Foundry Workers Melt Down Charlottesville’s Divisive Robert E. Lee Statue
Foundry Workers Melt Down Charlottesville’s Divisive Robert E. Lee Statue
Eventually, an artist will be chosen to transform the bronze bars into a public art installation
Eventually, an artist will be chosen to transform the bronze bars into a public art installation
You're viewing a single thread.
Appeasement was a mistake, and we should have imprisoned all of the south.
There's no way they'd spend the next 150+ years trying to dismantle the government who beat them, from the inside right? Right...?
Congress passed section 1983 of the Federal Code in 1871. In 1874 an unnamed secretary of Congress "copied" section 1983 from The Congressional Record into The Federal Register. The unnamed secretary illegally revised the law by removing a 16 word clause that outlawed all immunity from prosecution previously given by the states to government officials. This error wasn't caught and reported on until May 15 of this year (2023). In 1982 Harlow V Fitzgerald went in front of The SCOTUS. The 1982 SCOTUS in their closing remarks found it strange that the 1871 Congress would explicitly outlaw all other forms of immunity, but remained "strangely silent" on immunities granted previously at the state level. This decision is what started Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity is explicitly outlawed. Congress never changed the law. The entire government are all complicit, once they are informed that the law was never changed.
This is the first I've heard of this!
can I get a source on this? sounds interesting
Thanks!
Here are some other links for those of us with no access to NYT:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2023/september-october/police-accountability-qualified-immunity-revisited/https://www.cato.org/blog/judge-willett-concurrence-highlights-qualified-immunitys-flawed-foundation
(I believe CATO is a political group, libertarian?)https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/is-qualified-immunity-doctrine-based-on-a-scriveners-error-law-review-article-makes-the-case/
(Discussion about the transcription specifically)
So the Freed Slaves should have been imprisoned?
You're not so great at context are you...
Could be autism. My gf does the same shit. Completely incapable of reading between the lines. Everything is taken literally.
You are not so great at the definition of all are you...
Bruh
dude
Yeah that's totally what he meant, it's not like any basic interpretation skills at all would give you the understanding that he didn't literally mean the entire south, but rather just Confederate soldiers and their leaders
Nah he meant the whole thing. Trees, too
All is a word with meaning. Should they mean to state the People they wish wrongfully imprisoned they could have done so. Instead they used all as a weasel word to get out of culpability for their monstrous suggestion.
Yup, like I said, they meant all of it. The trees, the rocks, the rivers. Free people, slaves, occupying Union soldiers. The air too.
Oooorrr it's possible to use ✨reading comprehension✨ to understand what a person means, when the exact literal dictionary definitions of the words they used present a completely unreasonable statement. For example, it's unreasonable to assume that my statement above actually reflects my belief, so you can assume that I'm not using the words literally.
It seems to me like you believe that imprisoning all of the Confederate soldiers is a monstrous idea. Why do you oppose it? They fought against and killed numerous innocent people, for their right to deprive others of their rights. It's not monstrous to say that virtually every Confederate soldier who fought in the war of their own volition deserves prison.
Of course there is nuance. Turncoats and those forced into it don't deserve to be punished. But carving out every single exemption when you refer to "all" of something would be tedious, especially when 99.9% of people reading understand you don't mean to imprison the slaves.
The literal meaning would be to wall off the South as a Prison. Which would be precisely what I requested clarification upon. That the inane demand demonizing innocent People fits your desires does not make it any less vile.
Something a 12 yr old without critical thinking would say
Don't dump on 12yr olds, they're smarter than this 2 watt incandescent.
I've yet to meet a 12 year old that didn't know the definition of all, but few would understand that it was simply a cop out for the person to avoid stating whom they wish harm upon so as to hide from the consequences of their vile desire.
What the fuck wild accusations are you making now? I said "Appeasement was a mistake". Who were we appeasing? ALL was referring to the people encompassed in the appeasement. You're a psycho if you think anyone suggested otherwise.
The wild accusation in question being the definition of the word "all", I doubt your opinion on the issue is supported.
And the women. And the children too!