Protesters pull down Confederate statue at old Durham County courthouse

a reply to: thesaneone

I don't know there's a clear demarcation but a statue glorifying a traitorous rogue nation is probably a good start.

Or should we start constructing statutes glorifying the Rosenbergs? I mean they were traitorous Americans that had an impact on history.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: luthier

Just curious, which posts you've been responding to from me indicate what I do or don't do? Or were you just making a fool out of yourself by making baseless and incorrect assumptions?

It was an assumption based on how helpless you present yourself to be in the face of the great scourge of the left and all the arguing about how parents can't avoid their children turning into the kind of moron who dumps statues over.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: thesaneone

I don't know there's a clear demarcation but a statue glorifying a traitorous rogue nation is probably a good start.

Or should we start constructing statutes glorifying the Rosenbergs? I mean they were traitorous Americans that had an impact on history.

Let's go ahead and put up some statues of the Clinton's while we are it! just respecting history!

a reply to: joshysway

*Because statues are History.

This place is a total echo chamber.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Jefferson didn't write the Constitution.

Perhaps we could immortalize something at each of these monuments and buildings that clearly states that the United States of America has for what ... 152 years ... declared slavery illegal and established Amendments to our Constitution to enshrine the promise of our founding documents which state that all are created equal? Or that we have for the last 50 years or so have created a system of laws which address continuing inequalities and that we acknowledge that where inequality exists that we will be on CONTINUAL guard against it?

Sounds like a good start.

Thanks for the correction.
But he did have a hand in it.

I don't have a problem with that good start.

We agree.

(Should we be worried?)

Don't worry, we are in a good place.

originally posted by: SoDumb
a reply to: Blaine91555

To me you seem angry about political affiliations, and the Confederates not being celebrated in a literal public space. One would ask why they need feel so special to have a statue for them? You see, this is the question that has nothing to do with History, and has everything to do with the problem.

Not so veiled slander is not a way to discuss anything. I could care less about about political affiliations or the celebrating the Confederates. Attempting to twist it that way does not impress me at all. You are demonstrating part of the problem though. "If you don't agree with me you are a (insert defamatory slur or innuendo here)"

Lets go the other way. Why do you support a group of "cough" activists, who think that vandalism and violence are a solution to anything? Why would you be opposed to them using the system instead to work through their elected representatives to come to a compromise that would meet everyone's needs? You know, the way a mature adult would handle this?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: thesaneone

I don't know there's a clear demarcation but a statue glorifying a traitorous rogue nation is probably a good start.

There was a reason the North didn't round up all Confederate soldiers at the end of the war and execute them for treason, and it wasn't a logistics problem. Read some history.

a reply to: luthier

So pointing out facts you find uncomfortable is me being helpless? Anything else you wanna make up? You're batting 0.000 so far.

originally posted by: Blaine91555but to get there may require a bit of compromise.

I'm pretty sure though, you dont go to a "peaceful rally" in the spirit of compromise armed with automatic weapons.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Blaine91555but to get there may require a bit of compromise.

I'm pretty sure though, you dont go to a "peaceful rally" in the spirit of compromise armed with automatic weapons.

Was anyone shot with those? and dont you mean Semi auto?

a reply to: face23785

Lol

According to who.

You specifically complain, complain, complain, libs this, libs that..

It's pathetic imo. Maybe you should realize your own party is the reason your interests aren't being voiced.

And by the way just like nazi's aren't the status quo for conservatives, your constant dribble about libs is also false.

The system is broken, the responsibility for that is equal and also our own fault.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Lets go another way where you (insert my opinion for me).

I never said I supported vandalism.

I said the fact you all think "History" and anything at all, actually, was lost in this, is a joke.

Was what they did right? No. Is the Right's unwarranted outrage funny? Yes.

Because the truth is you can't come up with a reason to defend the statues existence, so you cop out a bogus history argument. That is what is what I said. I personally don't care about the statue either way, just commenting that you care too much, and that's an obvious tell of your position. A potentially racist one.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Blaine91555but to get there may require a bit of compromise.

I'm pretty sure though, you dont go to a "peaceful rally" in the spirit of compromise armed with automatic weapons.

Was anyone shot with those? and dont you mean Semi auto?

First off I say what I mean, I have a diverse array of firearms and I know a selector switch when I see one, and two nice try attempting to move past the point I was making....you dont show up to a peaceful rally with firearms all in the spirit of compromise that it seems went over your head?

a reply to: SoDumb

Blaine's point might have been that you are inserting their opinion for them.

a reply to: SoDumb

I've said nothing about caring about the statues, which I don't. I do think that to not repeat the mistakes in history, covering it up by destroying it's evidence is not the way to go.

I highly doubt those who did the destroying are even literate enough to understand what they are doing anyway.

I'll leave it at maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent and I know you are misrepresenting mine.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I said nothing defnititive.

He however asked why I support the vandals, clearly a hypocritical comment when it comes to inserting opinions, don't you think?

And the previous comment made to me about blowing up Mt Rushmore.

Anyone else want to paint me as a terrorist for saying Racists Statues don't actually effect the History Books? Because they don't. Facts hurt Republicans like Sunlight to Vampires. I never said anything about supporting destruction, and he paints me this way in the same post he complains I'm inserting his opinion in my post, when I'm even specifically being vague, questioning, not saying anything definitively about him. You can all read this for yourself though.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa

I don't see a difference between this and book-burning.

well of course you don't....because you don't care how blacks feel about the celebration of a man that wanted to keep slavery, and sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths to defend it.

let me ask you....would you like to see a 12 foot statue of Obama on the lawn of the Alabama state capitol...funny how NOT ONE 12 foot high statue of Abe Lincoln is on the lawns of other southern states capitol buildings.

Yeah...why would the south do that? Lincoln was a traitor to the constitution by having the civil war. The south was going to succeed peacefully but lincoln coudnt give up that sweet preccccioooouuusssss loot from the southern states.
At the time of the south wanting to leave it was constitutional due to the way washington was treating them.
And It was not about slavery. Lincoln was going to send them all away after they served their purpose. Boothe should had waited a while longer until he did so. If he had this wouldnt even be a conversation.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Destroying the Statues in the analogy you're making is not compatiable.


The argument you're making is that it's destruction will lead to less visibility of the history, and this just isn't true, this isn't Greece, the fact the Statue was destroyed will make national headlines and give the confederate solider more exposure than destroying the statue could ever 'remove' from 'history'.

The idea a statue dictates the solidification of our history, is what I am mocking about your argument. It doesn't. Not even a little. Destroying it arguably does the opposite in this day in age, so no need to complain. The statue might have not survived, but electronic records of people bitching about it surely will.


Boom right here is a photograph on the internet.
www.chicagotribune.com...

The story is immortalized on our internet, history will die when the internet dies, not a damned statue. The idea people will forget this because it's gone is dumb. It's already gone, and here we are remembering it.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Blaine91555but to get there may require a bit of compromise.

I'm pretty sure though, you dont go to a "peaceful rally" in the spirit of compromise armed with automatic weapons.

These men came armed and were neutral.

The men in charge of the 32 militia members who came to Charlottesville from six states to form a unit with the mission of “defending free speech” were Christian Yingling, the commanding officer of the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, and his “second in command” on the day, George Curbelo, the commanding officer of the New York Light Foot Militia.

“We spoke to the Charlottesville police department beforehand and offered to come down there and help with security,” Yingling told the Guardian.

“They said: ‘We cannot invite you in an official capacity, but you are welcome to attend,’ and they gave us an escort into the event,” he added.

...

But Yingling said the original request for a militia force to attend the event had come from the organizers of the white nationalist rally, who wanted them to act as security.

The militiamen had said: “No, we will not come and defend just you,” Yingling recalled. “It’s important for us to say we were there in a neutral stance.”

www.theguardian.com...

In fact, many accounts said they did more to protect both sides than the police.