Ok, what's the significance of those two facts?Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, what's the significance of those two facts?
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
As they've been used in the national "discussion", they serve to do one of two things:
1. Equivocate all statues of men who took part in bad things (which, in my view ignores the original purpose of the CW statues as highlighted here...a purpose accomplished primarily by democrats, FWIW)
2. Insinuate that statue removal is a slippery slope and if we take down statues of Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee, we'll have to eventually take down statues of everybody but Jimmy Carter (he was a sweetheart wasn't he?).
Of course, we know that equivocation and slippery slope arguments are fallacious, but that doesn't stop them from picking up steam. We should also remember that these statues are being relocated, not destroyed.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
All of them? I've seen at least two taken down by socialist democrat haters. I'm not sure those were not destroyed. FWIW, I've never been a big statue observer, but if I was, putting them in a warehouse somewhere would not help my feelings of being discriminated against.
"Alt-left", hunh? What political beliefs are these? And which of these beliefs did Schneck follow?
I anticipated your point, but failed to address it. The governmental actions are not destroying the statues. Law breakers have destroyed some and that's bad. I don't know where they're all being relocated, but I know some are being put in museums and other publicly viewable areas.
An aspiring confederate capitalist could probably make a lot of money by hosting the statues and charging a fee for admittance.
Statue observers that feel discriminated against need to ask themselves whether or not they have a constitutional right to observe statues on government property. I don't believe they do.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
If the government in charge said to remove them, I agree. They do have a right to protest the removal without being attacked violently by those who wanted the statues removed. They also have a right to be protected by the very government who in deciding to remove the statues, KNEW there would be a conflict but purposely allowed the conflict.
I know that's a narrative being pushed that there were a lot of peaceful folks out there who were attacked by antifa and BLM...I even think George Soros threw his walker at somebody. I have no doubt that there is an element that was ready to rumble, but the white supremacists and nazi's that were there were ONLY there to fight. It's their MO and it has been forever. They showed up with torches and, ultimately, they killed somebody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54s...ature=youtu.be
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Even more reason for the elected officials to provide protection instead of instigating the riots. This whole movement thing didn't happen because people were suddenly offended. It's not "a narrative" that the left is using this as a weapon to further divide and distract from what's important.
Those are subjective judgments and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't care how the "movement" started. Let's look at the laws and obey them or amend them.
The party of Trump doesn't get to critique others for their divisive tactics...at least not with a straight face.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I don't believe your Trump hate allows you to be objective. It's easy to point out THOUSANDS of leftist democrats who have looted, burned, and murdered in the name of lawlessness. A handful of bad seeds in Virginia don't represent the entire Trump base any more that the thousands of idiot racists who were killing cops a few months ago represent "civil rights".
I don't hate Trump. I think he was a terrible choice. I never said the racists represented the entire Trump base and I don't believe they do. I DO believe that Trump actively courted their vote and that's concerning.
Are you insinuating that you think Trump ran a unifying campaign and has acted as a unifying figure since he's been elected?
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
No, you missed the point. I'm not a slippery slope kind of guy. When you ask someone about the removal of statues and listen to the reasoning behind it, it is very short sighted. I am pointing out that the reasoning most often provides no distinction between the civil war statues and memorials to any of those men I listed. People need to think a little deeper before drawing conclusions on topics like this.
So in your mind, why should civil war statues be removed and not monuments to the men I listed?
Salty, I'd like to read your answer to that question also.
"actively courted their vote"? How so?
No doubt Trump unified the blue collar working class and conservatives. That's all it took to get him elected vs. Clinton. The left and the RINOs have been against ANYTHING he does from day one. I for one and SICK of the GOP leaders giving more and more to left leanings. We go across the isle, they move farther left. It's amazing that Trump standing firm on certain issues is being seen as divisive. This is the first time conservatives have had a voice in 40 years.
If some of you guys think Trump actively recruited Nazi, white supremacist then I think this happened.
Idaho state Rep. Bryan Zollinger: ‘Plausible’ that Charlottesville violence was a setup
By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Monday, August 21, 2017
An Idaho state representative says it’s “plausible” that the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month was orchestrated to make President Trump look like a racist.
State Rep. Bryan Zollinger, a Republican, on Thursday shared an article on Facebook by American Thinker, titled, “Charlottesville and Its Aftermath: What if It Was a Setup?”
The article suggests, without evidence, that former President Barack Obama, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer, and billionaire investor George Soros could somehow be connected in planning and orchestrating the clashes in Charlottesville, which turned deadly on Aug. 12 after a reported Nazi sympathizer purposely rammed his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing one and injuring 19 others.
“The ridiculous campaign by virtually every media outlet, every Democrat and far too many squishy Republicans to label Trump some kind of racist and Nazi sympathizer is beginning to have the stink of an orchestrated smear,” Patricia McCarthy wrote. “The conflagration in Charlottesville is beginning to feel like a set-up, perhaps weeks or months in the planning.”
Mr. Zollinger, in a follow-up comment on his post, said the conspiracy theory could be true.
“I’m not saying it is true, but I am suggesting that it is completely plausible,” he said, adding that “many of the protesters were Soros-funded.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ible-that-cha/
I didn't say it was your point, just that that's how they've used in the "national discussion".
I don't have a position on monuments other than that they are not protected constitutionally...so if local authorities, municipalities, etc decide to move them legally, they should be allowed to do that. That applies to any statue of any person.
Were I to argue that the "Jefferson had slaves" argument is equivocation, I'd probably start with the fact that the Confederates were not fighting for the USA. That, in and of itself, it's a big enough distinction to separate the two groups of slave owners. I think the fact that these statues were primarily erected as Jim Crow era intimidation is also pertinent as a difference between the two groups of statues. But again, I don't think statues are protected, so local governments and the people who elected them should act as they desire.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
