know why Slavery was instituted in the first place? Picking cotton was heavily demanding, and it literally did take that work force. But with the great invention of lawnmowers(and other such inventions), automation pretty much made it unnecessary for such a huge work force. You'd think it'd be an overly simple conclusion, but then you're the one who lets moral righteousness overlook a critical account of the Civil War.

You might have less than 10 people working at a farm today. We can say that by 1930, there was no longer a reason for institutionalized slavery of any form. Now, racism, that was a much bigger problem. But slavery was an 'answer' to incredible physical demands that the technological development helped manage.

Had the South been given a 'grace' period to transition to a non-slavery economy, with assistance it would have ended the civil war without a shot. But then, unlike the Northern Oligarchs I'm not trying to push/bully the South into moral righteousness.

The Civil War should be a lesson about forcing moral righteousness on others. Both sides were wrong, but only if you can take off the blinders.

 

lol. OK, before I school you on when slavery was instituted (hint: in the early 1600's) -- but never mind that -- and on on this "lawnmower" bit you seem dedicated to (you mean to say the Reaper (primarily the McCormick), and we'll let that too slide. Tell us a bit on about how you came to this conclusion:

"All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

For bonus points: you might want to expound, if you can -- on the Cotton Gin. You're on.

I'll get to the rest of your post in another.

 

I already gave you my reasoning. Less physical demand, less of a 'logical' reason(such as it were) to institute slavery. To be sure, that's not whitewashing or denying the false racial supremacy that many of the slaveholders held. But it's one of many factors. The war was not some moral righteous crusade, as much as you'd like to make it one.

 

No, that's not an answer.

I don't think you know the timelines at all, when the industrial revolution was, what the cotton gin did for slavery, what the reaper (or as you put it "lawnmower" ) did for mechanization, where it was primarily used, and when it came into any widespread useful effect.

It's quite a tell.

 

Then gee, enlighten me. Enlighten me on the great moral righteous crusade and my ignorance of it seemingly!

 

You really don't know, do you? You come pounding on here so haughty, yet you say things like "Less physical demand, less of a 'logical' reason(such as it were) to institute slavery."

("institute slavery??" in the mid 1800's??)

And your talk about a lawnmower : " Would the South have truly instituted slavery if a better solution didn't arise? It arose a few decades later via the lawnmower."

and "All of a sudden, the industrial revolution made slavery moot."

I mean ...I can't even begin, and then when I ask you something most freshman or sophomores studying history in high school would know about when the Industrial Revolution was and about the Cotton Gin...

You go all glib glibbity -- pretty much announcing, you really don't know.

How bout you just admit, hey, you know, I may just have some reading to do to get up to speed on this?

There's no embarrassment in that.