Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[Ibanez]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

But Lincoln!

[Chizzang]

[CitadelGrad]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

I'm pretty sure armed insurrection wasn't legal in 1860.

The South did not take up arms until the U.S. Army garrison in Charleston refused to leave South Carolina, which had already legally seceded. There was no armed insurrection. South Carolina defended its territory against United States occupation force.

[CitadelGrad]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

[89Hen]

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

[Chizzang]

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

Hmm....
The drama runs deep here

Explain to me (other than lives lost) what else was lost..?
You still live in America
as do your relatives


That's what was lost, ego..? Pride..? Self worth..?
You sound like a Hilary supporter after the election

[Ibanez]

I'm pretty sure armed insurrection wasn't legal in 1860.

The South did not take up arms until the U.S. Army garrison in Charleston refused to leave South Carolina, which had already legally seceded. There was no armed insurrection. South Carolina defended its territory against United States occupation force.

So there weren't any military units in defense of SC before Anderson refused? Yeah ok.

[Ibanez]

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

What? That's some AZ type analogy here. The Holocaust is not comparable to the Civil War. Not by a long shot.

[Skjellyfetti]

So far CitGrad has compared the plight of the Southrons to enslaved peoples and the Jews during the holocaust.

Keep it coming.

[GannonFan]

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

Yup, you just did that. You actually compared the plight of the Confederacy - a government set up for the exclusive right to hold a racial group in perpetual slavery and servitude - with that of the Jews (and others) - forcibly taken out of their homes and countries and mass exterminated simply because of who they were. I don't blame you (well, I do a little bit), I blame every educational system and grown-up you've been educated by over the course of your life that actually believes equating the Confederacy with the plight of Jews in WWII is a valid comparison. For shame.

[Aho Old Guy]

Tell a Jew to get over the Holocaust.

Cut him some slack.

He's still jacked over the stars and bars flying again yesterday at the South Carolina statehouse ...

[Ibanez]

So far CitGrad has compared the plight of the Southrons to enslaved peoples and the Jews during the holocaust.

Keep it coming.

Those southern planters had it rough. Just like the Jews in Dachau.

[Ivytalk]

Chattel slavery was the central issue of the war. As Bruce Catton said, the war had many causes, but the one cause that, if it had not existed the war would not have happened, was slavery.

The Confederate states did have several gripes along the lines of what CitadelGrad said, though. Northern states were using economic policies, such as the Morrill tariff act to try to artificially raise the costs of agriculture that employed slave labor. At the same time, there was the fight over new states being admitted as free or slave states, each side wanting to tip the legislative scales.

The southern states were, in effect, being subjugated politically and economically - but the motivation for this was abolition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the view on the Morrill Tarriff. First of all, that particular tariff itself would likely not have passed into law had it not actually been for the Southern states actually seceeding and removing their votes from the Senate that had been blocking passage of that bill. Once those Senators left, passage was all but assured. But beyond that, the primary goal, and not even the secondary one, had anything to do with slavery, per se. There was a particularly bad recession in 1857 that prompted the need for more revenues, and in the nineteenth century (and even before if you read the Federalist Papers) the main source of income for the federal government was import and export duties and tariffs. Basically, we needed more money and this was how governments went about getting money back then. And prior to this we were one of the lower tariff countries in the world so it's not like the example wasn't out there on how to raise money. In addition, rather than punishing the South, the tariff was more to promote the North - tariffs always had a motivation to protect domestic industry and obviously this tariff did protect Northern industries and manufacturing. But favoring the North is not the same as attacking slavery and the areas of the economy that used slavery. Heck, there were plenty of things taxed in that tariff that had nothing to do with slavery. Sure there were many in the North that would've been happy to make slavery more difficult to maintain, but there were bigger, more overriding reasons for tariff bills such as this one.

I agree with the Catton sentiment, though. Even if not necessarily spoken out loud all the time or stated as the reason for individuals to join the fight, if slavery didn't exist we wouldn't have had the war, at least not then, and maybe ever. It was the fundamental backdrop to all the sectional disagreements since the founding.

Whatever you say, Perfesser.

[Ivytalk]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Liberal weenies are not allowed to use the term "Snowflake." That's cultural appropriation. Only conservatives are allowed to use that term, as it's applicable only to liberal weenies.

[dbackjon]

Trump won Maricopa County, AZ - so FAKE NEWS! Must have gotten that either from Fox, or Russia Today.

Which one was it, comrade?

[dbackjon]

I'm pretty sure armed insurrection wasn't legal in 1860.

The South did not take up arms until the U.S. Army garrison in Charleston refused to leave South Carolina, which had already legally seceded. There was no armed insurrection. South Carolina defended its territory against United States occupation force.

Wrong traitor snowflake. There was no legal right to secede. You, however, can renounce your citizenship and GTFO

[dbackjon]

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

Liberal weenies are not allowed to use the term "Snowflake." That's cultural appropriation. Only conservatives are allowed to use that term, as it's applicable only to liberal weenies.

Snowflakes is more appropriate for those who can't stand the thought of anyone other than white, straight, Christian males in power - so most of the GOP

[Ivytalk]

The South did not take up arms until the U.S. Army garrison in Charleston refused to leave South Carolina, which had already legally seceded. There was no armed insurrection. South Carolina defended its territory against United States occupation force.

Wrong traitor snowflake. There was no legal right to secede. You, however, can renounce your citizenship and GTFO

Hey, drama queen. Scroll up 3 posts. You have violated terminology rule # 1: LIBERAL WEENIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE TERM "SNOWFLAKE." Invent something else.

[Ivytalk]

Liberal weenies are not allowed to use the term "Snowflake." That's cultural appropriation. Only conservatives are allowed to use that term, as it's applicable only to liberal weenies.

Snowflakes is more appropriate for those who can't stand the thought of anyone other than white, straight, Christian males in power - so most of the GOP

I rely on the accepted definition in Urban Dictionary, a reputable transgendered site. So piss off.

[dbackjon]

Wrong traitor snowflake. There was no legal right to secede. You, however, can renounce your citizenship and GTFO

Hey, drama queen. Scroll up 3 posts. You have violated terminology rule # 1: LIBERAL WEENIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE TERM "SNOWFLAKE." Invent something else.

You said weenie...

[BDKJMU]

[UNI88]

Liberal weenies are not allowed to use the term "Snowflake." That's cultural appropriation. Only conservatives are allowed to use that term, as it's applicable only to liberal weenies.

Snowflakes is more appropriate for those who can't stand the thought of anyone other than white, straight, Christian males in power - so most of the GOP

Snowflake is a term that Conks use to describe Donks and Donks are not allowed to appropriate it. That would hurt the feelings of the Conks who came up with this usage and we can't have a bunch of butt-hurt Conks stumbling around in tears. Misappropriation results in the offending Donk owing the aggrieved Conk a beverage of his/her choice if their paths should ever cross.

That said, there are some pretty sensitive Conks out there and they need a similar but distinctive term of their own. Let's start a list:
- pantywaist
- cream puff
- flower petal

[Skjellyfetti]

- godwad

[dbackjon]

cucks?

[Skjellyfetti]

that's for liberals or "RINOs" / "Never Trumpers" / Jared