I do not think that Pell deserve the beating in the barbershop. Do you agree with me that Pell did not deserve the beating in the barbershop?
sharePlease refer to the answers to the question "Did Pell Deserve The Beating In The Barbershop?" which you posed 8 months ago on October 16, 2014; and again on June 6, 2015 in the "Hackman shaving Deputy Clinton Pell...." thread.
shareI'm a bit of an extremist in cases like this. If I were in the position to have the power, I would send in FBI under cover and collect the name of everyone in the county involved in the KKK, plus the names of anyone aiding them.
Then, I would declare martial law in the county. I would send in two or three Special Forces A Teams with the list of names and photographs. They would leave the headless bodies lined up on the main road through town and leave.
These guys were trying to play nice, they wanted in court criminal convictions. I consider the Klan and its offshoots as unreconstructed rebels, still waging war against our country. They advocate the use of violence for the overthrow of the duly constituted government and use terrorism to promote their cause. They don't deserve nice; they deserve a military solution.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
I see. So you advocate the tactics of, among others, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pot, Amin, Nero? Congrats. You have disassociated yourself from one of the fundamental tenets of the most just society to have inhabited the Earth.
shareSorry idiot. You can't associate any form of murder with Hitler, Stalin, and the crew. It doesn't work that way and only makes you look like a friggen simpleton who can't distinguish the difference.
And there is nothing just about this society that allows these racists to rise to power and oppress and take the lives of their sworn enemy. Justice is balance and giving them exactly what they spread through the South - fear and murder - would do that. Anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant pansie that thinks murderers should be given a nice room to sit and wait decades for their life to end, and think that's any better. What a crock of shyt. No one put Hitler and his henchmen in a cell to rot. They killed themselves to avoid the punishment they knew was coming.
Senseless crimes this heinous needs deterrents, examples to prevent others from thinking this is acceptable or even tolerable behavior. I tell you another thing, you start killing people with a criminal mentality ASAP and you watch how those types of people decrease just by eliminating them from the gene pool.
While there is one part of me that completely, COMPLETELY agrees with you - I want to see these racist mofos get theirs, and right soon - there is also the rule of law. You can't just start murdering members of the KKK.
While whatever huge percentage of them are supreme a$$holes, and probably deserve death, there are also those who joined the KKK for business connections, or for a political career. As in, if you refused membership, you didn't get any business, or any votes.
One such person was Hugo Black. "Who's he?" you may very well ask. Well, he was someone who very strongly believed in the First Amendment, in free speech, in the separation of church and state, and was a strong supporter of civil rights. He was a Supreme Court Justice for well over 30 years.
So killing all the KKK still sounds good?
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Yes, just as killing all of the SS after WW2 would have been preferable to allowing them to return to their jobs because it made it easier to run the post-WW2 German government and create the FRG. Sometimes we need to pay a price to do the right thing.
I heard an historian on CSPAN a couple of weeks ago respond to a question about Reconstruction and why it did not work. He said we needed to maintain martial law and exercise federal control over the post-Civil War South for at least 20 wears and maybe forty. In other words, control them for one or two full generations to ensure that the culture actually changed substantively.
I keep that in mind now when I reflect on Operation Iraqi Freedom and why its success has been marginal. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld kept saying that it would be a "long, hard slog," but the American people, always impatient did not listen. We need to deal now with IS(IS) because we did not stick out the peace. It takes time to change hearts and minds. Ten years was not nearly long enough for Reconstruction to work in the American South and that was Americans trying to effect change among Americans, same language, shared history, similar religions and all. It went faster in Germany and Japan post-WW2, but we began by devastating their countries. We did not do a tenth the degree of destruction to any enemy before or since, regardless of what southerners like to remember about Sherman's March.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Hello, I find the quotes of the historian interesting. I'm not American myself but Swedish, but have a long-standing interest in American history. I know I read some historian say that Lincoln was for reconciliation with the beaten foe, the South, much like the Allies treated Germany and Japan after WWII, but that many people around him wanted to "punish" the South, and that the murder of Lincoln made reconciliation impossible and led to harsh treatment of the South which in turn led to the bitterness that has survived to this day.
What is your take on this? Just curious.
I think that what you have heard is what has become known here as "the southern myth of the 'Lost Cause." That myth as propagated by many southerners insists that they fought a war to protect states' rights, that the only reason they lost was due to the overwhelming numerical and economic superiority of the north, and that Reconstruction failed because the north was corrupt and they tried to give rights and freedoms to African - Americans before they were ready.
On why the South seceded and started the war, there are numerous quotes from Southern politicians stating that they had to go to war to protect slavery. The only state right that they wanted to protect was the right for their white people to own black people.
On the loss to the north being about the numbers, they knew that when they illegally seized federal property and ultimately fired on Fort Sumter, a union fort. At that time they were absolutely convinced that Southern manhood, elan, and esprit de corps would overcome all advantages of the north.
On count three, the South did everything it could, bombings, murder, illegal state guards firing on legal state militia because the militia were African - American, the KKK, and so on to undermine Reconstruction. In spite of that, Reconstruction was succeeding from 1869 when Ulysses S. Grant became president until the recession of 1873 sapped the will of northerners to spend more money enforcing the law in the South.
We don't know what President Lincoln would have done because John Wilkes Booth, an unrepentant traitor from Virginia (I think) murdered him. When Andrew Johnson became president he did not want to do anything to rehabilitate the South. For that he was impeached, but the Senate found him 'not guilty' by one vote. As I mentioned above, in 1869 Ulysses S. Grant became president with an overwhelming Republican majority in both houses of congress. The congress passed multiple laws and President Grant enforced them.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
"Make no mistake about it, Deputy. I'll cut your *beep* head clean off and not give a *beep* how it reads in the report sheet!"
Why do you think that? They should have shot him.
shareNo.Did not like the exaggeration either.
shareWell, let's see:
He participated in the murders of the three civil rights workers and he nearly beat his wife to death.
Pell got off easy with the beating, which wasn't nearly as brutal as the one he delivered to his wife.
I'm with Anderson on this one -- "I'll cut your *beep* head clean off and not give a sh*t how it reads in the report sheet!"
Clinton Pell should have had his bones broken. He needed practice picking up his teeth with broken fingers.
shareSh*t stirrer. Pell was a giant pussy who deserved the a$$-whooping he got and more. I didn't see this scene about him being in on the murder so much as it was about him nearly beating his wife to death. It was obvious by the way she started apologizing before Clinton even touched her, that he'd abused her before. She knew what was coming. Anderson obviously liked her. Regardless that she didn't shoo him away, nothing she did deserved being beaten within an inch of her life. Anderson let Clinton off easy, if you ask me.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
George Lassos the Moon
(¯`v´¯)
`•.¸.•´
¸.•´¸.•´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•´