NC lawmaker calls Abraham Lincoln a tyrant like Hitler
Source: Charlotte Observer
A day after setting off one firestorm, a Cabarrus County lawmaker set off another Wednesday by calling Abraham Lincoln “the same sort (of) tyrant” as Adolf Hitler.
Republican Rep. Larry Pittman of Cabarrus County made the comparison in a Facebook post in response to a comment criticizing a bill he’d introduced that would nullify the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in North Carolina.
In his post, Pittman said North Carolina should uphold traditional marriage “in spite of the opinion of a federal court.”
“And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it?” he wrote. “Lincoln was the same sort if (sic) tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional.”
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article144233494.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(130,760 posts)
machoneman
(3,999 posts)Good God are they thick in the head.
paleotn
(17,884 posts)Every state's got them
Warpy
(111,169 posts)and some of his fights with the USSC were the stuff of legend, so he has a point about the dictatorial nature of Lincoln's administration, but just. Hitler, he was not.
The war would have been unnecessary and unconstitutional only if Dixie hadn't taken the unnecessary and unconstitutional step of secession. Pittman could stand a few history lessons about that war that aren't courtesy of whatever bar he hangs out in.
Xolodno
(6,384 posts)...had they not fired on Ft. Sumter and started the war. The goal of the Republican Party was to contain slavery in the states where it was legal. Whereas the Democrats wanted to expand it into the new territories that were acquired. So even in succession, the Republicans would have achieved their aims.
But as usual, follow the economics. Greed. The wealthy profited off of cheap labor that was slavery. Containment also meant containment of their wealth, they would not be able to expand west-ward. Imagine a slave owner staking several claims during the gold rush and using slaves to mine. Or buying oil lands and using slaves to develop the area. A company without slave labor wouldn't be able to compete and the slave owners would reap significant wealth.
It wasn't just about keeping slavery, but expanding it. In the end, they lost both. Thankfully.
Hekate
(90,564 posts)Warpy
(111,169 posts)by balancing slave and free states as they were admitted to the Union so Dixie wouldn't feel so outnumbered. It was an attempt to keep Dixie pacified and in the union but its success was only temporary.
deurbano
(2,894 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)whom of history's heroes would they be able to claim as their own? Yes, of course they'd claim MLK or Sally Struthers if either worked for them, but none of our great American leaders were strong conservatives.
Virtual Burlesque
(132 posts)Both trip themselves up a lot and fall down.
Of course, Ford never actually won a election to be president, but neither should any of those shambles the GOP has been turning out -- Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Trump.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to what today's Republicans have become. Not so much that he used his post-presidential years to serve mankind instead of playing golf, of course.
Warpy
(111,169 posts)because Lincoln was the one member of that party they'd most like to forget.
To them, it's the Party of Voting Against Civil Rights, or the Party of Them Knowing Their Place, things along that line.
They'd love to expunge Lincoln from all the history books, trust me.
MyOwnPeace
(16,920 posts)of THEM knowing their place!"
LOL!!!!! GAWD, you nailed that one!
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The Republicans back then were more like the modern Democrats, and the Democrats back then were more like the Republicans now.
The Dems back then were the southerners, who are dark red now. Speaking in general.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)
PsychoBabble
(837 posts)... station it off the NC coast. I think we may need it there first.
There apparently is just no end to the rampant stupidity of Conservative Republicans.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Just curious.
Judi Lynn
(160,451 posts)[center]
Rep. Larry Pittman [/center]
steve2470
(37,457 posts)NewRedDawn
(790 posts)Sumner style. Sumner Another Confederate Son of a Bitch.
radicalliberal
(907 posts)
William769
(55,144 posts)
LonePirate
(13,408 posts)His comments are beyond contempt and are some of the most despicable ones ever uttered by the racists and idiots in his party. He deserves every bit of the excoriation coming his way.
Now that he's put his party's bigotry and ignorance on display, maybe some people will wake up and realize how destructive and unAmerican Republicans really are.
ATL Ebony
(1,097 posts)
barbtries
(28,770 posts)i just live here, but i swear i blushed in shame when i saw the headline. this dude is not well.
so one day Spicer forgets there was a holocaust of millions upon millions of people, including Germans, under Hitler. today this asshole compares Abraham Lincoln to Hitler.
one has to wonder what kind of education this man received to have made that statement. i know here in the South there are a substantial number of people who are still litigating the civil war, but this? aargh
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)They're a crude bunch of Confederate Flag good ole' boys who use their power in the NCGA to bully the smart people of this state. If I were a betting man I'd say Rep Pittman has an inner thigh tattoo saying, "The South shall rise again."
I won't mention the rep of my district-- He makes me angry every time he opens his mouth.
barbtries
(28,770 posts)but still, the NCGA as you said. it's like they're in a competition with LA, AL, and MS to be the worst, most regressive, hateful, unjust place to live in the country. they're an absolute disaster in every respect.
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)I hope they will use their resources in rural areas that voted Democratic before. The only way to win back the NCGA is to do this-- I swear Howard Dean needs to be hired by the Dems here in NC to give us an idea about what to do in those places. Dems have ignored them for far to long.
barbtries
(28,770 posts)i joined Durham Democratic Women, and they have a rural outreach committee that plans to work on exactly that. i work full time so was not able to join that committee unfortunately.
this is the time to get active. people are (i believe) starting to get a clue about just how much trump lied and what it could mean to them, particularly poor, working poor, or unemployed people. so hard to get how they could overlook all that evidence prior to the election, but nonetheless, with the health care snafu and every other way he's jumped off the line just fucking up everything he touched, some people have to be ready to vote in their own best interests!
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)But the local people need to be taught about the RWNJs who are in control of this state. Trump is going to run his train off the tracks nationally-- No problem there. By the time 2020 rolls around he will have a 20% approval rating.
barbtries
(28,770 posts)he doesn't get that far. with the evidence mounting re: russia, his conflicts of interest and the craven way he is profiting from the presidency, he should be gone long before the next election.
if he's not, our democracy has indeed been dealt a fatal blow. imo
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)We all have to be realists tho... Right now the Trump is protected by the GOP's control of Congress-- don't expect anything magical to happen until they are in the minority.
FraDon
(518 posts)... after all these years. The illegal, unconstitutional war of Northern aggression never ended.
radicalliberal
(907 posts)... of his party, a tyrant like Hitler.
Well, Republicans, this is what you get when you welcome Southern segregationists and other white racists into your party.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)barbtries
(28,770 posts)
can't tell whether to laugh or cry. i kind of hope his family is seeking help for the man
bathroommonkey76
(3,827 posts)SALISBURY, NC (WBTV) -
Cabarrus County lawmaker Larry Pittman (R-NC03) is the co-sponsor of a bill filed on Tuesday that would give North Carolina the right to secede from the Union by removing an obstacle to secession that was built into the state constitution 148 years ago.
House Bill 147 was filed by representatives Michael Speciale, George G. Cleveland, Pittman, and Bert Jones. All four men are Republican lawmakers.
The bill seeks to repeal Section 4 of Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, which states:
Sec. 4. Secession prohibited.
This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.
According to HB147, the sponsors want to put the repeal up on the ballot during the general election in November 2018. They say if the voters approve the amendment, it should be made law.
http://www.wbtv.com/story/34575955/cabarrus-lawmaker-co-sponsors-bill-to-repeal-ban-on-secession
barbtries
(28,770 posts)since clearly the man is still jonesing for his slaves and all, 150 years later. i misread your post and thought he had also proposed a bill banning secession. thank you for setting me straight.
the republicans in this state are as bad as the republicans in DC. total embarrassment.
dalton99a
(81,406 posts)clementine613
(561 posts)NewRedDawn
(790 posts)Should be hung with a noose like their forefathers should of like Jeff Davis & Bobbie Lee & the rest of the traitors!
Yupster
(14,308 posts)They were never put on trial.
Lee was okay with that. His health wasn't too good and he just wanted a peaceful retirement.
Davis spent the next 20 years loudly demanding his right to a speedy and open trial.
His defense team was a high powered group of northern lawyers. His defense was that secession was perfectly Constitutional,. and would the north kindly leave his unhappy country so he could get on the job of rebuilding it.
President Johnson and Jefferson Davis were bitter personal enemies from long before the war. Johnson would have loved to put Davis on trial, but the risk was too great. The Supreme Court was pretty conservative. What if they ruled the Tenth Amendment made secession legal?
Better to just never give him his trial. He spent the rest of his life indicted but was never given a trial.
NewRedDawn
(790 posts)They just should have been hung along with the other Confederate leaders politically & Militarily. As well as all their lands & wealth taken away & put in the USA Treasury.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)without trial?
By that seems like a really bad idea.
NewRedDawn
(790 posts)These people were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands more of maimed people. Not to mention the cost to the country in treasure.
Trial for what for their innocence?
While They were to carry on with their lives & lifestyles? Bullshit! They should all have paid for their treason!
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)freed bondsmen (rather than accrue to the U.S. treasury). But you and I are merely debating details; the larger point is that their properties , if not their lives, should have been forfeit.
NewRedDawn
(790 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)some group in power declares you a traitor and kills you without trial.
A lot of people seem obviously guilty, are obviously guilty. They still need to get a trial.
This should seem obvious to any Democratic supporter.
NewRedDawn
(790 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)
From your posts you seem to be so. The fuckers should have been given a trial with the jury made up of freed slaves, survivors of Andersonville, Maimed for life Union Infantry men, Widows of union Soldiers. Not made up of Judges, The brotherhood of Generals & politicians. And then do you think these fuckers would have escaped with their lives & wealth? The old confederacy is the grandfather of todays Trump Putin Party. It should have been decapitated & destroyed back then and I believe we would have been a better country for it.
Question: Did they own slaves? Use these slaves for free labor & sexual enjoyment? Treat them like animals & sometimes worse.
Question did they not take up arms against their Country?
Did they not first fire on US troops?
Did not their actions, invasions of the north & prosecution of their treasonous war cause hundreds of thousands of deaths & injuries?
Plus the thousands of POWS in Andersonville
So A Foreign Born Confederate Wirtz took the fall for Davis.Even though that fucker deserved what he had coming, but again Davis & the traitors got wrist slapped.
The murdering of Lincoln, don't tell me Davis & the Confederates were not more involved than Wilkes Boothe & conspirators.
So you are saying these fuckers are innocent? They deserved no trial but a bullet or a noose!
Yupster
(14,308 posts)Question 1 - Many in the southern and border states owned slaves. It was perfectly legal and common for them to do so. Judging people of the past by standards of today is the "sin of presentism," frowned on by historians.
2 - That's the whole question isn't it? I secession is legal, then obviously they did not as they were taking arms against a foreign country.
3- Yes, but luckily no one got hurt. This was a big decision that Davis had to make. It was the classic short term gain and long term loss. Fort Sumter brought with it three of the four highest population states of the CSA, Tennessee, Virginia and N Carolina along with leaders like Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Bragg, Johnston, Hill, Early, etc. In the long term it led to a war the CSA couldn't win. Could the CSA have survived without those large states anyway? Lessons like this would be good for our leaders to study. If W had studied Jefferson Davis, maybe he wouldn't have attacked Iraq.
4. Obviously each side would blame the other for this. The north certainly did a lot more invading and destroying than the south did.
5. On POW's, it was the north which stopped the paroling and exchanging of POW's, not the south. The south by 1864 didn't have the food or transportation system to feed its own armies and people let alone thousands of prisoners. The south's transportation system was systematically torn to pieces as a war strategy of the north. I agree that Wirz took the fall as I believe his trial showed he tried to do a decent job faced with an impossible situation. He did get a trial though. Now Camp Douglas is another thing. There the north had the resources to give the prisoners and withheld them anyway. I don't remember if anyone took the fall for that other than congressional reports and committee hearings.
6. I don't need to tell you what Davis's reaction to Lincoln's assassination was. It is well documented. He was with Johnston's Army in N Carolina when he heard of it and he was mortified. His well documented quote is that the assassination would be a disaster for the south partly because he had known Andrew Johnson for decades and considered him an enemy of anything educated, ethical or moral. No, I have no doubt that Davis had nothing to do with Lincoln's assassination. It would go against everything in his entire life. There's a real good biography of Davis written about 20 years ago. I forget the author, but the title is "Jefferson Davis, American." I recommend it if you really have an interest in history. He was a fascinating person.
7. No, I'm not saying these guys were innocent. I have my own opinions, but that's not my point. My point is they deserved a trial. There are always two sides to every story and these guys had a case to be argued.
In conclusion, declaring someone an enemy of the people and executing them without trial is not something any Democratic Party supporter should be advocating. I'd recommend Kafka's book "The Trial" to make that point.
bluestarone
(16,872 posts)Then give him a parachute and drop him into SYRIA
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)As my wife and I crossed the parking lot to enter the market, I noticed a Confederate flag proudly displayed in the back window of a parked truck. Had I been given a casual opportunity, I would have liked to ask the owner if he or she was a strong Democratic voter. "Heck no! I always vote Republican!" would have been the expected answer.
My question brings the answer to a fact of history that is rarely discussed. Yes, Republicans freed the slaves. Yes, Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents. But Republicans at the time of the Civil War were the big-government, liberal party and they believed that all men were truly created equal.
In 1860, the 'new' Republican Party platform of Lincoln was for a powerful central government that was against slavery. They were for free farmland for non-slave holding western settlers, for freedom of immigration into the United States and rights to all immigrants, for building the transcontinental railroad and regulating national banks -very much a left-of-moderate party platform. The Democratic Party platform was the hard-line states' rights, pro-slavery, admittedly white-supremest as proclaimed in the Confederacy's "Cornerstone Speech" manifesto, conservative party. Many things fractured the politics of 1860. Among those were the promotion of a gold standard, the Free Soilers, and pro & anti-slavery Whigs that forced a split that dissolved the long-established Whig Party. As a result, though considered a long-shot, Lincoln's 'new' Republican Party won the election.
When we celebrate President Lincoln as one of the United States' greatest presidents with holidays and dinners we must understand the accurate accounting of history, that ideological platforms switched during the terms of the majority and consecutive Republican presidents that followed the Lincoln-Johnson terms. The long list of Republican presidents that followed Lincoln and V.P. Andrew Johnson ended with conservative Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, caused in large part by unregulated banking, then worsened by the Hoover administration's fear that introducing any level of socialism was unacceptable -those continue as modern Republican talking points.
Democratic nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt's election win was the final indicator that both party's previous platforms had fully flipped and the economy was boosted into what is one of the great successes in our history. The New Deal followed by the G.I. Bill were two prominent progressive economic triggers that sustained a fruitful U.S. economy.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." -Franklin D. Roosevelt. That approach surely seems to have worked very well for the economy. It is perhaps another part of history that we should examine more closely regarding corporate subsidies, the cap on the Payroll Tax and the lowered tax rates for the wealthiest vs. quality public health and affordable college education for all Americans.
It should be noted that some conservative "DixieCrats" remained in office well into the 20th century, but that the Confederate flag today is flown by Republican and/or Tea Party supporters almost exclusively. It is no longer flown by Democrats. In fact, we have seen modern-day Democrats file lawsuits to have the Confederate flag removed from government buildings. This is one of many, more than obvious signs of how the two rival party's platforms have flipped since Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest, if not the greatest of all U.S. presidents.
bucolic_frolic
(43,063 posts)Thomas DiLorenzo took a similarly dim view of Lincoln. Basically said he spoke
in platitudes for the masses which meant something opposite to the railroad barons
and businessmen who got him elected. The original front man.
I don't agree with most of DiLorenzo's VonMises perspective or his right wing rants, but
the revisionist Lincoln is quite unique.
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo53.html
grantcart
(53,061 posts)He has given lectures to neo Confederate groups.
bucolic_frolic
(43,063 posts)So I misspoke
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375725326/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era (Paperback)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The first link is to LewRockwell.com
The Southern Poverty Law Center labels the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (which he founded) as a neo confederate. They advocate radical right wing positions like the abolition of child labor laws.
The link you sent is for a book "Lincoln Reconsidered" by David Donald who admired Lincoln.
David M. Potter, known as a Lincoln scholar, said Donald's biography of Charles Sumner portrayed, "Sumner as a man with acute psychological inadequacies" and exposed Sumner's "facade of pompous rectitude." Donald's evenhanded approach to Sumner, Potter concluded, was a model for biographers working with a difficult subject. "If it does not make Sumner attractive [the book] certainly makes him understandable."[5]
Donald argues that the American Civil War was a needless war caused or hastened by the fanaticism of people like Charles Sumner; he admires Abraham Lincoln.[6]
Here is sample of the reviews of DiLorenzo's work
Writing for The Daily Beast, Rich Lowry described DiLorenzo's technique in this book as the following: "His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives. In DiLorenzo, the Lincoln-haters have found a champion with the judiciousness and the temperament they deserve."[23]
Reviewing for The Independent Review, a think tank associated with DiLorenzo, Richard M. Gamble described the book "travesty of historical method and documentation". He said the book was plagued by a "labyrinth of [historical and grammatical] errors", and concluded that DiLorenzo has "earned the ... ridicule of his critics."[24]
Reviews in The Washington Post and Publishers Weekly both stated that the book seemed directed at unnamed scholars who had praised Lincoln's contributions. Justin Ewers criticized DiLorenzo, saying this book "is more of a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis.
His wild assertions – for example, that Lincoln held 'lifelong white supremacist views' – don't help his argument."[30] Publishers Weekly described this as a "screed,"
bucolic_frolic
(43,063 posts)I really don't vette every link I post adequately. Regardless of his radical scholarship,
which i said I didn't agree with in the original post, I do find the review of Lincoln Reconsidered
to be an interesting perspective.
There are also revisionist historians on the left. William Appleman Williams as I recall was none too
flattering of Abraham Lincoln. The American mainstream tends to take Lincoln as bedrock, but there
was a lot going on the mid-1800s that make a complicated subject. Industrialization, territorial expansion,
slavery, urbanization.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I can recommend a friend of mine, a former professor who has written several award winning books on Lincoln
http://www.ronaldcwhite.com/books/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_C._White
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Association sent Lincoln a congratulatory telegram on his 1864 reelection.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)However, it's history.
It's done.
Over with.
Complete.
About 150 years ago at that.
Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
TeamPooka
(24,209 posts)
ProfessorPlum
(11,253 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Was it not the South that started the war?
BigOleDummy
(2,268 posts)It was the South who fired the first shots. It was the south who tried to rip our country apart with their "articles of secession" and traitorous words and deeds. Sometimes I wonder though...... if the Constitution of the United States shouldn't have a clause that lets us EXPELL a state.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)no one was killed in the fight if that makes any difference.
If I remember right, a soldier was killed firing a final salute to the flag while it was lowered or some weird thing like that.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)fired the first shots of the Civil War at Harper's Ferry. 
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)or were his actions individual actions?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)representative of the state," but in retrospect he seems much larger than life, a fact Frederick Douglass recognized in 1884. Don't have the quote at hand, but Douglass paints Browb as an eternally transcendent figure.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)"I bet most people don't know that," said the idiot in the west wing.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Huh, imagine that.
Actually don't try, you'll need to injure your brain fairly severely before you can imagine such stupidity.
The members of the late, unlamented Confederacy should have proposed a bill in Congress, or a Constitutional amendment, that separated them from the rest of the Union.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)newspeak.
"The nasty federal guv'mint took away mae rights to take freedom from black folks."
"Stole my property (slaves) and let the chattel vote!"
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)sarisataka
(18,500 posts)As for "Northern Aggression" even after successions the North didn't attack; the South fired first.
He also seems to be unaware that the constitution, not state law, is supreme
Yupster
(14,308 posts)The Constitution was silent on whether there was a right to secede or not.
Does that mean the 10th Amendment kicks in?
That was the legal issue.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,295 posts)Let everybody know you're an idiot. That way there's no ambiguity.
BTW if Hitler was responsible for the death of 800,000 Americans, Wayne LaPierre has him beat in spades!
world wide wally
(21,739 posts)
irisblue
(32,932 posts)WTF NC? Oh wait NRA endorsement.
littlemissmartypants
(22,593 posts)From January 26, 2012
http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/10649801/
We could probably dig up more shockers from this nutcase. His closet is so full of skeletons we'd have no problem posting on him once a week.
He is truly insane.
Thanks for the post, bathroommonkey. Lively thread.
♡lmsp
bekkilyn
(454 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
keithbvadu2
(36,671 posts)Official republican position - Lincoln was our nation's greatest leader
From the 2004 GOP Platform
"One hundred and fifty years ago, Americans who had gathered to protest the expansion of slavery gave birth to a political Party that would save the Union - the Republican Party.
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois carried the Republican banner in the Presidential election and was elected the Party's first President. He became our nation's greatest leader … and one of our Party's greatest heroes. "
keithbvadu2
(36,671 posts)Trump (thru his spokesman Sean Spicer) had words of praise for Hitler.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)are worse than Hitler.
Repug prez dRumpf just bragged about how he found out that 'the great president Lincoln was a repug, and not many people know that'. Then another repug pops up, and says that Lincoln is a horrible tyrant like Hitler. Who dRumpf's rabid fanbase loves, anyhow.
They're never going to make any sense, when they tell us what they 'think', about anything. They're fucking basket cases, screaming and crying, yelling and laughing, flipflopping back and forth, supremely incoherent and unhinged.
They'll never give us a heartfelt statement of their 'deeply held' 'values' that they don't immediately jettison to score some cheap political points with a polar opposite contradictory statement, as soon as it appears to be an opportune time to do so.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)mommie says he keeps a copy of his book by the nightstand.
keithbvadu2
(36,671 posts)Response to bathroommonkey76 (Original post)
uppityperson This message was self-deleted by its author.
truthisfreedom
(23,140 posts)During Passover again? They're not tone-deaf. They've got echo-chamber tinnitus. They can only hear what's in their own fucked up heads.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)MrModerate
(9,753 posts)mreilly
(2,120 posts)... but they tell US "You lost, get over it!"
Unreal. Excepting our good folks in those red states, FUCK THE SOUTH.
I live in Massachusetts and am about to head to California on vacation. There's a reason I only live in and travel to blue states; I will not spend my money in any red state if I can avoid it. Because of shitheads like this guy.
Nitram
(22,768 posts)
MBS
(9,688 posts)And despite the fact that, given the bizarre state of governmental and political doings these days, I really shouldn't be shocked by anything anymore. Still, I am shocked.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,325 posts)And, "Free the slaves" in Hitlerian German, is "Arbeit macht frei"
