Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
"Anyway, in a press conference today Trump said “I’m not putting anybody on a moral plain,” “You had a group on one side and group on the other and they came at each other with clubs – there is another side, you can call them the left, that came violently attacking the other group.” Trump went on to say: “You had people that were very fine people on both sides.” So, this is the state of affairs in the U.S. today - a country with a tragic racial history and currents of that history carving the trajectory of public affairs. A white supremacist commits a terrorist act and murders a young woman with a car. And yet the President has equal condemnation for anti-fascist protesters. As one reporter asked - what does this teach our children?" I deliberately stayed offline last night... because i was so angry... I really was... so what we learned about "our" president today... 1) what he said on saturday was truely what he meant... 2) what he then said on monday was in effect basically a "hostage tape" .. the phrase that sticks with me was "good people on both sides".... so that would be good kkk, good white supremacists, good white nationalists, fantastist people in the alt right...... he basically gave them a pass.... he put as much blame on the people respectfully counter protesting because they didn't have a permit as he did on the scum and there abhorrant views when the likes of david duke, richard spenser, the KKK and the alt right are applauding your statements.... you know you are on the wrong side of not just history, but just general decency! people said he would eventually change from candidate trump to president trump.... not he won't! and this is the proof that he will never change because its what he fundermentally believes and that is the most scary thing of all!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Anyway, in a press conference today Trump said “I’m not putting anybody on a moral plain,” “You had a group on one side and group on the other and they came at each other with clubs – there is another side, you can call them the left, that came violently attacking the other group.” Trump went on to say: “You had people that were very fine people on both sides.” So, this is the state of affairs in the U.S. today - a country with a tragic racial history and currents of that history carving the trajectory of public affairs. A white supremacist commits a terrorist act and murders a young woman with a car. And yet the President has equal condemnation for anti-fascist protesters. As one reporter asked - what does this teach our children? I deliberately stayed offline last night... because i was so angry... I really was... so what we learned about "our" president today... 1) what he said on saturday was truely what he meant... 2) what he then said on monday was in effect basically a "hostage tape" .. the phrase that sticks with me was "good people on both sides".... so that would be good kkk, good white supremacists, good white nationalists, fantastist people in the alt right...... he basically gave them a pass.... he put as much blame on the people respectfully counter protesting because they didn't have a permit as he did on the scum and there abhorrant views when the likes of david duke, richard spenser, the KKK and the alt right are applauding your statements.... you know you are on the wrong side of not just history, but just general decency! people said he would eventually change from candidate trump to president trump.... not he won't! and this is the proof that he will never change because its what he fundermentally believes and that is the most scary thing of all!!!! " Strongly agree with this.. in his words and lack of condemnation initially he has dishonoured the office that he now holds.. being in the position of responsibility that he now is brings with it certain duties and expectations, in not respecting and maintaining the values of that office above his own evident personal beliefs he has denigrated the position.. some on here by their lack of any condemnation for this latest act of terrorism have shown their true colours also and it is very sad but not a surprise that they choose to differentiate between a murdering terrorists politics or skin colour.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've been watching Fox news today and they are taking up the Trump baton. After his initial remarks I watched Fox and they were critical of his remarks. But today I'm watching and they seem to have changed their tune. The party line is being followed. The US is at a turning point, I think. Sides are being delineated and one murder has already happened at the hands of white nationalist terrorists. There's trouble ahead. "I am glad that some commentators on fox did "break ranks" and criticise.... but i am sure the memo got around and now they are towing the party line... and flicking between CNN and MSNBC this morning.... Joe Scarborough eviserated Trump this morning (i don't normally agree with him, but he was spot on this morning!) and CNN are saying they cannot get a republican to come on their show this morning... this is a huge test for the republican party and they have all gone into hiding this morning... everyone is appalled but no one wants to actually stand up and put their name to it!!! the next time the EDL decide to march thru my town, and i stand by to demonstrate my opposition to that (and hurl an insult or two), I must remember that I am, in fact, part of the problem!!!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is fine as long as you can take what's said without resorting to violence and counter it with reason and logic. " Sometimes you have to take action. "If you tolerate this, your children will be next". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is fine as long as you can take what's said without resorting to violence and counter it with reason and logic. " One side killed someone, here. David Duke has praised the President's latest reaction and called the counter-protesters terrorists after people supporting his views actually did commit terrorist acts. It's like living in the twilight zone. The US has had peaceful white supremacist protests before (including counter-protesters). Clearly something was different here. It's not just a matter of "tak[ing] what's said without resorting to violence." It's a matter of people claiming they are organizing in the name of free speech and then bringing guns, shields, and pepper spray while spoiling for a fight. And when none of that works? Drive your car into a bunch of innocent people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is fine as long as you can take what's said without resorting to violence and counter it with reason and logic. " how exactly would you see 'reason and logic' being applied to someone carrying a swastika..? or wearing a white hood with a burning cross..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps the saddest victim here has been truth and integrity for, if he were alive today and witnessing these events, then General commanding the Army of Northern Virginia Robert E Lee would likely be mortified by the apparent "support" for a statue to his honour? A humble man, a quiet man, a genuine leader who after being offered command of the Union Army of the Potomac by President Lincoln anguished much before deciding that he was, first and foremost, a son of Virginia before being a citizen of the United States. The issue to him was ALWAYS one of where he was born and how he would protect what so many saw as their being turned into second class citizens by the Northern power-house states. The decision he made was often for so many others equally a hard one to take. He, nor many of his general staff, ever put the defence of slavery into that equation and, though from a long slave owning family, he freed all his slaves before taking up any command. Let us imagine what he would say if he were alive today, would he like Trump turn to social media to make his point? If he did then I would suggest his "tweet" would be succinct and simple . . . "NEVER in my name!"" 
And there is exactly the reason why his statue should remain where it is.
Kkk and those thugs have an opinion and they are entitled to have it even voice there opinion , they ant in power to implement there ideals and never will , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
well said | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is fine as long as you can take what's said without resorting to violence and counter it with reason and logic. One side killed someone, here. David Duke has praised the President's latest reaction and called the counter-protesters terrorists after people supporting his views actually did commit terrorist acts. It's like living in the twilight zone. The US has had peaceful white supremacist protests before (including counter-protesters). Clearly something was different here. It's not just a matter of "tak[ing] what's said without resorting to violence." It's a matter of people claiming they are organizing in the name of free speech and then bringing guns, shields, and pepper spray while spoiling for a fight. And when none of that works? Drive your car into a bunch of innocent people. " . I don't think these things are overnight occurrences, they've been simmering for awhile now, it's been tit for tat escalating violence for ages and now it's escalating up to killing. The violence should have been cracked down on right at the outset years ago with a firm but fair hand of protest is fine but violence will be jailed. The whole antifa thing is a bit of a fad that will hopefully die off as it's actually emboldened the neo Nazis. I've been warning about the rise of Nazism for ages and unfortunately it's all coming to fruition | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is fine as long as you can take what's said without resorting to violence and counter it with reason and logic. how exactly would you see 'reason and logic' being applied to someone carrying a swastika..? or wearing a white hood with a burning cross..?" . It pains me to say it but there are some people that you cannot help or reason with, they are lost causes, no amount of education can or will change their ideological outlook.... Like Isis they must unfortunately be killed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've been watching Fox news today and they are taking up the Trump baton. After his initial remarks I watched Fox and they were critical of his remarks. But today I'm watching and they seem to have changed their tune. The party line is being followed. The US is at a turning point, I think. Sides are being delineated and one murder has already happened at the hands of white nationalist terrorists. There's trouble ahead.
I am glad that some commentators on fox did "break ranks" and criticise.... but i am sure the memo got around and now they are towing the party line...
and flicking between CNN and MSNBC this morning.... Joe Scarborough eviserated Trump this morning (i don't normally agree with him, but he was spot on this morning!) and CNN are saying they cannot get a republican to come on their show this morning...
this is a huge test for the republican party and they have all gone into hiding this morning... everyone is appalled but no one wants to actually stand up and put their name to it!!!
the next time the EDL decide to march thru my town, and i stand by to demonstrate my opposition to that (and hurl an insult or two), I must remember that I am, in fact, part of the problem!!!! "You would be part of the problem if you brought baseball bats and knives and other weapons and wore masks and balaclavas like many of those Antifa protestors did in Charlottesville. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyway, in a press conference today Trump said “I’m not putting anybody on a moral plain,” “You had a group on one side and group on the other and they came at each other with clubs – there is another side, you can call them the left, that came violently attacking the other group.” Trump went on to say: “You had people that were very fine people on both sides.” So, this is the state of affairs in the U.S. today - a country with a tragic racial history and currents of that history carving the trajectory of public affairs. A white supremacist commits a terrorist act and murders a young woman with a car. And yet the President has equal condemnation for anti-fascist protesters. As one reporter asked - what does this teach our children? I deliberately stayed offline last night... because i was so angry... I really was... so what we learned about "our" president today... 1) what he said on saturday was truely what he meant... 2) what he then said on monday was in effect basically a "hostage tape" .. the phrase that sticks with me was "good people on both sides".... so that would be good kkk, good white supremacists, good white nationalists, fantastist people in the alt right...... he basically gave them a pass.... he put as much blame on the people respectfully counter protesting because they didn't have a permit as he did on the scum and there abhorrant views when the likes of david duke, richard spenser, the KKK and the alt right are applauding your statements.... you know you are on the wrong side of not just history, but just general decency! people said he would eventually change from candidate trump to president trump.... not he won't! and this is the proof that he will never change because its what he fundermentally believes and that is the most scary thing of all!!!! " Well mr Fabio, good idea staying off when angry. The only thing i can say is he won't be president forever, plus your not alone in your thoughts about him and his ilk, and perhaps he delivered an ignorant and ill thought statrment at best. Perhaps the solar eclipse across the usa may be an omen to his demise  look forward to the day he's packing his bags
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough " All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. " you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... " I'm perfectly happy for everyone on here to see what I posted, if I wasn't then I wouldn't have posted it in the first place. All you've done is point the finger at one side and you continuously turn a blind eye to the wrongs that the other side are guilty of (and there is no question the Antifa protestors are guilty as the video footage of them dressed in black, wearing masks, carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons is freely available on various news stations video footage, YouTube and other places). I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides so he did condemn the violence on the side of the alt right as well as condemning the violence on the Antifa side. Both sides were at fault and equally to blame for the violence that erupted there, it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. You continue to turn a blind eye to what one side did though, and your rank hypocrisy is plain for all to see. It seems to be mainly lefty Corbyn supporters on here condemning Trump for his stance but Trump has took a very similar stance on Charlottesville to Corbyn's stance on Venezuela. Corbyn was asked to specifically condemn the Venezuelan regime and Madura but refused and instead condemned the violence 'on all sides'. You didn't bat an eyelid about Corbyn but when Trump does pretty much the same as Corbyn and condemns the violence on all sides you throw an almighty hissy fit about it. Why can Corbyn get away with it but when Trump does the same lefties have a meltdown. The Double standards on display in here really are astonishing! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... " Dont waste a second on the alt reich. They are lesser people with no moral compass. They are a waste of oxygen and carbon.Pure filth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... " Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them "I am sure he will come back... but he won't have watched that 20 minutes..... and then he will deflect the topic again..... and then he will point fingers again..... i think vice news/HBO will get enormous credit for this... it is a powerful watch, but then when you watch this, and then watch trumps statement yesterday, you get to see what a small creature he is.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... I'm perfectly happy for everyone on here to see what I posted, if I wasn't then I wouldn't have posted it in the first place. All you've done is point the finger at one side and you continuously turn a blind eye to the wrongs that the other side are guilty of (and there is no question the Antifa protestors are guilty as the video footage of them dressed in black, wearing masks, carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons is freely available on various news stations video footage, YouTube and other places). I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides so he did condemn the violence on the side of the alt right as well as condemning the violence on the Antifa side. Both sides were at fault and equally to blame for the violence that erupted there, it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. You continue to turn a blind eye to what one side did though, and your rank hypocrisy is plain for all to see. It seems to be mainly lefty Corbyn supporters on here condemning Trump for his stance but Trump has took a very similar stance on Charlottesville to Corbyn's stance on Venezuela. Corbyn was asked to specifically condemn the Venezuelan regime and Madura but refused and instead condemned the violence 'on all sides'. You didn't bat an eyelid about Corbyn but when Trump does pretty much the same as Corbyn and condemns the violence on all sides you throw an almighty hissy fit about it. Why can Corbyn get away with it but when Trump does the same lefties have a meltdown. The Double standards on display in here really are astonishing! " Youre entitled to your opinion. I would advise you watch the posted link and then come back and withdraw your statement because it's clearly not based on the truth Both Presidents Bush have condemned what's happening, as have jalf the GOP....that surely tells you something | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... Dont waste a second on the alt reich. They are lesser people with no moral compass. They are a waste of oxygen and carbon.Pure filth. "Said the self confessed arsonist and car thief  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them "Only in your tiny mind, you've never met me and you don't know me from Adam. Assume what you like I really couldn't care less what you think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them
Only in your tiny mind, you've never met me and you don't know me from Adam. Assume what you like I really couldn't care less what you think. "I dont have to meet you  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them
Only in your tiny mind, you've never met me and you don't know me from Adam. Assume what you like I really couldn't care less what you think.
I dont have to meet you "Neither do I you. I could assume you still wear nappies and suck a dummy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them
Only in your tiny mind, you've never met me and you don't know me from Adam. Assume what you like I really couldn't care less what you think.
I dont have to meet you
Neither do I you. I could assume you still wear nappies and suck a dummy "Well you would be wrong as per usual | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. " you have no moral position from which you can ask anyone anything till you do the decent thing and condemn what was an act of terrorism.. you have ducked and dived and its evident that the politics of the murderer for you justify his vile actions.. everyone on these threads rightly condemns other acts of terrorism when they happen as do you yet on this all you have done is tried to pick fault with anyone who opposes people such as did carrying swastika's and some with assault weapons, shields, clubs and helmets.. your support for such rightly condemned fascists is disgusting but not a surprise.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... Fabio your really wasting your breath on this guy....You mentioned a group in the UK....im sure in my mind this guy is affiliated to them
Only in your tiny mind, you've never met me and you don't know me from Adam. Assume what you like I really couldn't care less what you think. "Erm he knows nothing about Adam because Adam is not constantly posting his blatant thoughts on a public forum , if you it is true that you post what you claim to think , their is a vast archive of your thoughts and indeed if you have told the truth we all can have rather a great insight into who you are ! The alt right are vile . The president of the US like it or not should be a world leader in promoting equality Trump is a bad man and there is no justification for a good human to support his words or actions and it is deeply disheartening to hear and meet other people from this country who lower themselves , stoop to support fascism  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've been watching Fox news today and they are taking up the Trump baton. After his initial remarks I watched Fox and they were critical of his remarks. But today I'm watching and they seem to have changed their tune. The party line is being followed. The US is at a turning point, I think. Sides are being delineated and one murder has already happened at the hands of white nationalist terrorists. There's trouble ahead. "Its not one murder, it's 49. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/14/fbi-and-dhs-warned-of-growing-threat-from-white-supremacists-months-ago/amp/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so centaur..... did you actually go and watch the 20 minute documentry then? because you seem to be waffling a lot without seeing what you are actually defending!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg I am happy to keep putting up the link, because the more people who watch it, the more people realise just how silly your position is..... and the more people will wonder just exactly what type of person you seem to be because you just cannot seem to condemn the people you keep on defending by pointing the fingers at the other side....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg see... all i ever asked was the docu.... then compare that to what trump said yesterday...... and see if the two actually line up" I think you are actually having difficulty in reading what has been said on this thread, so I'll repeat it for clarity, this time try reading it REALLY slowly so it actually sinks in.....'I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides'. You do understand what the word 'all' means don't you? You seem to be really struggling so I suggest you go and look it up in a dictionary. You did hear Trump say it in his press conference that he condemned all sides but then again maybe you are hard of hearing and you only selectively hear what you want to hear. When Trump condemned the violence on all sides that means he condemned the violence on the alt right side AND the violence committed by the Antifa in Charlottesville as well. I agree with him and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. I've no doubt you'll continue to spam the thread with your YouTube link though, (just for the record there are forum rules against spamming) once is more than enough, let's just hope a forum moderator doesn't come along and give you a forum ban for spamming though, eh. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so centaur..... did you actually go and watch the 20 minute documentry then? because you seem to be waffling a lot without seeing what you are actually defending!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg I am happy to keep putting up the link, because the more people who watch it, the more people realise just how silly your position is..... and the more people will wonder just exactly what type of person you seem to be because you just cannot seem to condemn the people you keep on defending by pointing the fingers at the other side....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg see... all i ever asked was the docu.... then compare that to what trump said yesterday...... and see if the two actually line up I think you are actually having difficulty in reading what has been said on this thread, so I'll repeat it for clarity, this time try reading it REALLY slowly so it actually sinks in.....'I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides'. You do understand what the word 'all' means don't you? You seem to be really struggling so I suggest you go and look it up in a dictionary. You did hear Trump say it in his press conference that he condemned all sides but then again maybe you are hard of hearing and you only selectively hear what you want to hear. When Trump condemned the violence on all sides that means he condemned the violence on the alt right side AND the violence committed by the Antifa in Charlottesville as well. I agree with him and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. I've no doubt you'll continue to spam the thread with your YouTube link though, (just for the record there are forum rules against spamming) once is more than enough, let's just hope a forum moderator doesn't come along and give you a forum ban for spamming though, eh. " So you support the right of white supremacists, Nazi's and the KKK to spout their rhetoric unchallenged? Did you see who turned up armed and ready? Many in combat gear carrying long firearms and carrying Nazi, KKK and white supremacist paraphernalia. There are NO fine people who believe that black people have 3/5 of the value of a white person and there are no fine people who want the reintroduction of the Confederacy. This is a really big deal and it all hinges on whether people who regard black, brown and yellow people as being lesser people are actually "fine people" as long as they are not violent. Like fuck they are fine people and they deserve outing and humiliating for their moronic and prehistoric views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so centaur..... did you actually go and watch the 20 minute documentry then? because you seem to be waffling a lot without seeing what you are actually defending!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg I am happy to keep putting up the link, because the more people who watch it, the more people realise just how silly your position is..... and the more people will wonder just exactly what type of person you seem to be because you just cannot seem to condemn the people you keep on defending by pointing the fingers at the other side....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg see... all i ever asked was the docu.... then compare that to what trump said yesterday...... and see if the two actually line up I think you are actually having difficulty in reading what has been said on this thread, so I'll repeat it for clarity, this time try reading it REALLY slowly so it actually sinks in.....'I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides'. You do understand what the word 'all' means don't you? You seem to be really struggling so I suggest you go and look it up in a dictionary. You did hear Trump say it in his press conference that he condemned all sides but then again maybe you are hard of hearing and you only selectively hear what you want to hear. When Trump condemned the violence on all sides that means he condemned the violence on the alt right side AND the violence committed by the Antifa in Charlottesville as well. I agree with him and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. I've no doubt you'll continue to spam the thread with your YouTube link though, (just for the record there are forum rules against spamming) once is more than enough, let's just hope a forum moderator doesn't come along and give you a forum ban for spamming though, eh. " Spamming is repeatedly posting without adding to the discussion, basically what you do on a daily basis
How many people were killed by Antifa in Charlotte? None. So its not 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as you said. One side committed an atrocity and only one.
But you keep on being a Neo Nazi apologist, keep defending statements that David Duke and other white supremicists cheered. What is undeniable is that Trumps statement was seen as supportive by the Neo Nazis, they feel that Trump is on their side and thats not the message any White House should send.
Trump supports Putin and Russia, Neo Nazis and the confederacy are there any enemies of America that Trump hasnt sided with? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so centaur..... did you actually go and watch the 20 minute documentry then? because you seem to be waffling a lot without seeing what you are actually defending!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg I am happy to keep putting up the link, because the more people who watch it, the more people realise just how silly your position is..... and the more people will wonder just exactly what type of person you seem to be because you just cannot seem to condemn the people you keep on defending by pointing the fingers at the other side....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg see... all i ever asked was the docu.... then compare that to what trump said yesterday...... and see if the two actually line up I think you are actually having difficulty in reading what has been said on this thread, so I'll repeat it for clarity, this time try reading it REALLY slowly so it actually sinks in.....'I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides'. You do understand what the word 'all' means don't you? You seem to be really struggling so I suggest you go and look it up in a dictionary. You did hear Trump say it in his press conference that he condemned all sides but then again maybe you are hard of hearing and you only selectively hear what you want to hear. When Trump condemned the violence on all sides that means he condemned the violence on the alt right side AND the violence committed by the Antifa in Charlottesville as well. I agree with him and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. I've no doubt you'll continue to spam the thread with your YouTube link though, (just for the record there are forum rules against spamming) once is more than enough, let's just hope a forum moderator doesn't come along and give you a forum ban for spamming though, eh. Spamming is repeatedly posting without adding to the discussion, basically what you do on a daily basis
How many people were killed by Antifa in Charlotte? None. So its not 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as you said. One side committed an atrocity and only one.
But you keep on being a Neo Nazi apologist, keep defending statements that David Duke and other white supremicists cheered. What is undeniable is that Trumps statement was seen as supportive by the Neo Nazis, they feel that Trump is on their side and thats not the message any White House should send.
Trump supports Putin and Russia, Neo Nazis and the confederacy are there any enemies of America that Trump hasnt sided with?"Why is Russia an enemy? The latest accusations and debstes/inquiries about influencing elections are farcical | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is Russia an enemy? The latest accusations and debstes/inquiries about influencing elections are farcical" Because it is the same authoritarian expansionist dictatorship now as it was under Stalin. Which was the same authoritarian expansionist dictatorship it was under the Tzars. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so centaur..... did you actually go and watch the 20 minute documentry then? because you seem to be waffling a lot without seeing what you are actually defending!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg I am happy to keep putting up the link, because the more people who watch it, the more people realise just how silly your position is..... and the more people will wonder just exactly what type of person you seem to be because you just cannot seem to condemn the people you keep on defending by pointing the fingers at the other side....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg see... all i ever asked was the docu.... then compare that to what trump said yesterday...... and see if the two actually line up I think you are actually having difficulty in reading what has been said on this thread, so I'll repeat it for clarity, this time try reading it REALLY slowly so it actually sinks in.....'I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides'. You do understand what the word 'all' means don't you? You seem to be really struggling so I suggest you go and look it up in a dictionary. You did hear Trump say it in his press conference that he condemned all sides but then again maybe you are hard of hearing and you only selectively hear what you want to hear. When Trump condemned the violence on all sides that means he condemned the violence on the alt right side AND the violence committed by the Antifa in Charlottesville as well. I agree with him and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. I've no doubt you'll continue to spam the thread with your YouTube link though, (just for the record there are forum rules against spamming) once is more than enough, let's just hope a forum moderator doesn't come along and give you a forum ban for spamming though, eh. So you support the right of white supremacists, Nazi's and the KKK to spout their rhetoric unchallenged? Did you see who turned up armed and ready? Many in combat gear carrying long firearms and carrying Nazi, KKK and white supremacist paraphernalia. There are NO fine people who believe that black people have 3/5 of the value of a white person and there are no fine people who want the reintroduction of the Confederacy. This is a really big deal and it all hinges on whether people who regard black, brown and yellow people as being lesser people are actually "fine people" as long as they are not violent. Like fuck they are fine people and they deserve outing and humiliating for their moronic and prehistoric views." this.. anyone who is happy with people walking along bearing arm's, torches and with swastika's flying has some serious issues's with what is acceptable or should not be in any civilised society.. such emblems of mindless bigotry and hatred are the same as those carried by IS.. which we all as decent people rightly condemn.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why is Russia an enemy? The latest accusations and debstes/inquiries about influencing elections are farcical" Because they invaded an ally (Ukraine), shot down a plane of civilians from another allied country (Netherlands), attacked another (Georgia), cyber attacks on Britain, NATO, Germany and the US, allied with Iran, supports terrorism in the US and Europe, has labelled the US and EU his enemies in the recent past despite his change now Trumps in power, has worked to destablise the EU and hes propping up Assad in Syria. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps the saddest victim here has been truth and integrity for, if he were alive today and witnessing these events, then General commanding the Army of Northern Virginia Robert E Lee would likely be mortified by the apparent "support" for a statue to his honour? A humble man, a quiet man, a genuine leader who after being offered command of the Union Army of the Potomac by President Lincoln anguished much before deciding that he was, first and foremost, a son of Virginia before being a citizen of the United States. The issue to him was ALWAYS one of where he was born and how he would protect what so many saw as their being turned into second class citizens by the Northern power-house states. The decision he made was often for so many others equally a hard one to take. He, nor many of his general staff, ever put the defence of slavery into that equation and, though from a long slave owning family, he freed all his slaves before taking up any command. Let us imagine what he would say if he were alive today, would he like Trump turn to social media to make his point? If he did then I would suggest his "tweet" would be succinct and simple . . . "NEVER in my name!"
And there is exactly the reason why his statue should remain where it is.
Kkk and those thugs have an opinion and they are entitled to have it even voice there opinion , they ant in power to implement there ideals and never will , "Just my thoughts on general lee. He did free slaves deemed 'owned ' by him, and was torn between loyalty to the south and the North. In a balanced view, other significant figures like maddison, jefferson and even washington were slave owners, unlike general lee. So,.. If his statue goes , shouldn't for example George Washington be removed from currency, streets etc renamed? Blacks have had a shit deal. My uncle was in the paras during ww2 and was horrified the way black gi's were treated and ended up in punch ups with white gi's over it. Ive winessed and reported incidents at work and been the victim of it too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps the saddest victim here has been truth and integrity for, if he were alive today and witnessing these events, then General commanding the Army of Northern Virginia Robert E Lee would likely be mortified by the apparent "support" for a statue to his honour? A humble man, a quiet man, a genuine leader who after being offered command of the Union Army of the Potomac by President Lincoln anguished much before deciding that he was, first and foremost, a son of Virginia before being a citizen of the United States. The issue to him was ALWAYS one of where he was born and how he would protect what so many saw as their being turned into second class citizens by the Northern power-house states. The decision he made was often for so many others equally a hard one to take. He, nor many of his general staff, ever put the defence of slavery into that equation and, though from a long slave owning family, he freed all his slaves before taking up any command. Let us imagine what he would say if he were alive today, would he like Trump turn to social media to make his point? If he did then I would suggest his "tweet" would be succinct and simple . . . "NEVER in my name!"
And there is exactly the reason why his statue should remain where it is.
Kkk and those thugs have an opinion and they are entitled to have it even voice there opinion , they ant in power to implement there ideals and never will , "---------------------------------------- Let me make my words clear, I sought ONLY to bring attention to the FACT that the KKK and their Neo-Nazi buddies high-jacked the removal of a statue and the renaming of a park in order to further their own sick agenda!  Quite exactly how US federal and State laws permit such an organisation as the KKK to remain outside of jail appals me.
Every older country that has used slavery during it's past has a past that it needs to admit to and be honest about why their actions then was wrong . . BUT . . those who seek only to be "ultra_PC" in their views equally have to admit they can't change history. It's there to show us all how to get the future right so disinfecting it will lead to future generations getting it wrong!
The American Civil War was about many, many more issues than just owning and using slaves so it is unreasonable simply now to use just that one argument.
That many today in Virginia feel that they need to remove a statue of Robert E L is sad given that man's morality and integrity . . if you wonder why I've said that then go do some research, go and use history to inform yourselves.
However there is one statue that will soon it seems be argued over as much and it will be interesting to see how it pans out. There is a statue in Tennessee commemorating L.General Nathan Bedford Forrest and he is of a different ilk having ordered the massacre of black civilians on raids into Union territory and having been credited with being fundamental in the creation of the KKK . . . there is one statue that deserves the bulldozer and there's no other way to look at that!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. you know what.... i am not going to digify this with a reply.... I am just going to let your reply fester and sit out there... because it says so much it says so much about you as a person... and your beliefs.... all i will do is put the vice news/HBO documentry link from youtube... and i suggest that you watch it.... and i suggest that everyone watch it.... its the actual documentry from what happened on friday night in charlottesville... the last 5 minutes are particularly chilling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg these are the people you still haven't condemned.... and yet, you STILL want to point fingers..... " Well said. If there is one good thing to come out of all of this it us that the Alt Right and their apologists are being shown for the nasty, hateful, divisive people they really are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well said. If there is one good thing to come out of all of this it us that the Alt Right and their apologists are being shown for the nasty, hateful, divisive people they really are." Its amazing to see a few people on here rushing to the defence of these violent, terrorist racists. Theyre usually the first to complain about being called racist too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald." there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald." I often don't agree with you but can usually see your point ?? But not here ! Taking down Lee would be like taking down statues of Wallace or Robert the Bruce ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so centaur..... did you actually go and watch the 20 minute documentry then? because you seem to be waffling a lot without seeing what you are actually defending!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg I am happy to keep putting up the link, because the more people who watch it, the more people realise just how silly your position is..... and the more people will wonder just exactly what type of person you seem to be because you just cannot seem to condemn the people you keep on defending by pointing the fingers at the other side....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg see... all i ever asked was the docu.... then compare that to what trump said yesterday...... and see if the two actually line up I think you are actually having difficulty in reading what has been said on this thread, so I'll repeat it for clarity, this time try reading it REALLY slowly so it actually sinks in.....'I agreed with Trump when he condemned the violence on all sides'. You do understand what the word 'all' means don't you? You seem to be really struggling so I suggest you go and look it up in a dictionary. You did hear Trump say it in his press conference that he condemned all sides but then again maybe you are hard of hearing and you only selectively hear what you want to hear. When Trump condemned the violence on all sides that means he condemned the violence on the alt right side AND the violence committed by the Antifa in Charlottesville as well. I agree with him and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. I've no doubt you'll continue to spam the thread with your YouTube link though, (just for the record there are forum rules against spamming) once is more than enough, let's just hope a forum moderator doesn't come along and give you a forum ban for spamming though, eh. " Why do you support Trump condemning violence on both sides? Would you have sided with Neville Chamberlain? Do you condemn the internationalists who went to fight Franco? Let's not beat about the Bush here - it was ARMED congregations of fascists and Neo Nazis that people turned up to counter protest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down ," I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down ," Here's the problem. Many of these statues have been erected relatively recently (perhaps pointing to a growing propensity within the U.S. for white nationalism? I dunno.). Furthermore, they aren't randomly being taken down. This was sparked by a white nationalist, with videos of himself holding the confederate flag posted to YouTube, going into a black church in South Carolina and gunning down 9 people. These symbols are a call to arms and incitement to violence. Communities decide whether they want to take them down - usually by a vote. Then white nationalists and KKK members come to rally around them, giving truth to the fact that all they are are symbols of racism, white power, and treason. Oh, and I'm the process they murder an innocent woman. If you go to civil war battlefields there are plenty of statues to both sides. It's an acknowledgment to history as well as to all the Americans who fought and died in the civil war. But if a community decides they want to take down and no longer pay to upkeep a statue in the middle of their public space? Then they can take it down. And white supremacists can come and protest. And people can counter protest. That's all fine. But when one side brings guns and pepper spray and torches then it's a joke to pretend this is about free speech or a statue. When they murder people with cars to make their political points it becomes terrorism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , Here's the problem. Many of these statues have been erected relatively recently (perhaps pointing to a growing propensity within the U.S. for white nationalism? I dunno.). Furthermore, they aren't randomly being taken down. This was sparked by a white nationalist, with videos of himself holding the confederate flag posted to YouTube, going into a black church in South Carolina and gunning down 9 people. These symbols are a call to arms and incitement to violence. Communities decide whether they want to take them down - usually by a vote. Then white nationalists and KKK members come to rally around them, giving truth to the fact that all they are are symbols of racism, white power, and treason. Oh, and I'm the process they murder an innocent woman. If you go to civil war battlefields there are plenty of statues to both sides. It's an acknowledgment to history as well as to all the Americans who fought and died in the civil war. But if a community decides they want to take down and no longer pay to upkeep a statue in the middle of their public space? Then they can take it down. And white supremacists can come and protest. And people can counter protest. That's all fine. But when one side brings guns and pepper spray and torches then it's a joke to pretend this is about free speech or a statue. When they murder people with cars to make their political points it becomes terrorism. " Not defending the White Supremists here as they are indefensible !!! But surly this should make the Yanks change thier gun laws ? Would they allow a thousand Muslims to protest armed with guns ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence...." Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well some people like to point fingers at other rather than condemn.... and i am glad they have left this thread alone so far (although i am sure they will be along at some point) sometimes there is no reason and logic that can be applied, but what what can be applied are numbers of people who are just those normal people, and its the greater number of people saying "that is not right" that gets a point across.... I am not nieve in that you are going to change everyone... but if enough people are loud enough the message is powerful enough All you've done is point the finger at the alt right. So you're doing yourself what you're criticising others of doing which is pointing the finger rather than condemn. I've yet to see you condemn the Antifa protestors who turned up dressed in black from head to toe wearing masks carrying baseball bats and knives and other weapons who were clearly looking for a fight and only turned up there to cause trouble. " Well said Antifa are just a bunch of thugs as well, they just can't blame the kkk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , " I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues." and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues. and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? " They don't have a right to a statue. Where is that in any part of the Constitution? If their community decides to pay for and put up a statue they can go right ahead. It's how these statues were put up to begin with. And if their community wants to remove the statues then they can. As I said already, these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues. Where did it say that people from Ohio, Kansas, or anywhere else get to decide what statues exist in Charlottesville, Virginia. Charlottesville decided by vote. I don't get what part of that is confusing? People can go to literally any civil war battlefield, kept up with federal funds, and praise Lee, Jackson, Davis and whoever they want because all battlefields have memorials to both sides. Individual communities, however, don't have a legal obligation to keep up a statue of Lee if the elected officials of the community decide they don't want it there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north" That's bullshit, and you fucking know it. It was a war all about slavery, this "freedom from the north" is revisionist lies created and peddled by racists to whitewash history. "Great men", my fucking hole... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? " Fuck them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them." That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us " What about my answer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us What about my answer? " I ask becaue I feel like it's easy to talk down statements like "fuck them" but its not so easy to confront the reality. The fact that those white supremacists have rights and obligations equal to, and not superseding those of the people they're protesting. But I guess it's easier to argue against someone saying "fuck them"....and that's the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us " Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues. and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? They don't have a right to a statue. Where is that in any part of the Constitution? If their community decides to pay for and put up a statue they can go right ahead. It's how these statues were put up to begin with. And if their community wants to remove the statues then they can. As I said already, these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues. Where did it say that people from Ohio, Kansas, or anywhere else get to decide what statues exist in Charlottesville, Virginia. Charlottesville decided by vote. I don't get what part of that is confusing? People can go to literally any civil war battlefield, kept up with federal funds, and praise Lee, Jackson, Davis and whoever they want because all battlefields have memorials to both sides. Individual communities, however, don't have a legal obligation to keep up a statue of Lee if the elected officials of the community decide they don't want it there." Getting to it now Like you said "these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid." Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
"Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
"Not nazi opinions... Last time those opinions were allowed it cost at least 60 million lives! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north That's bullshit, and you fucking know it. It was a war all about slavery, this "freedom from the north" is revisionist lies created and peddled by racists to whitewash history. "Great men", my fucking hole..." The War wasn't about Slavery ! That was a side issue ! It was like every other War ! Money ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground."lee was against Slavery ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground."ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Not nazi opinions...
Last time those opinions were allowed it cost at least 60 million lives!"Or Communist Oppions , Stalin ! 2 peas in a Pod | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
"I think I must have missed the part where the royal family broke their oaths, betrayed their nation, and fought a civil war for the right to own people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
"thanks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Not nazi opinions...
Last time those opinions were allowed it cost at least 60 million lives!"It wasn't there opinions that cost lives it was the fact that good men stood ideally by for too long failure to act in time cost lives hitler could have been halted in Germany but to the rest of Europe Germany invading Austria was no big deal , Austria was of no importance till we discover its only a stepping stone , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues. and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? They don't have a right to a statue. Where is that in any part of the Constitution? If their community decides to pay for and put up a statue they can go right ahead. It's how these statues were put up to begin with. And if their community wants to remove the statues then they can. As I said already, these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues. Where did it say that people from Ohio, Kansas, or anywhere else get to decide what statues exist in Charlottesville, Virginia. Charlottesville decided by vote. I don't get what part of that is confusing? People can go to literally any civil war battlefield, kept up with federal funds, and praise Lee, Jackson, Davis and whoever they want because all battlefields have memorials to both sides. Individual communities, however, don't have a legal obligation to keep up a statue of Lee if the elected officials of the community decide they don't want it there. Getting to it now Like you said "these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists , " Firstly, the Constitution set out a republic, so yes, politicians vote. I don't see a problem with that. Secondly, it's bull shit to say they are afraid to vote any other way for fear of being labelled racist. America elected Trump. KKK members have held almost every seat in government, including Senatorial positions. America isn't Europe - we have a history of electing people with openly racist views. So, no. I don't buy that argument. I think the people of Charlottesville elected people who think like them. They then voted to remove the statue from their land. Then a bunch of white supremacists, white nationalists, and the alt right from across the country decided to use it as a grandstanding opportunity. They showed up and murdered a Virginian woman in a terrorist act. There's no excusing it, no matter what way you look at it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. lee was against Slavery ! "No, he wasn't. He really wasn't. He believed that God ordained slavery and it would only end when god wanted it to end. He felt slavery was necessary for black people. Here's a quote: "In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence." He had a twisted and weird view of slavery. But it was one that many aristocratic Christian white people held in the south at the time. To say he was against slavery is a lie and to misunderstand his religious beliefs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. lee was against Slavery !
No, he wasn't. He really wasn't. He believed that God ordained slavery and it would only end when god wanted it to end. He felt slavery was necessary for black people. Here's a quote:
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
He had a twisted and weird view of slavery. But it was one that many aristocratic Christian white people held in the south at the time. To say he was against slavery is a lie and to misunderstand his religious beliefs."I've always interpreted that "greater evil to the white man than to the black race" passage as Lee's realisation of the corrupting effect slavery, and in particular chattel slavery, has/had on the slave owners. Either way the goodness, evil or otherwise of Lee is not really the point here. I think the real point, which you have made very clearly, is that the legal representatives of the community have voted legally to remove the statue and, whilst those who don't want it removed, for whatever reason, have the right to protest against its removal, they do not have the right to commit acts of violence and terrorism against either those that favour its removal or who choose to counter protest their protest. This is really a very simple issue. A terrorist drove a vehicle indiscriminately into a crowd of people killing one person and injuring many more. What the exact politics of either were and what the exact issues were that provoked the attack should not preclude any reasonable person from condemning absolutely, unreservedly and without hesitation the person that committed this act as a fanatical terrorist and that persin should be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent possible under law as such. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
I think I must have missed the part where the royal family broke their oaths, betrayed their nation, and fought a civil war for the right to own people.
"The American civil war wasn't totally about slavery ,there was a lot more to it , if it was all about slavery , explain why free black men fought on confederate side surly they would oppose slavery ? As for the royal family and slave trade they were involved up till 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British empire ,your write they didn't start a civil war to keep slaves they just invaded countries along the west African coast to ship slaves to the Americas! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues. and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? They don't have a right to a statue. Where is that in any part of the Constitution? If their community decides to pay for and put up a statue they can go right ahead. It's how these statues were put up to begin with. And if their community wants to remove the statues then they can. As I said already, these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues. Where did it say that people from Ohio, Kansas, or anywhere else get to decide what statues exist in Charlottesville, Virginia. Charlottesville decided by vote. I don't get what part of that is confusing? People can go to literally any civil war battlefield, kept up with federal funds, and praise Lee, Jackson, Davis and whoever they want because all battlefields have memorials to both sides. Individual communities, however, don't have a legal obligation to keep up a statue of Lee if the elected officials of the community decide they don't want it there. Getting to it now Like you said "these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists , Firstly, the Constitution set out a republic, so yes, politicians vote. I don't see a problem with that. Secondly, it's bull shit to say they are afraid to vote any other way for fear of being labelled racist. America elected Trump. KKK members have held almost every seat in government, including Senatorial positions. America isn't Europe - we have a history of electing people with openly racist views. So, no. I don't buy that argument. I think the people of Charlottesville elected people who think like them. They then voted to remove the statue from their land. Then a bunch of white supremacists, white nationalists, and the alt right from across the country decided to use it as a grandstanding opportunity. They showed up and murdered a Virginian woman in a terrorist act. There's no excusing it, no matter what way you look at it." Correction it was just the one guy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
I think I must have missed the part where the royal family broke their oaths, betrayed their nation, and fought a civil war for the right to own people.
The American civil war wasn't totally about slavery ,there was a lot more to it , if it was all about slavery , explain why free black men fought on confederate side surly they would oppose slavery ? As for the royal family and slave trade they were involved up till 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British empire ,your write they didn't start a civil war to keep slaves they just invaded countries along the west African coast to ship slaves to the Americas! "It was 'totally' about slavery. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
I think I must have missed the part where the royal family broke their oaths, betrayed their nation, and fought a civil war for the right to own people.
The American civil war wasn't totally about slavery ,there was a lot more to it , if it was all about slavery , explain why free black men fought on confederate side surly they would oppose slavery ? As for the royal family and slave trade they were involved up till 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British empire ,your write they didn't start a civil war to keep slaves they just invaded countries along the west African coast to ship slaves to the Americas!
It was 'totally' about slavery."That's the best you got ?? Why was there free black men fighting for the confederate side , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
I think I must have missed the part where the royal family broke their oaths, betrayed their nation, and fought a civil war for the right to own people.
The American civil war wasn't totally about slavery ,there was a lot more to it , if it was all about slavery , explain why free black men fought on confederate side surly they would oppose slavery ? As for the royal family and slave trade they were involved up till 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British empire ,your write they didn't start a civil war to keep slaves they just invaded countries along the west African coast to ship slaves to the Americas!
It was 'totally' about slavery.
That's the best you got ?? Why was there free black men fighting for the confederate side , "Have a read of the declarations of secession from the Confederate states. Here's something to get you started: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." It was all about slavery. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? Fuck them. That's your answer to what is now a minority of society ,fuck them and what they want ,what you seam to forget that's the same attitude That tore northern Ireland apart for years , Good argument for inclusion and piece ! Fuck the minority , Let's see where that will get us Yes. People who want to keep statues to traitors, fuck them and what they want. And you can stop making the case that people ought to act with care lest they offend Nazis and white nationalists, it's stupid. Everyone has rights to there opinion even you
Actually, they don't. They only have the right to what they can argue for. And the arguments for why statues to traitors who fought for slavery are real thin on the ground. ok try this for an argument !the Royals were major shareholders in the British Corporations that were established to conduct the slave trade - buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the Americas. Documents from the early 1700's show that literally "all the Royal family" was heavily invested in the South Sea Company which cashed in on a notorious market
including Kings Charles II, James II, Queen Anne, and George I. NOW I SUGGEST
Before you tell the whites in America to take down statues , that you relate to slavery , how about you take a.Look around the UK ,
I think I must have missed the part where the royal family broke their oaths, betrayed their nation, and fought a civil war for the right to own people.
The American civil war wasn't totally about slavery ,there was a lot more to it , if it was all about slavery , explain why free black men fought on confederate side surly they would oppose slavery ? As for the royal family and slave trade they were involved up till 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British empire ,your write they didn't start a civil war to keep slaves they just invaded countries along the west African coast to ship slaves to the Americas!
It was 'totally' about slavery.
That's the best you got ?? Why was there free black men fighting for the confederate side ,
Have a read of the declarations of secession from the Confederate states.
Here's something to get you started:
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
It was all about slavery.
"Actually I have and aneach for your information each state has its own declarations of secession Texas gives a number of reasons This is an extract explaining why they were leaving the union, The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas. These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Donald Trump has just tweeted once again about the events in Charlottesville, Virginia saying that the removal of statues of Confederate Generals makes him "sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart". The inference I guess is that history is history and should not be denied - this is true. But we are not seeing statues of Hitler and Mussolini across Germany and Italy in recognition of their recent history. There are other ways to recognise history Donald. there is statues of British generals in Ireland , they are left standing, just cause half of them were every bit as bad as Lee dose not mean we pull them down , I must have missed when they were all hastily erected as a massive " fuck you" to the Irish, by the remaining English people that still ran the country, in the aftermath if the war of independence.... Your missing the point completely, yes of course the Lee statues were put up post war under the watch of a northern president that fought agents the south , That doesn't give anyone the right to take them down now they commemorate great men who fought to try again there freedom from the north , they represent the history of the county for good or bad ,it's there history , people here talk about Lee in the same context as hitler , he was as far form it as any one , yes he had slaves which he freed before taking up his command , My point about the British statues in Ireland is they also commemorate leaders , some of whom would make george Lee look like a boy scout , but they are our history they are Irish history we might hate what the were, but they were what the were , now it's history where we came from , I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee But even beyond that, a community can decide when a statue on their land is removed. The people who protested were primarily from other parts of the country. It's not up to them what happens in someone else's public land. The places removing these statues are making their own decisions on what they want their public funds to go to and who they want to honor with statues. and what about the rite of the people who want the statues to remain ?? They don't have a right to a statue. Where is that in any part of the Constitution? If their community decides to pay for and put up a statue they can go right ahead. It's how these statues were put up to begin with. And if their community wants to remove the statues then they can. As I said already, these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues. Where did it say that people from Ohio, Kansas, or anywhere else get to decide what statues exist in Charlottesville, Virginia. Charlottesville decided by vote. I don't get what part of that is confusing? People can go to literally any civil war battlefield, kept up with federal funds, and praise Lee, Jackson, Davis and whoever they want because all battlefields have memorials to both sides. Individual communities, however, don't have a legal obligation to keep up a statue of Lee if the elected officials of the community decide they don't want it there. Getting to it now Like you said "these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists , " You seem to have a problem understanding the mechanics of democracy. People elected the legislators to make decisions which is exactly what they're doing. Get over it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide "These people claim to support the U.S. and the Constitution. They throw the 2nd amendment in your face if you question why they have a gun. If you ask why Trump is President when he didn't win the popular vote they answer with the electoral college - a constitutional creation. And yet the best you can come up with to defend this act of terrorism and their position is a form of democracy in direct contradiction to the republic created in that very same constitution? It's a weak argument. One not backed by law. And it's also not necessarily a winning argument - remember there were more counter-protestors that showed up then original protesters. It's a last-ditch effort to rationalize the irrational, and it fails. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide "the 'spineless bureaucrats' were elected by the people and the people using the democratic process can if they wish to elect others.. kin eck m8 have you not seen the mess a referendum causes..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there was a referendum and the question was asked of the people , do we take them Down or leave them what would the result be ?? " think you need to address that to those in the places where such things are.. personally i have said and stand by my opinion that they should be left as they give propaganda to the white supremacists who will then use such as a rallying cry.. better to leave them and openly with facts educate everyone so the narrative is not distorted or changed as to what actually happened to suit one side.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". . . @ Marc.Courtney I think to use Trumpeting Trump's language you're "quoting fake news"? The present day publication you quote is already well documented as being a heavily biased outfit with their own agenda? When I quote from history my involvement in bringing that alive means my discipline ONLY uses "first hand information" . . so the words of those who lived at that time and talked with Robert E Lee are the ONLY ones I quote from . . an example of biased present day social media isn't even anywhere near in the same Universe. You should know that. But if your words do have any semblance of truth then what about the Generals who led Union Armies whose families OWNED slaves? What about the Federal Politicians who fought tooth and nail to overturn Lincoln's Emancipation Act as they regarded coloureds as second class human beings? What about almost the ENTIRE Union Army staff who did not want coloured volunteers fighting alongside whites? You see? The slavery issue was only part of a wider demarcation of social values in the US in the mid 19th Century, what these "activists" from EITHER side do today is attempt to simplify all that to suit their OWN agenda. BUT, I say again, how does ANY civilised country permit the likes of the KKK to exist? Shame on you United States, shame!!! ---------------------------------- YOUR WORDS :- I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". . . @ Marc.Courtney I think to use Trumpeting Trump's language you're "quoting fake news"? The present day publication you quote is already well documented as being a heavily biased outfit with their own agenda? When I quote from history my involvement in bringing that alive means my discipline ONLY uses "first hand information" . . so the words of those who lived at that time and talked with Robert E Lee are the ONLY ones I quote from . . an example of biased present day social media isn't even anywhere near in the same Universe. You should know that. But if your words do have any semblance of truth then what about the Generals who led Union Armies whose families OWNED slaves? What about the Federal Politicians who fought tooth and nail to overturn Lincoln's Emancipation Act as they regarded coloureds as second class human beings? What about almost the ENTIRE Union Army staff who did not want coloured volunteers fighting alongside whites? You see? The slavery issue was only part of a wider demarcation of social values in the US in the mid 19th Century, what these "activists" from EITHER side do today is attempt to simplify all that to suit their OWN agenda. BUT, I say again, how does ANY civilised country permit the likes of the KKK to exist? Shame on you United States, shame!!! ---------------------------------- YOUR WORDS :- I don't even know where to begin. If I've learned anything from this whole incident it's that people know very little about Robert E. Lee and yet are really quick to defend him. He released his slaves before the war? Did you know that he refused to exchange troops with Grant because Grant wanted black troops traded equally to white troops and he said he wouldn't do it because the blacks he captured were not free, but were instead the property of his white troops? Or in his own words "negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.” How about that he made a point of breaking up every black slave family he owned, but one? This was in direct contradiction to standard practice at the time. There is so much more I could write. Read this if you'd actually like to know about Lee. The Atlantic: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee" I've already been through this in the last thread. I've read Robert E. Lee's memoirs, I'm familiar with his first hand account of himself. Have you read them? Are you in a position to know better the attitudes of Lee than some of the best Civil War scholars in history - many of whom are quoted in that article? Things aren't "fake news" just because you say they are. Look at the article - it contains a great deal of first hand quotation and citation. Heck, if you really want to have a discussion about him then read his memoirs, then we can really talk. I find that most of the people defending him, or indeed defending the actions of those protesters, know very little about the American civil war, it's generals or commanders, or even American law (which is most pertinent when discussing the rights and actions of Americans in America). As for those who fought with the union but had slaves - yes, their ownership of slaves was reprehensible. As was their reluctance to fight alongside black people. But they didn't raise arms against their own country to fight for their bigotry and racism. They recognized the supremacy of the federal government in this regard. That makes all the difference between the two. The southern States were simply more thoroughly racist than the northern States. However, it was not just racism that led to their willingness to fight - it was the amount of money they would lose, in the form of freed slaves, that really drove them to rebellion. They had a dependency on plantation labor unlike anywhere else in the Americas and it was enough to drive them to a failed rebellion - making them traitors who fought to support a government founded on principles of white supremacy and which supported the institution of slavery. That is just fact. They openly state it in their own documents and writings - both official and unofficial. In any case, this modern rewriting of history (conveyed by trying to sideline slavery in the civil war) is all tangential to the real issue of what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there was a referendum and the question was asked of the people , do we take them Down or leave them what would the result be ?? " Not everything is decided by referendum. Not to mention that referdums are approached VERY differently in the U.S. than in the UK or Europe. Are you talking about a federal referendum? A state referendum? Perhaps a local referendum? Are we delineating the people who can vote in the referendum by who pays taxes for the upkeep of the monument, or is it to be done by other means? And be careful how you conceptualize this hypothetical referendum. Traditonally those who hold a confederate flag argue for state and local rights. In this instance it was primarily locals who wanted the monument removed and people from other states who wanted it to remain. Although, federal popular votes also tend to be more liberal than local ones, so that works against the protesters, too. Maybe we should just hold a referendum of the southern states so they can get the outcome they desire? A call for a referendum is anthithesis to *most* American politics. It's why you didn't hear such a call from most of the protesters that day. Support for such a referendum also can't be found in the federal or [Virginia] state constitutions on this issue. As I said, it's it's weak argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there was a referendum and the question was asked of the people , do we take them Down or leave them what would the result be ?? Not everything is decided by referendum. Not to mention that referdums are approached VERY differently in the U.S. than in the UK or Europe. Are you talking about a federal referendum? A state referendum? Perhaps a local referendum? Are we delineating the people who can vote in the referendum by who pays taxes for the upkeep of the monument, or is it to be done by other means? And be careful how you conceptualize this hypothetical referendum. Traditonally those who hold a confederate flag argue for state and local rights. In this instance it was primarily locals who wanted the monument removed and people from other states who wanted it to remain. Although, federal popular votes also tend to be more liberal than local ones, so that works against the protesters, too. Maybe we should just hold a referendum of the southern states so they can get the outcome they desire? A call for a referendum is anthithesis to *most* American politics. It's why you didn't hear such a call from most of the protesters that day. Support for such a referendum also can't be found in the federal or [Virginia] state constitutions on this issue. As I said, it's it's weak argument." A national vote of course all citizens of the US but what should the question on the ballot paper be ??? You want the statute removed cause he was a slave owner right ??? We won't single out lee status there is ones of a lot of confederate leaders that owned slaves out there How about to remove all statues and monuments that depict a former slave owner ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there was a referendum and the question was asked of the people , do we take them Down or leave them what would the result be ?? Not everything is decided by referendum. Not to mention that referdums are approached VERY differently in the U.S. than in the UK or Europe. Are you talking about a federal referendum? A state referendum? Perhaps a local referendum? Are we delineating the people who can vote in the referendum by who pays taxes for the upkeep of the monument, or is it to be done by other means? And be careful how you conceptualize this hypothetical referendum. Traditonally those who hold a confederate flag argue for state and local rights. In this instance it was primarily locals who wanted the monument removed and people from other states who wanted it to remain. Although, federal popular votes also tend to be more liberal than local ones, so that works against the protesters, too. Maybe we should just hold a referendum of the southern states so they can get the outcome they desire? A call for a referendum is anthithesis to *most* American politics. It's why you didn't hear such a call from most of the protesters that day. Support for such a referendum also can't be found in the federal or [Virginia] state constitutions on this issue. As I said, it's it's weak argument. A national vote of course all citizens of the US but what should the question on the ballot paper be ??? You want the statute removed cause he was a slave owner right ??? We won't single out lee status there is ones of a lot of confederate leaders that owned slaves out there How about to remove all statues and monuments that depict a former slave owner ? " Firstly, calling for a national vote regarding a local monument makes no sense in America. Lee himself would be outraged by the suggestion, especially in Virginia. Secondly, I never said why I want the statue removed. You are jumping to your own conclusions. I said the local government decided to remove the statue and that that should be enough. If you want to know why I dislike the statues, it's very complex. But it's more about treasonous acts than positions on slavery. I've never protested against a local government (or even the federal government) putting up a civil war statue. I might scoff at them, but I'm allowed to do that. Its white supremacists who protested against the local government's legal right to remove the statue. They didn't call for a national referendum, and I don't think any American would take such a request seriously. Certainly no American who holds a confederate flag and lives by the mantra of the 10th amendment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide "So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. "no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance "
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them."It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments "You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts. And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
"what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit , "Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy. "well then allow each state to vote on it as a state , Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration , This has to be decided by the majority not a minority . That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table , what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
"People have, throughout the thread, given you the rational behind the law. It's the law. That statue is being removed according to the law. As are the others that are scheduled for removal. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the federal, state, or local governments have to change the laws by which they operate. Thugs. Its interesting you use that word. That's how I describe people who preach violence, show up with guns, pepper spray, and torches, and then drive a car through a group of people, murdering someone. Terrorist thugs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
People have, throughout the thread, given you the rational behind the law. It's the law. That statue is being removed according to the law. As are the others that are scheduled for removal. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the federal, state, or local governments have to change the laws by which they operate.
Thugs. Its interesting you use that word. That's how I describe people who preach violence, show up with guns, pepper spray, and torches, and then drive a car through a group of people, murdering someone. Terrorist thugs. "Giving the people of the state there choice is democracy , pushing through a decision made by a few unforced on many is what started the civil war , Can't you see what will happen , by doing this without allowing people have there say will only lead to endless violence and increase the division in the community already divided , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
"its called having local democracy, locally elected representatives make decisions on behalf of and for the local community.. they are not attempting to change state or federal law so theirs is no need to take things higher up the chain or to involve people not in that community.. it really is that simple, we do the same over here.. and by and large it works.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
its called having local democracy, locally elected representatives make decisions on behalf of and for the local community..
they are not attempting to change state or federal law so theirs is no need to take things higher up the chain or to involve people not in that community..
it really is that simple, we do the same over here..
and by and large it works..
"it won't work here What you're suggesting is having a democratic city making a decision that has to be lived with by a republican state it will lead to nothing but heart ace
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
People have, throughout the thread, given you the rational behind the law. It's the law. That statue is being removed according to the law. As are the others that are scheduled for removal. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the federal, state, or local governments have to change the laws by which they operate.
Thugs. Its interesting you use that word. That's how I describe people who preach violence, show up with guns, pepper spray, and torches, and then drive a car through a group of people, murdering someone. Terrorist thugs.
Giving the people of the state there choice is democracy , pushing through a decision made by a few unforced on many is what started the civil war ,
Can't you see what will happen , by doing this without allowing people have there say will only lead to endless violence and increase the division in the community already divided , "No, the U.S. is a republic. We elect people and they act. That's how it is. You want to change that to referrendums on all the things that matter to you because you don't like the actions of elected officials? Nah, that's not how it works. We're taking in circles here. We disagree. I guess we'll see what happens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
its called having local democracy, locally elected representatives make decisions on behalf of and for the local community..
they are not attempting to change state or federal law so theirs is no need to take things higher up the chain or to involve people not in that community..
it really is that simple, we do the same over here..
and by and large it works..
it won't work here
What you're suggesting is having a democratic city making a decision that has to be lived with by a republican state it will lead to nothing but heart ace
"No.. what i have said is local representatives making local decisions on local issue's.. as has happened in Charlottesville.. maybe the nazi's and the KKK could lodge an appeal to whomever if that option exists, maybe they had looked into that option and then wen't for their own nazi style march instead..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance
This would be a violation of State sovereignty and illegal under the United States Constitution. Not to mention that the people of South Carolina would flip out at the idea that the people of New York and California would have a say over what flag flies over their state government buildings.
But you know what? Sure, I'd agree to that - under the condition that other "big decisions", like who will be the President of the United States, are also decided by popular vote.
It'll never happen. Not only because it violates the Constitution, but because small, conservative States know it's a losing proposition for them.
It's not just the state of south Carolina this affects 23 states have confederate monuments
You're completely missing the point. As you've done for the last few posts.
And I said South Carolina because you specifically mentioned the confederate flag, which was an issue in South Carolina.
what affects south Carolina now will affect other states shortly , if the flags and statues go there now pressure will be on other states to follow suit ,
Like I said, you're missing the point. State sovereignty is a powerful thing in the US. Not only is what you are proposing unconstitutional, as I've already described, but the very people you are trying to empower with self-determination would themselves not want your solution. No state, not South Carolina, not Virginia, not California, not any of them, want any other state's opinion on what they do with their flags or monuments. Especially not the states that traditionally support the confederacy.
well then allow each state to vote on it as a state ,
Not have it decided by a particular town or city administration ,
This has to be decided by the majority not a minority .
That's the point I'm trying to make , it can't be decided by a hand full of people sitting around a table ,
what ever the decision it needs wide support , and if they are to be removed it has to be with respect not a crowd of thugs pulling them down and have them relocated to a museum or a designated park
its called having local democracy, locally elected representatives make decisions on behalf of and for the local community..
they are not attempting to change state or federal law so theirs is no need to take things higher up the chain or to involve people not in that community..
it really is that simple, we do the same over here..
and by and large it works..
it won't work here
What you're suggesting is having a democratic city making a decision that has to be lived with by a republican state it will lead to nothing but heart ace
No..
what i have said is local representatives making local decisions on local issue's..
as has happened in Charlottesville..
maybe the nazi's and the KKK could lodge an appeal to whomever if that option exists, maybe they had looked into that option and then wen't for their own nazi style march instead..?"local representatives that represent the attitude of the town not the state | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism "Exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Get over it ant a winning argument for them to be taken down or not should mean a a vote and I don't mean spineless bureaucrats I mean let the public decide
So there should be a plebiscite for every decision??? Don't be daft ffs. no just for big decisions like the removal of the southern battle flag from its place where it flew for over 150 year and the removal of statues of historical importance "You're being deliberately obtuse arent you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? " The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place ." Well if that's why it went up it should come down . I wasn't aware that was it's reason for been there . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place . Well if that's why it went up it should come down . I wasn't aware that was it's reason for been there ." It's not the reason for it being there they were erected to commemorate General Robert e lee a General that fought agents the union , And it's being taken down dew to political correctness | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place . Well if that's why it went up it should come down . I wasn't aware that was it's reason for been there . It's not the reason for it being there they were erected to commemorate General Robert e lee a General that fought agents the union , And it's being taken down dew to political correctness " They went up a good 50 years after his death .Part of a historical revisionist movement called the "lost cause ".They attempted to rewrite history by saying the war had nothing to do with slavery and the south was fighting for honour and new it couldnt win this war.This conicided with a surge in KKK membership and segregation laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place . Well if that's why it went up it should come down . I wasn't aware that was it's reason for been there . It's not the reason for it being there they were erected to commemorate General Robert e lee a General that fought agents the union , And it's being taken down dew to political correctness They went up a good 50 years after his death .Part of a historical revisionist movement called the "lost cause ".They attempted to rewrite history by saying the war had nothing to do with slavery and the south was fighting for honour and new it couldnt win this war.This conicided with a surge in KKK membership and segregation laws." I ant saying it had nothing to do with slavery but there was a lot more to it , if you look at the declarations of secession by the confederate states , it gives reasons why , yes slavery is one reason but not the only one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place . Well if that's why it went up it should come down . I wasn't aware that was it's reason for been there . It's not the reason for it being there they were erected to commemorate General Robert e lee a General that fought agents the union , And it's being taken down dew to political correctness They went up a good 50 years after his death .Part of a historical revisionist movement called the "lost cause ".They attempted to rewrite history by saying the war had nothing to do with slavery and the south was fighting for honour and new it couldnt win this war.This conicided with a surge in KKK membership and segregation laws. I ant saying it had nothing to do with slavery but there was a lot more to it , if you look at the declarations of secession by the confederate states , it gives reasons why , yes slavery is one reason but not the only one " Thats the only reason that matters. If keeping other humans in slavery is a good reason then they were on the wrong side of history. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place . Well if that's why it went up it should come down . I wasn't aware that was it's reason for been there . It's not the reason for it being there they were erected to commemorate General Robert e lee a General that fought agents the union , And it's being taken down dew to political correctness They went up a good 50 years after his death .Part of a historical revisionist movement called the "lost cause ".They attempted to rewrite history by saying the war had nothing to do with slavery and the south was fighting for honour and new it couldnt win this war.This conicided with a surge in KKK membership and segregation laws. I ant saying it had nothing to do with slavery but there was a lot more to it , if you look at the declarations of secession by the confederate states , it gives reasons why , yes slavery is one reason but not the only one " Are you really trying to support the Confederacy causes? Give your head a wobble for goodness sake. There may have been many causes of the war and many differences but just the fact that slavery was in there was a good enough reason on its own. Confederate supporters these days like to think that it is a cool and rebellious thing to do but that is only because they tend to be a bit dim and lacking in historical knowledge. Actually, anyone supporting Confederacy aims in today's world is either an unmitigated racist fuckwit or is an uneducated idiot - more likely both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"slavery can't have been the reason because of a piece of legislation that was offered to the south The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.It was passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. Prior to the American Civil War which started over a month later on April 12 , So if it was just over slavery the south just had to accept that proposal , but at the time the southern states were paying the majority of the tax collected by the federal government which the federal government couldn't afford to loose by the south leaving the union tariffs on goods (cotton) from was then 40% the southern states wanted them reduced to 10% So the whole thing was because the south was being screwed proper screwed ! " The only people being proper screwed were the slaves on the cotton plantation.Some slave owners even got compensated for loss of slaves. $300 each slave .Most didnt.Only 0.075% got paid. At the time black men and women were the most valuable single form of property in the United States. The American economy was built by the enslaved and the cotton that they grew before Civil War was the most country’s most important export.So the south knew it would be economic suicide to lose their valuable property in the form of african slaves. No slave was ever compensated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone know why the statue was going to be removed ? The council voted to have it removed like many councils had done recently. Civil war monuments like this one were put up in the jim crow era of the 20s and 30s and again during the civil rights movement as a warning and a reminder to african Americans to know their place ."
35 Confederate monuments have been erected since the year 2000 in South Carolina alone. The year 2000 was historical, right?
South Carolina started flying the confederate flag at its state legislature in the 1960s, during the civil rights movement.
George Wallace, Alabama’s governor, unfurled the flag above the state Capitol in 1963 shortly after vowing “segregation forever.”
The list can go on and on....
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'Excitementneeded'.. your trying to defend the indefensible.. they were making money on the back of slaves, had the South had to free those people they would have collapsed as an economy if they had not paid them and they had left.. they didn't want to pay them because in their eyes they were less than human, less than their white owners.. what other 'domestic institutions' would have had the same financial impact on the slave owners..? in posting the above you have gone against your opening paragraph, the domestic institutions included slavery.. " That was the offer made by the north to the south , so the north was willing to accept slavery if the south was to continue paying them the taxes , so the south going to war wasn't to preserve slavery , they already had that agreement , Abraham Lincoln's inaugural speech "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That was Abraham Lincoln own words he wasn't going to war to free the slaves either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'Excitementneeded'.. your trying to defend the indefensible.. they were making money on the back of slaves, had the South had to free those people they would have collapsed as an economy if they had not paid them and they had left.. they didn't want to pay them because in their eyes they were less than human, less than their white owners.. what other 'domestic institutions' would have had the same financial impact on the slave owners..? in posting the above you have gone against your opening paragraph, the domestic institutions included slavery.. That was the offer made by the north to the south , so the north was willing to accept slavery if the south was to continue paying them the taxes , so the south going to war wasn't to preserve slavery , they already had that agreement , Abraham Lincoln's inaugural speech "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That was Abraham Lincoln own words he wasn't going to war to free the slaves either " There were other forces at work. A powerful coalition of abolitionists, free blacks, and the enslaved had forced the slavery to the center of national debate, at a time when most politicians would have rather ignored it.Lincoln included. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"'Excitementneeded'.. your trying to defend the indefensible.. they were making money on the back of slaves, had the South had to free those people they would have collapsed as an economy if they had not paid them and they had left.. they didn't want to pay them because in their eyes they were less than human, less than their white owners.. what other 'domestic institutions' would have had the same financial impact on the slave owners..? in posting the above you have gone against your opening paragraph, the domestic institutions included slavery.. That was the offer made by the north to the south , so the north was willing to accept slavery if the south was to continue paying them the taxes , so the south going to war wasn't to preserve slavery , they already had that agreement , Abraham Lincoln's inaugural speech "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That was Abraham Lincoln own words he wasn't going to war to free the slaves either There were other forces at work. A powerful coalition of abolitionists, free blacks, and the enslaved had forced the slavery to the center of national debate, at a time when most politicians would have rather ignored it.Lincoln included." But the fact remains he didn't ignore it he was willing to write it into the constitution to allow for slavery , so the requirement for the south to take up arms agents the north to protect slavery didn't exist , therefore when General lee took command of confederate army he wasn't fighting for slavery they already have agreement on that a month be for a shot fired , so the association of general lee the southern battle flag and all confederate monuments with being commemorating a war fought to protect the institution of slavery Is total nonsense, The reason they are associated with slavery is that the federal government determinants what version of history was taught in the schools for years after, As Trump would say they presented the alternative facts , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can we draw a line under this now "I very much doubt it . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can we draw a line under this now I very much doubt it . "Me too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)"Yep times Change you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually "Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that? "I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that?
I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists ,
"The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of removal.The 2 against cited cost of removal not fear. When white supremacists run people down politicians pick the right side. The mayor of Charlottesville voted against its removal but has now changed his mind.
It will be replaced . Maybe by a memorial for heather heyer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually "I find plenty wrong with your "reasoning" I've just been ignoring you now because you refuse to see logic and I don't have the patience to debate people who don't understand the law, history, or reaity of what they are discussing. Anyway, I'm here celebrating their removal. I've raised my coffee cup to each statue removed. Cheers!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that?
I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists ,
The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of removal.The 2 against cited cost of removal not fear.
When white supremacists run people down politicians pick the right side.
The mayor of Charlottesville voted against its removal but has now changed his mind.
It will be replaced . Maybe by a memorial for heather heyer. "this has already being argued but 3 to 2 vote by a city that voted democrat in the election a city that is in a state that voted republican , if it went to a vote in the state it would be defeated , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that?
I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists ,
The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of removal.The 2 against cited cost of removal not fear.
When white supremacists run people down politicians pick the right side.
The mayor of Charlottesville voted against its removal but has now changed his mind.
It will be replaced . Maybe by a memorial for heather heyer. this has already being argued but 3 to 2 vote by a city that voted democrat in the election a city that is in a state that voted republican , if it went to a vote in the state it would be defeated , "Why should it be a state vote? You talk nonesense. Do you have any grasp of politics in America? Either federal, state, or local? How ridiculous. You just say shit and then change your argument when someone points out facts that you were previously didn't know (like how you were arguing for a national vote earlier in the thread). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To ram the point home, the statue of Heather Heyer should read "died fighting Nazis in America, 2017" Just so we don't forget what revisionist history nonsense like "the civil war wasn't about slavery" leads to. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that?
I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists ,
The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of removal.The 2 against cited cost of removal not fear.
When white supremacists run people down politicians pick the right side.
The mayor of Charlottesville voted against its removal but has now changed his mind.
It will be replaced . Maybe by a memorial for heather heyer. this has already being argued but 3 to 2 vote by a city that voted democrat in the election a city that is in a state that voted republican , if it went to a vote in the state it would be defeated , "Ok why would it go to a state vote....when the good townspeople are the ones that want it removing and there democratically elected representatives have agreed with them....i'm not getting your point on this....when we vote for stuff that affects our town....we don't get the country council to vote on it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I not being rude but I had this argument for the last 3 days , I was told the statue was of a racist I showed lee was no racist , I was then told the whole civil war was to retain the rite to own slaves , I proved it had more to do with tax and tariffs than slavery , " You haven't shown me Lee wash wash racist. He was a racist as I counter argued above. You haven't proved the civil war wash about anything besides slavery (along with States rights to protect slavery and States objections to losing money on freeing slaves). You've only shown me that you know little about Lee, little about the civil war, even less about American law, and nothing about the politics of living in a republic with dual sovereignty. Everything you've said has been counter argued time and time again on this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that?
I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists ,
The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of removal.The 2 against cited cost of removal not fear.
When white supremacists run people down politicians pick the right side.
The mayor of Charlottesville voted against its removal but has now changed his mind.
It will be replaced . Maybe by a memorial for heather heyer. this has already being argued but 3 to 2 vote by a city that voted democrat in the election a city that is in a state that voted republican , if it went to a vote in the state it would be defeated ,
Ok why would it go to a state vote....when the good townspeople are the ones that want it removing and there democratically elected representatives have agreed with them....i'm not getting your point on this....when we vote for stuff that affects our town....we don't get the country council to vote on it "because the town or city is the the seat of power in the county of Charleston and like I said it's not just one town affected by destruction of historical monuments | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since the white nationalist protest, Baltimore has removed 4 Confederate monuments. Maryland has removed a statue in front of its state capitol. I do think it's ironic that Democrats have become the new State and local rights advocates (also exemplified by the Paris agreement) and Repubicans are the federalists. How times have changed!
(Btw, other States are also seeking quick removal of their confederate statues - I guess we can thank the white supremacists for helping speed up the process!)
Yep times Change
you no longer find a problem with my reasoning
And Democrats taking down statues are pondering to poorly educated people arguing that a statue represents racism ,
See when I explained it to you you got it eventually
Democratically elected authorities removing statues. wtf is wrong with that?
I explained it earlier but here is the beginning ,these communities are deciding, usually by legislative vote, to remove these statues" I highlight the word legislative , a vote taken by elected officials ,NOT the people, a vote by politicians , who are terrified of voting any other way than to remove them , for the fear of being labeled racists ,
The vote was 3 to 2 in favour of removal.The 2 against cited cost of removal not fear.
When white supremacists run people down politicians pick the right side.
The mayor of Charlottesville voted against its removal but has now changed his mind.
It will be replaced . Maybe by a memorial for heather heyer. this has already being argued but 3 to 2 vote by a city that voted democrat in the election a city that is in a state that voted republican , if it went to a vote in the state it would be defeated ,
Ok why would it go to a state vote....when the good townspeople are the ones that want it removing and there democratically elected representatives have agreed with them....i'm not getting your point on this....when we vote for stuff that affects our town....we don't get the country council to vote on it
because the town or city is the the seat of power in the county of Charleston and like I said it's not just one town affected by destruction of historical monuments "But this happened in Charlottesville...there elected reps decided nothing to do with the state  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently my autocorrect thinks "wasn't" should be "wash" "Ok step by step Pre war Lincoln inaugural speech Lincoln said I quote "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Do you agree wit this bit Only yes or no answers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently my autocorrect thinks "wasn't" should be "wash" Ok step by step
Pre war Lincoln inaugural speech Lincoln said I quote
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Do you agree wit this bit
Only yes or no answers "Why move away from the argument you have been having for the past three days | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently my autocorrect thinks "wasn't" should be "wash" Ok step by step
Pre war Lincoln inaugural speech Lincoln said I quote
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Do you agree wit this bit
Only yes or no answers
Why move away from the argument you have been having for the past three days "because first I was told the statute was being removed cause he racist then they war was over slavery , my point is statute should stay because there ant a valid reason no matter how you look at it to remove them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently my autocorrect thinks "wasn't" should be "wash" Ok step by step
Pre war Lincoln inaugural speech Lincoln said I quote
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Do you agree wit this bit
Only yes or no answers "You're not controlling the debate by telling me I can only answer yes or no to your questions.
Read Lee's autobiography. Then read Jefferson Davis' autobiography . Then read the secessionist declarations of each state. Then come back and talk to me.
Lincoln didn't start the civil war - the southern secessionist States did and they did so with their declarations of secession - which all name slavery as the direct cause. Lincoln himself was always known for upholding the value of the union above that of freeing the slaves. That's well known. It doesn't change the fact that the south saw him as an abolitionist (look at the campaign material of the day). They knew he would hurt their financial interest in slavery. They thought they could beat him in the polls, but they lost, then they tried to leave the Union. It's pretty clear, right? Yes or no answer only, please.
In truth you and I aren't going to agree, which is why I stopped debating with you earlier, but you couldn't leave well enough alone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently my autocorrect thinks "wasn't" should be "wash" Ok step by step
Pre war Lincoln inaugural speech Lincoln said I quote
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Do you agree wit this bit
Only yes or no answers
Why move away from the argument you have been having for the past three days
because first I was told the statute was being removed cause he racist then they war was over slavery , my point is statute should stay because there ant a valid reason no matter how you look at it to remove them "Nah your flip flopping about fella...they do represent raciest views....that's why all the KKK and other neanderthals were protesting about them being removed...is that so hard to understand | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
