• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chief of Staff John Kelly says...

R

Rich123

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
754
Reaction score
198
He wont apologize for calling Congresswomen Wilson an "Empty Barrow" and defends Robert E. Lee as an "Honorable man who chose duty to state over Loyalty to a Federal Government." He says "It was always loyalty to state first back in those days, Kelly said, It's different today."

Well Lee's own sister ,brother and nephew choose the Union and 40% of the military in Virginia choose the Union and 23 states sided with the Union and only 11 states sided with the confederacy. Maybe X General Kelly's grasp for history isn't so good. After all Robert E. Lee held a large land estate which clearly required many slaves to operate, so perhaps he may have had other priorities and loyalty to state may have been very convenient. Why would Kelly attribute honor to a man who caused the deaths of so many Americans and attribute the title of "Empty Barrow to an honorable lady who has spent her life serving her community and her country in so many ways? It truly saddens me to see John Kelly go in this direction. I thought his initial remarks could be attributed to a father's grief. I honestly thought he would apologize. He clearly isn't the man I believed him to be.
 
Everything Trump touches has the smell of rotting meat.
 
I really don't find the problem with admiring some aspects of General Lee. His life is quite fascinating, and he seemed to be a man that was fairly principled and had good aspects of his character.... though of course, as you very enthusiastically would like to mention, he had flaws... which arguably a lot of them were just of a product of his time, and some were not.

It's really getting to the point where no one can have a academic conversation without paying respects to the PC gods.

I was just commenting on this aspect of your post... I don't really have an opinion otherwise.
 
Rich123 said:
He wont apologize for calling Congresswomen Wilson an "Empty Barrow" and defends Robert E. Lee as an "Honorable man who chose duty to state over Loyalty to a Federal Government." He says "It was always loyalty to state first back in those days, Kelly said, It's different today."

Well Lee's own sister ,brother and nephew choose the Union and 40% of the military in Virginia choose the Union and 23 states sided with the Union and only 11 states sided with the confederacy. Maybe X General Kelly's grasp for history isn't so good. After all Robert E. Lee held a large land estate which clearly required many slaves to operate, so perhaps he may have had other priorities and loyalty to state may have been very convenient. Why would Kelly attribute honor to a man who caused the deaths of so many Americans and attribute the title of "Empty Barrow to an honorable lady who has spent her life serving her community and her country in so many ways? It truly saddens me to see John Kelly go in this direction. I thought his initial remarks could be attributed to a father's grief. I honestly thought he would apologize. He clearly isn't the man I believed him to be.
Click to expand...

She’s a race baiting hack. Notice the white democrats send the black democrats out to do their dirty work?
 
Rich123 said:
He wont apologize for calling Congresswomen Wilson an "Empty Barrow" and defends Robert E. Lee as an "Honorable man who chose duty to state over Loyalty to a Federal Government." He says "It was always loyalty to state first back in those days, Kelly said, It's different today."

Well Lee's own sister ,brother and nephew choose the Union and 40% of the military in Virginia choose the Union and 23 states sided with the Union and only 11 states sided with the confederacy. Maybe X General Kelly's grasp for history isn't so good. After all Robert E. Lee held a large land estate which clearly required many slaves to operate, so perhaps he may have had other priorities and loyalty to state may have been very convenient. Why would Kelly attribute honor to a man who caused the deaths of so many Americans and attribute the title of "Empty Barrow to an honorable lady who has spent her life serving her community and her country in so many ways? It truly saddens me to see John Kelly go in this direction. I thought his initial remarks could be attributed to a father's grief. I honestly thought he would apologize. He clearly isn't the man I believed him to be.
Click to expand...

Stay in the same room 24 hours a day with the same people and you will have a hard time getting away from their rhetoric. You might even start to believe some of it yourself. That is of course besides for the fact that, the reason you took the job in the first place was because deep down you already aligned with most of their beliefs but just did a good a job hiding it, since ya know four star generals are not typically too outspoken in public.
 
celticwar17 said:
I really don't find the problem with admiring some aspects of General Lee. His life is quite fascinating, and he seemed to be a man that was fairly principled and had good aspects of his character.... though of course, as you very enthusiastically would like to mention, he had flaws... which arguably a lot of them were just of a product of his time, and some were not.

It's really getting to the point where no one can have a academic conversation without paying respects to the PC gods.

I was just commenting on this aspect of your post... I don't really have an opinion otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wishy/washy
 
Rich123 said:
He wont apologize for calling Congresswomen Wilson an "Empty Barrow" and defends Robert E. Lee as an "Honorable man who chose duty to state over Loyalty to a Federal Government." He says "It was always loyalty to state first back in those days, Kelly said, It's different today."

Well Lee's own sister ,brother and nephew choose the Union and 40% of the military in Virginia choose the Union and 23 states sided with the Union and only 11 states sided with the confederacy. Maybe X General Kelly's grasp for history isn't so good. After all Robert E. Lee held a large land estate which clearly required many slaves to operate, so perhaps he may have had other priorities and loyalty to state may have been very convenient. Why would Kelly attribute honor to a man who caused the deaths of so many Americans and attribute the title of "Empty Barrow to an honorable lady who has spent her life serving her community and her country in so many ways? It truly saddens me to see John Kelly go in this direction. I thought his initial remarks could be attributed to a father's grief. I honestly thought he would apologize. He clearly isn't the man I believed him to be.
Click to expand...

The guy makes up his mind and then tells it true......How Refreshing....We need lots more like him if we are ever going to get out of this mess.
 
bearpoker said:
Wishy/washy
Click to expand...

Not at all. Kelly is correct on all counts. The Civil War cemented the conceptual understanding of the United States as one nation dominated by a Federal government at a time when many people conceptualized it as a loose confederation of nation-States bound together only by their willingness to be so and only in matters of mutual interest fascilitated by a Federal government - not terribly unlike the European Union today.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The guy makes up his mind and then tells it true......How Refreshing....We need lots more like him if we are ever going to get out of this mess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was with him until he gave a distorted version of congresswoman Wilson's speech.. Falsehoods are less acceptable from from Generals than from lesser folk. They're supposed to be setting an example.
 
bearpoker said:
Yeah, I was with him until he gave a distorted version of congresswoman Wilson's speech.. Falsehoods are less acceptable from from Generals than from lesser folk. They're supposed to be setting an example.
Click to expand...

I dont know which one of you is right, but I am not going to assume that it is you.
 
Napoleon said:
Not at all. Kelly is correct on all counts. The Civil War cemented the conceptual understanding of the United States as one nation dominated by a Federal government at a time when many people conceptualized it as a loose confederation of nation-States bound together only by their willingness to be so and only in matters of mutual interest fascilitated by a Federal government - not terribly unlike the European Union today.
Click to expand...

That's all very well. We all have our principles and loyalties. At the time in question people were slaves, treated as cattle, bred like animals. Many people AT THAT TIME considered that a crime against humanity.
 
bearpoker said:
That's all very well. We all have our principles and loyalties. At the time in question people were slaves, treated as cattle, bred like animals. Many people AT THAT TIME considered that a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...

Many people did not and there was significant support for deporting blacks even among abolitioninists.
 
celticwar17 said:
I really don't find the problem with admiring some aspects of General Lee. His life is quite fascinating, and he seemed to be a man that was fairly principled and had good aspects of his character.... though of course, as you very enthusiastically would like to mention, he had flaws... which arguably a lot of them were just of a product of his time, and some were not.

It's really getting to the point where no one can have a academic conversation without paying respects to the PC gods.

I was just commenting on this aspect of your post... I don't really have an opinion otherwise.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughts. I am sure that Robert E. Lee was as fine of a southern gentleman as one could ask for. But that is not the same thing as honor. When one says honor, one thinks of honesty. To say that my principle stand is based on (Loyalty to my State) over a Nation that taught you how to be a General (West Point) . So you reap the benefits of a nation when it's convenient and disavow that nation when it's inconvenient (HIS OWN SLAVES) is not honest. It's as dishonest as one can be. And it's not P.C. to observe that. Chief of Staff Kelly owes Congresswomen Wilson an apology. Otherwise in my opinion he has no honor either.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Stay in the same room 24 hours a day with the same people and you will have a hard time getting away from their rhetoric. You might even start to believe some of it yourself. That is of course besides for the fact that, the reason you took the job in the first place was because deep down you already aligned with most of their beliefs but just did a good a job hiding it, since ya know four star generals are not typically too outspoken in public.
Click to expand...

It seems your right. So sad.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The guy makes up his mind and then tells it true......How Refreshing....We need lots more like him if we are ever going to get out of this mess.
Click to expand...

He is not telling the truth and I think he knows it, because he playing to Trump's base. History shows his version to be inaccurate at best. He says a failure to compromise on both sides. 3/5 compromise. Missouri compromise. Fugitive Slave Law. Failure to compromise was a southern problem.
 
Napoleon said:
Not at all. Kelly is correct on all counts. The Civil War cemented the conceptual understanding of the United States as one nation dominated by a Federal government at a time when many people conceptualized it as a loose confederation of nation-States bound together only by their willingness to be so and only in matters of mutual interest fascilitated by a Federal government - not terribly unlike the European Union today.
Click to expand...

Oh boy! Talk about conflating nonsense with even more nonsense. First of all the E.U. situation was a result of outside interest brewing discontent within. So to that extent we see some correlations here in America. AS far as a loose confederation as an argument, that works very well when you want to own and barter and force others to do your work. That argument is BULL****. They wanted their slaves but also wanted to dress it up in fancy language so they shouldn't have to ponder their own stench.
 
Napoleon said:
Many people did not and there was significant support for deporting blacks even among abolitioninists.
Click to expand...

Yes even Lincoln talked about deporting blacks as a way of (Ending the sickness) My words his sentiment.
 
Rich123 said:
Oh boy! Talk about conflating nonsense with even more nonsense. First of all the E.U. situation was a result of outside interest brewing discontent within. So to that extent we see some correlations here in America. AS far as a loose confederation as an argument, that works very well when you want to own and barter and force others to do your work. That argument is BULL****. They wanted their slaves but also wanted to dress it up in fancy language so they shouldn't have to ponder their own stench.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t. The Constitution was on the side of the South. Your distaste for slavery aside.
 
chuckiechan said:
She’s a race baiting hack. Notice the white democrats send the black democrats out to do their dirty work?
Click to expand...

You "noticed" the non-existent (by her at least) "race baiting", which says something about you. The Congresswoman was the victim of dirty work.
 
Rich123 said:
Yes even Lincoln talked about deporting blacks as a way of (Ending the sickness) My words his sentiment.
Click to expand...

I need to correct the above statement. If memory serves me correctly ,Lincoln considered the notion of creating colonies in Africa to deport blacks after the war because he knew it would be a long process of integrating them into our society, for obvious reasons. First they would be lingering resentment and equally important they were disadvantaged because they were denied any education and family structure by their white slave owners.
 
Napoleon said:
No it isn’t. The Constitution was on the side of the South.
Click to expand...

You say this as if it were black letter law. The Constitution is silent on secession. As a matter of interpretation the Supreme Court ruled after the Civil War that secession is unconstitutional. Before then, it
was a matter of opinion. Lincoln's logic on the question was shared by many. In any case, it's badly overstating it to say The Constitution was on the side of the South.
 
chuckiechan said:
She’s a race baiting hack. Notice the white democrats send the black democrats out to do their dirty work?
Click to expand...
Speaking of race baiters, read tour own post, racist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom